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

[eyeball]

You do realize that such an idea does work up until a point, right?

Not in the hands of our government I don't.

[waldo]

It's obvious that Canada's aerospace industry is well positioned to profit from the large number of F-35s sold.

oh really!

PBSNewsHour - Pentagon's F-35 Fighter Jet Program's Cost Under Fire in Congress

[bush_cheney2004]

oh really!

PBSNewsHour - Pentagon's F-35 Fighter Jet Program's Cost Under Fire in Congress

No problem....F-35 has already flown more hours than the Avro Arrow!

[Argus]

Maybe someone with the communication talents of Obama or Levesque could explain why we need these jets, or this summit.

Oh my god.

Are you ever going to post another post without mentioning the summit?

Five years from now will you be talking about the summit on topics as far ranging as agricultural subsidies to why the minister of industrial affairs doesn't like the colour blue?

I think you have been traumatized for life and need to go into therapy for a while.

"He might not like the colour blue, but remember that five years ago he was part of a government that paid a billion dollars for a summit!!!"

[Argus]

Argus, I have been posting here long enough to understand that IEDs killed most of our soldiers in Afghanisan, and our military were woefully unprepared for such a battle.

And in 20 years in some battle in Turkey or Syria or over the atlantic, you want them to be flying inferior machines and be woefully unprepared for that.

The fact is you can't know what challenges you will be faced with. You can't know what the world will look like in twenty years. Russia could be another Soviet Union by then, only worse, and we could be engaged in border skirmishes alongside the Americans. So you do your best to prepare for anything and everything.

The reason they were unprepared for Afghanistan is successive governments did not bother to purchase the necessary equipment for them because, no doubt, people within that government, much like you, decided that equipment was a waste of money, would never be needed, and the money could be better spent elsewhere. Probably in Quebec.

And if Harper can't explain this to someone like me, he is in very, very serious trouble politically.

Well, maybe, but I'm not sure you're entirely sane any more. I think the summit made you loopy.

As to your wider complaint that Harper can't explain things to people. That is not merely Harper. That is the Conservative Party. As I have stated several times previously, the Conservatives are so woefully lacking in any ability to communicate a message I suspect their communications department is actually being run by Russian deep cover agents who want to get the Liberals back into power.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps another government mistake. An open competition is what I would have liked to see. Invite European bids!

[Smallc]

Other than the F-22, which is far too maintenance intensive, there is no other aircraft currently in production or about to enter production that can hold a candle to the F-35. Sure, there are faster aircraft....but otherwise, there is nothing.

[bloodyminded]

Stephen Harper wasted over $1 billion of taxpayer money on a dog-and-pony show in Toronto. In doing this, he lost all credibility when his government asks for future government spending cuts.

August, you seem to be disproportionately preoccupied with the summit spending. You know I have no love for the Prime Minister, but I'm sensing a loss of balance here. We've all got a few bees in our bonnets, but we generally spend more time ignoring them than worrying about them. An occasional rant is certainly justified, but....

[edit] Ah, Argus beat me to this, I see.

[Argus]

Perhaps another government mistake. An open competition is what I would have liked to see. Invite European bids!

Jesus Christ. They had a competition ten years ago. And this one won. We've been working on it ever since and have contributed something like two hundred million already to its development. Now we're placing an order for the thing. What exactly are people complaining about? That we'll get a new fighter before the old ones start falling from the skies due to rustout?

The Liberals were the ones who signed onto the program and made the initial contribution. Suddenly, because they're in opposition, they want to throw that investment away and start over?! Gad! The flaming bloody hypocrisy of them! Screw the taxpayer, screw the military. We see a chance of scoring cheap political points and we're going for it!

[wyly]

No, the US navy doesn't want it anymore. That said, they don't have a choice until the JSF comes online and they can begin receiving them. The F/A-18E/F models are NOT fifth generation fighters. You can look it up if you want.

I have the Navy is still planning to keep the newer Super Hornets....

[Smallc]

I have the Navy is still planning to keep the newer Super Hornets....

Of course they're still planning to keep the newer ones. They'll phase them out over a period of years. That said, they'll take on a backup roll to the F-35.

[wyly]

Of course they're still planning to keep the newer ones. They'll phase them out over a period of years. That said, they'll take on a backup roll to the F-35.

according to views in Waldo's video link it's an all purpose plane that will do nothing exceptionally well, not very stealthy, not particularly fast, not armoured enough for ground support...there are other planes in specealized roles that fill those roles better and at less cost...Super Hornet $55 million, estimates for the still flawed F35 $112 million...

[Smallc]

Yet, the F-35 is set to replace everything from the F-16 to the A-10 over the next two decades. The plane is, also, quite stealthy. Not as much so as the F-22 (it appears the size of a golf ball rather than a marble) and though it isn't fast, it can fly farther than almost any other fighter.

As for the price estimates, it was stated in the NYT article earlier in this thread that the cost estimates assume a $90M price, and that the government expects to pay significantly less.

Canada needs an all purpose plane. We don't have the kind of network to support different aircraft for ground and air attack. All purpose planes are becoming the norm.

There is no other plane like it available. Period.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course they're still planning to keep the newer ones. They'll phase them out over a period of years. That said, they'll take on a backup roll to the F-35.

Mostly correct...the US Navy has to plug a gap in tanker and electronic warfare platforms as well. This they can do with F/A-18 E/F tactical tanking as older assets are retired (KS-3B Viking), and also deploy electronic warfare "Growler" versions of the Super Hornet (EA-18G).

So depending on how well/soon the F-35C naval variant is operational, the US Navy will continue to leverage existing platforms. Loss of the A-6 Intruder without replacement caused a serious platform gap in not only ground attack payload and range, but other essential support missions.

F-35C just had its inaugural flight in June:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/0607aero-f-35c-firstflight.html

[Smallc]

They'll still be taking a back seat roll. They won't be the front line fighters anymore.

[bush_cheney2004]

They'll still be taking a back seat roll. They won't be the front line fighters anymore.

That's depends on what you consider to be "back seat". F/A-18 E/F will still fly CAP and interceptor missions for a long time even as F-35C squadrons are formed. F/A-14 Tomcat did not go out quietly either. If an active duty or naval reserve squadron is deployed, it will use the platform on hand.

In 1991, Canada's CF-188's were sufficiently obsolete to prevent them from going on strike missions deep into Iraq. They only flew attack sorties late in the conflict.

[wyly]

Yet, the F-35 is set to replace everything from the F-16 to the A-10 over the next two decades. The plane is, also, quite stealthy. Not as much so as the F-22 (it appears the size of a golf ball rather than a marble) and though it isn't fast, it can fly farther than almost any other fighter.

it cannot replace the A-10 it just does not have the a-10 capability/survivability to do the ground support job as well, it's a compromise... and the Super Hornet has better range then two of the proposed F35 varients and is as good as the 3rd...and at half the price the Hornet is the better deal...

As for the price estimates, it was stated in the NYT article earlier in this thread that the cost estimates assume a $90M price, and that the government expects to pay significantly less.

dream on, nothing military ever comes in on budget, especially a plane that has also numerous technical problems that has the unit price at 112 mill now, in five years it'll be higher....and the first 500 or so are expected to be flawed and will need retrofits almost immediately to bring them up to standards of later deliveries...and how many billion will the immediate retrofit cost?

Canada needs an all purpose plane. We don't have the kind of network to support different aircraft for ground and air attack. All purpose planes are becoming the norm.

no we don't and no they are not...

There is no other plane like it available. Period.

correct a plane that does nothing well...

[Wild Bill]

it cannot replace the A-10 it just does not have the a-10 capability/survivability to do the ground support job as well, it's a compromise... and the Super Hornet has better range then two of the proposed F35 varients and is as good as the 3rd...and at half the price the Hornet is the better deal...

dream on, nothing military ever comes in on budget, especially a plane that has also numerous technical problems that has the unit price at 112 mill now, in five years it'll be higher....and the first 500 or so are expected to be flawed and will need retrofits almost immediately to bring them up to standards of later deliveries...and how many billion will the immediate retrofit cost?

I've been following your posts for a while and I'm not sure just what you're advocating. It SEEMS to me that you think we should take 40 year old planes and jazz 'em up with some upgrades and 'bondo' so that our cheapass politicians can make our pilots fly them for another 40 years. That will mean we'll be flying essentially 80 year old aircraft!

What's more, we're entering a world where stealth is becoming the norm and yet you want us to keep flying what will essentially become giant radar beacons on the battlefield.

If you have a viable alternative that will give us similar capability I'd be interested but otherwise I think we'd be better off with Spitfires than your choice! They'd be the cheapest solution of all!

[Smallc]

it cannot replace the A-10 it just does not have the a-10 capability/survivability to do the ground support job as well, it's a compromise... and the Super Hornet has better range then two of the proposed F35 varients and is as good as the 3rd...and at half the price the Hornet is the better deal...

It is set to replace the A-10 in about 15 years...and it (the A) can go farther than the Super Hornet by about 400 km.

dream on, nothing military ever comes in on budget, especially a plane that has also numerous technical problems that has the unit price at 112 mill now, in five years it'll be higher....and the first 500 or so are expected to be flawed and will need retrofits almost immediately to bring them up to standards of later deliveries...and how many billion will the immediate retrofit cost?

We'll see. The manufacturer and the government disagree.

no we don't and no they are not...

Yes we do and yes they are. The F-35 will replace the Harrier, the Hornet, the Falcon, the Warthog, and later, the Super Hornet. The only thing it won't replace is the F-15 (and maybe it will, now that the F-22 program has been pared back).

correct a plane that does nothing well...

So far as I can tell, it does everything (save for speed) better than what we have or pretty much any of the alternatives.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Perhaps another government mistake. An open competition is what I would have liked to see. Invite European bids!

What aircraft would they be bidding with?

[SF/PF]

It should be noted that this $9 billion contract for Canada to buy these jets also enables Canadian companies to bid on contracts related to them. In fact, it is estimated that Canadian companies will get over $10 billion worth of contracts as a result:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html

This purchase will be a net boon to our economy. We are using $9 billion, but our industry gets $10 billion in return, plus we get the fighter jets.

Effectively, Canada is getting 65 free F-35s and a $1 billion bonus on top of it.

It will be a positive boon to the owners of those aerospace companies, and the small number of people that they employ. Its a $10 billion dollar boondoggle for the rest of us. The costs are publicized, the profits are privatized.

[August1991]

It is a waste of finances that could be put to better use, such infrastructure and health care, of perhaps our soon to be ballooning pensioner population.

I am willing to accept that we must spend $16 billion over X number of years for military hardware. I just want to see someone make the credible case for 5th generation stealth fighters (whatever that means exactly).

Ferchrissakes, over half our soldiers in Afghanistan were killed by roadside bombs because our military were using cheap Humvees. IMHO, $16 billion would buy some sophisticated jeeps.

Are you ever going to post another post without mentioning the summit?

Five years from now will you be talking about the summit on topics as far ranging as agricultural subsidies to why the minister of industrial affairs doesn't like the colour blue?

The thing is Argus, like it or not, this $1 billion summit is going to hound Harper through the next election. He has lost a tremendous amount of credibility on his main claim to fame - careful use of taxpayer's money.

It is as if Obama were to approve tax cuts for the richest Americans.

And in 20 years in some battle in Turkey or Syria or over the atlantic, you want them to be flying inferior machines and be woefully unprepared for that.

The fact is you can't know what challenges you will be faced with. You can't know what the world will look like in twenty years. Russia could be another Soviet Union by then, only worse, and we could be engaged in border skirmishes alongside the Americans. So you do your best to prepare for anything and everything.

Argus, why spend $16 billion on some pie-eyed hypothetical?

Some battle in Turkey or Syria? And I suppose we should be afraid of meteors too. Look if Canada is involved in a battle in Turkey or Syria, it's going to ressemble the fight in Iraq or Afghanistan and these Fifth Generation Stealth Jets (does Microsoft marketing moonlight in the jet business now?) will be worth SFA.

The reason they were unprepared for Afghanistan is successive governments did not bother to purchase the necessary equipment for them because, no doubt, people within that government, much like you, decided that equipment was a waste of money, would never be needed, and the money could be better spent elsewhere. Probably in Quebec.

In fact, what might kill this proposal is when the numbers come out and the perception starts in English Canada that Quebec aerospace firms will get most of the business.

Nothing in Canada is decided on what's right. It's always decided on regional considerations. Argus, you are a classical of this. You are convinced that Quebec always gets more.

As to your wider complaint that Harper can't explain things to people. That is not merely Harper. That is the Conservative Party. As I have stated several times previously, the Conservatives are so woefully lacking in any ability to communicate a message I suspect their communications department is actually being run by Russian deep cover agents who want to get the Liberals back into power.

If your theory is correct, the Russians must be working both sides of the street because Ignatieff is no better at explaining anything to anyone.

I understand that Harper has a hard slog in both French and English Canada because of various media biases but I really thought that he could overcome them. Many, many people on both sides of the language fence are receptive to a message of better, smaller federal spending and government.

----

Argus, military-types have a tendency to prepare fight the last war. I think that's what's happening here, as well as the old joke: "Q: What's the difference between men and boys?" "A: Their toys are more expensive."

I can understand the need for such jets - in say 1985 - as part of Canada's contribution to NATO and teh Cold War. Who in 1988 could have foreseen 9/11 and the current war in Afghanistan?

Well, I think that barring a huge meteor, I think that it's fair to predict that the main threats to Canada (and NATO and the western world in general) in the near future will more likely require sophisticated Stryker jeeps rather than Fifth Generation supersonic stealth jets. (Sorry, that one still has me laughing. 5th Generation, not 4.5G... )

Why not spend the $16 billion on contributing to the development of drone aircraft?

Edited July 18, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

I am willing to accept that we must spend $16 billion over X number of years for military hardware. I just want to see someone make the credible case for 5th generation stealth fighters (whatever that means exactly).

See, and that right there speaks to how useful your opinion on this matter is.

Ferchrissakes, over half our soldiers in Afghanistan were killed by roadside bombs because our military were using cheap Humvees. IMHO, $16 billion would by some sophisticated jeeps.

G Wagens actually....and then we started using LAV IIIs....but the bombs got bigger...and so we started using tanks and mine hardened vehicles....and the bombs got bigger (most of the deaths still happen in LAVs though). The Canadian Forces have purchased hundreds of millions of dollars in mine hardened equipment.

The thing is Argus, like it or not, this $1 billion summit is going to hound Harper through the next election. He has lost a tremendous amount of credibility on his main claim to fame - careful use of taxpayer's money.

No it isn't, and no he hasn't.

It is as if Obama were to approve tax cuts for the richest Americans.

No, it isn't.

Argus, why spend $16 billion on some pie-eyed hypothetical?

What?

In fact, what might kill this proposal is when the numbers come out and the perception starts in English Canada that Quebec aerospace firms will get most of the business.

Quebec is not the only province with an aerospace industry, they simply have the largest one as a percentage.

Nothing in Canada is decided on what's right. It's always decided on regional considerations. Argus, you are a classical of this. You are convinced that Quebec always gets more.

That just isn't true....and it doesn't matter what Argus thinks.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Smallc

[August1991]

Last point. I really don't want to see anyone make the argument that this purchase is "good for the economy" because there will be "spinoffs" and "job creation".

When the government taxes me, or borrows from me, to pay for these jets - then I cannot spend the money (and presumably create jobs). It's a wash.

By the logic of people who justify the purchase of these jets as a way to stimulate the economy, the BP offshore oil leak is good for the economy (and teh world) because now BP and the US government will have to spend billions to clean up the mess. Imagine the spinoffs! The job creation! All the new technology that will be created! The world needs more oil spills!

----

If we need 60 or so 5th generation stealth fighter jets, let's buy them and try to get the best deal possible. Like a family budget, if we really need the new Sony 5th generation PlayWhatever Stealth Thingee, then let's buy it at the best price possible.

But please don't argue that the money lost is somehow good also.

Edited July 18, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. There are only 2 fifth generation fighters....and this is the less expensive one.