$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[Moonbox]

Yep go post in the other thread. I think it's at like...page 90 or something.

Can someone get this deleted?

[eyeball]

New fighter jets? Can we afford them?

Have we paid off the old one's yet?

[Topaz]

Next question is, where's the war that they are going to be used? Or is this another harmonizing with the US military? The cost of these can now go up to 20 BILLION. Can you imagine how much they would spend if they had a majority!!!!!

[Handsome Rob]

Next question is, where's the war that they are going to be used? Or is this another harmonizing with the US military? The cost of these can now go up to 20 BILLION. Can you imagine how much they would spend if they had a majority!!!!!

Somewhere around the Magnot line.

Besides the fact that they do more than just kill. I here Cessna has some good deals days.

[Mr.Canada]

Next question is, where's the war that they are going to be used? Or is this another harmonizing with the US military? The cost of these can now go up to 20 BILLION. Can you imagine how much they would spend if they had a majority!!!!!

The program for these jets was started by Chretien and the Liberals 10 years ago. The hornets need to be retired , they are very old. I don't see anything wrong here. Chretien killed the Sea King replacement put in place by Mulroney and look how that turned out, with many soldier deaths. They have learned their lesson. We share a common boarder with the US why shouldn't we have equipment that is harmonized? It only makes sense.

[eyeball]

Next question is, where's the war that they are going to be used? Or is this another harmonizing with the US military? The cost of these can now go up to 20 BILLION. Can you imagine how much they would spend if they had a majority!!!!!

Further to knowing whether we've paid off the jets we still have, shouldn't we finish the last fight we picked before we pick any more?

[Moonlight Graham]

I'M GLAD WE HAVE THESE NEW STEALTH FIGHTERS!!! NOW WE CAN BLOW UP SOME STUFF AND NOBODY WILL BE THE WISER! KApow!!!!!!

[capricorn]

Next question is, where's the war that they are going to be used?

At present, we don't know. I'm sure whichever country decides to threaten our sovereignty will send us advance warning in an email.

Or is this another harmonizing with the US military?

You mean the other allies who are purchasing the F-35s are harmonizing with the US too?

Besides Canada, seven other U.S. allies -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway -- have announced plans to buy the jets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606037.html

The cost of these can now go up to 20 BILLION. Can you imagine how much they would spend if they had a majority!!!!!

Well they're sure spending like they have a majority. Who's to stop them? Surely not the Liberals.

[capricorn]

The Globe has an interesting editorial.

F-35 fighters are the price of sovereignty

With the world's second-largest land mass and longest coast line – much of it forbiddingly remote – Canada is a very difficult country to patrol, whether by land, sea or air. It is therefore vital that our Armed Forces be given the most modern means available to protect our territory. When the CF-18 was originally selected in 1980, it represented the cutting edge of fighter jet technology. It makes sense to replace it with equivalent 21st-century capabilities.

Some critics argue that expensive fighter jets are an anachronism and that the money would be better spent on slower planes or other priorities. Regardless of current tactics or fashion, however, the ability to send a Canadian military presence anywhere in the country within minutes remains a vital ability.

---

Of course every government purchase requires appropriate scrutiny, and military procurement is no exception. But Canada has been a member of the F-35 project since its inception in 1997. It was the Chrétien government that took part in the original international competition in 2001 that selected Lockheed Martin as lead contractor. To argue that Canada should turn its back on this process now ignores all the due diligence performed to date. And risks another embarrassing delay in establishing Canada's sovereignty over its own air space.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/f-35-fighters-are-the-price-of-sovereignty/article1643207/

[capricorn]

I'M GLAD WE HAVE THESE NEW STEALTH FIGHTERS!!! NOW WE CAN BLOW UP SOME STUFF AND NOBODY WILL BE THE WISER! KApow!!!!!!

For once this country will be able to turn around and say "MAKE MY DAY!"

[wyly]

At present, we don't know. I'm sure whichever country decides to threaten our sovereignty will send us advance warning in an email.

big boy toys for a war for a war we'll never fight vs an enemy that doesn't exist...there are less expensive and more effective options... Edited July 17, 2010 by wyly

[Wilber]

Next question is, where's the war that they are going to be used? Or is this another harmonizing with the US military? The cost of these can now go up to 20 BILLION. Can you imagine how much they would spend if they had a majority!!!!!

When you consider it takes months to build one of these things and years to get them once you have decided you want them, waiting until you are in a war is way to late to decide you need them. The weapon that is never used because people don't want to mess with you is the the best weapon of all.

[wyly]

The program for these jets was started by Chretien and the Liberals 10 years ago. The hornets need to be retired , they are very old.

new Hornets are still rolling off the production lines as are a number of other less expensive options...a selling point of the CF18 Hornets for the Canadian military was they were dual engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)... now the government wants a single engine plane that has no landing spot in the arctic should it suffer engine failure...

Chretien killed the Sea King replacement put in place by Mulroney and look how that turned out, with many soldier deaths.

sea king deaths, 10 over 50 years and these are multiple passenger aircraft so the record is very good...CF 18, 8 deaths over 30 years in mostly a single seat aircraft, what does that tell you? sea kings are safer than CF18's...military manouvers carry more risk than commercial flights it the nature of the job...

I don't see anything wrong here. They have learned their lesson. We share a common boarder with the US why shouldn't we have equipment that is harmonized? It only makes sense.

and a common border has to what to do with airplanes?

[Mr.Canada]

new Hornets are still rolling off the production lines as are a number of other less expensive options...a selling point of the CF18 Hornets for the Canadian military was they were dual engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)... now the government wants a single engine plane that has no landing spot in the arctic should it suffer engine failure...

They are phasing out the F-18 and will not be producing it any longer. I would've thought someone so opposed to the new jet would at least do a google search as to what they are actually doing.

The F-16 is a single engine and it's one of the best planes out there, it's the safest multi role fighter in USAF history. Single engine planes are more nimble and agile providing better maneuverability overall.

sea king deaths, 10 over 50 years and these are multiple passenger aircraft so the record is very good...CF 18, 8 deaths over 30 years in mostly a single seat aircraft, what does that tell you? sea kings are safer than CF18's...military manouvers carry more risk than commercial flights it the nature of the job...

Chretien's cancellation of the new choppers caused deaths. How many is irrelevant, even one is too many. We won't let that happen again.

and a common border has to what to do with airplanes?

Everything. We need to have similar equipment because we do many joint training exercises/operations together. Having Jets based on 1970's technology in todays world is not only silly but downright dangerous. Our Hornets are very old and there are more that are grounded then are flight ready, that should tell you something.

I know that the average socialist cares nothing for the security of this nation but many are not of your opinion. IF we didn't have the US as a neighbor we would've been conquered long ago. Probably by the USSR.

Joint Strike Fighter Program

After a competition between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35, a final design was chosen based on the X-35. This is the F-35 Lightning II, which will replace various tactical aircraft, including the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV-8B and British Harrier GR7 & GR9s. Read more about it here

So as you can this is a joint venture by many of our NATO allies to streamline our forces. The yare phasing out the F-18 Hornet and many others so it doesn't make much sense for us to keep it if we are to be a partner in the security and foreign relations of the planet in the future.

This new contract is creating many new jobs here in Canada, hundreds to thousands in fact. Ignatieff would like to trash those good paying jobs would he? How does he propose to replace them?

The real reason why the left doesn't like this is because the Hornet is made by Boeing which has plants here in Canada and The F-35 which is made by Lockhead/Martin doesn't. The socialists are only looking after their own union members, it's all they have ever cared about.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Topaz]

What is wrong with looking after your own, no matter if its a union shop or not, a job is a job and there's a lot of Canadians that needs jobs. Every time the Tories are asked where the money is coming from they keep using the same answer,"Its money we've put aside for this project"! They preach to other countries about spending and then they go on a visa shopping spree. I wonder if its the government that wants these fighter jets more than the military? Seem like the Tory party is getting ready for another war, just as soon as NATO or the US calls. http://www.thestar.com/article/836658--controversy-dogs-fighter-jet-contract

[Wild Bill]

What is wrong with looking after your own, no matter if its a union shop or not, a job is a job and there's a lot of Canadians that needs jobs. Every time the Tories are asked where the money is coming from they keep using the same answer,"Its money we've put aside for this project"! They preach to other countries about spending and then they go on a visa shopping spree. I wonder if its the government that wants these fighter jets more than the military? Seem like the Tory party is getting ready for another war, just as soon as NATO or the US calls. http://www.thestar.com/article/836658--controversy-dogs-fighter-jet-contract

Nothing wrong with looking after our own! However, if that means buying obsolete aircraft then how is that good for the country?

Hell, why not have them build Spitfires and Lancasters! It would keep all the jobs here and would be MUCH cheaper!

Go crazy! What was that WWI fighter, the Spad? Or that german one with 3 wings...

[eyeball]

The Globe has an interesting editorial.

With the world's second-largest land mass and longest coast line – much of it forbiddingly remote – Canada is a very difficult country to patrol, whether by land, sea or air.

The point about having such a forbiddingly remote coastline is that it's forbidding.

And it's not that hard to patrol from the sea at all, I do it for a living when I'm out conducting wildlife tours. I haven't seen any sign of a landing force yet.

If you think our coastline is forbidding you should see the forest that stretches away behind it, not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean that stretch away in the other direction.

[Moonbox]

The point about having such a forbiddingly remote coastline is that it's forbidding.

No the point is that it's huge and thus difficult to patrol. Our forces much be stretched very thin to even make an effort at it. There's nothing particularly daunting about actually landing on our coast (other than big daddy down south).

[eyeball]

No the point is that it's huge and thus difficult to patrol. Our forces much be stretched very thin to even make an effort at it. There's nothing particularly daunting about actually landing on our coast (other than big daddy down south).

Have you personally ever tried to land a boat on a west coast shoreline?

Beyond that, I'm stuck on trying to imagine what the hell an invasion force that lands on, oh lets say Estevan Pt for example, is supposed to do next.

I'm actually heading out on patrol here in about a half hour. If I see anything I'll be sure to send Ottawa an email.

Speaking of big daddy down south, that's the likeliest direction any invasion will ever come from.

[Smallc]

Everything. We need to have similar equipment because we do many joint training exercises/operations together. Having Jets based on 1970's technology in todays world is not only silly but downright dangerous. Our Hornets are very old and there are more that are grounded then are flight ready, that should tell you something.

What are you talking about? The technology and the frame of the Hornets were just replaced. All 78 - 80 are ready to go right now, with 70% being crewed and ready for launch on short notice daily. You're making things up. The Hornets are fine in their current form right now. They won't be in 2020, so then it will be time for new planes.

[wulf42]

The purchase of these new Jets is great news, the Conservatives are making concrete steps to make Canada Militarily strong again.Our Armed Forces need and deserve the best that Canadians can give them so the F-35 Fits the bill and besides they are one sweet looking bird!!

Edited July 17, 2010 by wulf42

[Wilber]

I'm to sure the F-35 is the best aircraft for Canada but considering what is available as a long term F-18 replacement, it doesn't seem there is much else available. The US is looking at a replacement for the Super Hornet starting in 2025. Even if we could wait that long, they will probably make the bill for the F-35 seem cheap.

[August1991]

McKay is ordering new fighter jets and at a big cost of billions which we don't have. Is he using the VISA CARD again? Should the money go to other sectors instead? Thoughts?

Can we afford this? Yes.

Should we buy these planes? No.

----

We have soldiers dying in Afghanistan because of IED explosions and Harper and Mackay want to spend billions on jet fighters.

Our politicians have our priorities wrong. The same is true of the DND generals.

----

(Topaz, are you Maple Leaf?]

[Smallc]

August, you do realize that this isn't the only military contract, right? The troops in Afghanistan have received billions in equipment.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Smallc

[August1991]

August, you do realize that this isn't the only military contract, right?

OMG!

There are other contracts? How much money am I forking over for these other contracts?

----

Smallc, I want a government - I want a federal PM - who worries about spending my tax money better.

New faster stealth fighter jets (when most of our soldiers were killed by IEDs) does not strike me as a good way to spend my tax money.

Canada does not need supersonic stealth fighter jets.

Let me repeat this.

Canada does not need supersonic stealth fighter jets.

I'm no military expert but even I know that we do not need supersonic stealth fighter jets.

----

I'm reading Rove's book now and I reckon that Harper is a strategic idiot, surrounded by political idiots.