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

[wyly]

Nope, it doesn't look like it to me. I've been patrolling our little stretch of coast the last few days and all I saw were, about 12 bears, a few deer, a couple of surfers, a bunch of whales, a few speed-bumps (kayaks) and a rave. Not a single Islamo-fascist or commie invasion in sight. Not even a snake-head.

I'm a little concerned about whatever strange substances they must be taking at the rave though, they've been hopping up and down and going at it non-stop all weekend.

I recall how our brave air-force would use the nearby sea-lion haul-outs for bombing practice in the old days...

ya we have to protect ourselves some foreign country from flying to close to our arctic coastline as it may throw a panic into our rocks and ice flows...meanwhile the USA can defy/challenge our claims of arctic sovereignty and sails whatever and whenever they wish through our arctic archipelago and our government and MLW conservative gun lovers have no answer for that issue...

ya spend untold billions on an airplane we don't need or will ever use to protect nothing ...and spend nothing and do nothing in regards to the only real challenge to our sovereignty...make sense to me ...

I can't wait to see the response when that first american super tanker sails through our NWP and our multi-billion dollar F35's fly helplessly overhead doing squat....

[Wilber]

manned fighter technology is doomed, humans restrict what a planes are capable of, there is nothing a human can do that a unmanned plane will be able to do better and for a fraction of the cost, already most of today's planes are computer run the human at the controls is a button pusher...skip the expensive manned toys(F35) for an enemy we don't have at inflated prices and go with less costly and more than adequate options until the unmanned options take over...this proposed purchase will be obsolete in 10 yrs...

Not so, todays aircraft make extensive use of computers but they are definitely not run by button pushers. Only major airports have navigation facilities that allow aircraft to carry out auto lands and even then such things as crosswind limits are much more restrictive than for an aircraft that is hand flown. 10 kts vs 30 kts plus for manual flight. Computers do not do takeoffs. Computers are not capable of a thing called "airmanship", the term used for the ability to adapt to situations based on experience and training. The next time I fly to the southern hemisphere, I want someone with experience interpreting the radar and maneuvering the aircraft to dodge those massive equatorial thunderstorms in the dark, not a computer program dreamed up by some nerd in Silicon Valley. Same goes for traveling across continental North America this time of year.

There are a lot computers can do. They are better than humans at quite a few things but there are also a lot of things they can't do that humans can.

[bush_cheney2004]

ya we have to protect ourselves some foreign country from flying to close to our arctic coastline as it may throw a panic into our rocks and ice flows...meanwhile the USA can defy/challenge our claims of arctic sovereignty and sails whatever and whenever they wish through our arctic archipelago and our government and MLW conservative gun lovers have no answer for that issue...

Correct...your claims are just that...unsubstantiated and unprotected....international transit is permitted just like any other archipelago...nothing special about Canada's. Canada would lose in court. So far, the only answer has been permission after the fact!

ya spend untold billions on an airplane we don't need or will ever use to protect nothing ...and spend nothing and do nothing in regards to the only real challenge to our sovereignty...make sense to me ...

I can't wait to see the response when that first american super tanker sails through our NWP and our multi-billion dollar F35's fly helplessly overhead doing squat....

Doesn't matter...Canada is not going to attack an American anything.

[wyly]

Not so, todays aircraft make extensive use of computers but they are definitely not run by button pushers. Only major airports have navigation facilities that allow aircraft to carry out auto lands and even then such things as crosswind limits are much more restrictive than for an aircraft that is hand flown. 10 kts vs 30 kts plus for manual flight. Computers do not do takeoffs. Computers are not capable of a thing called "airmanship", the term used for the ability to adapt to situations based on experience and training. The next time I fly to the southern hemisphere, I want someone with experience interpreting the radar and maneuvering the aircraft to dodge those massive equatorial thunderstorms in the dark, not a computer program dreamed up by some nerd in Silicon Valley. Same goes for traveling across continental North America this time of year.

There are a lot computers can do. They are better than humans at quite a few things but there are also a lot of things they can't do that humans can.

disagree, many of todays fighter planes are unflyable by humans it's only through computors making millions of calculations and adjustments that humans can fly them, the F16 was the first fighter deliberately designed to be unstable/unflyable...aquiring and locking onto multiple unseen distant targets, the job of computors not humans...tacking and hunting down unseen targets the job of missle computors...navigation, computors...planes evasive manuvers are limited to the G's a human can withstand not what the plane is capable of...unmanned planes have already completed the most difficult of landing situations on carriers...unmmaned planes have already conducted thousands of recon and ground attack missions...the first experimental fighter prototypes have already been built, the technology is already here, only the reluctance to take the human out of the machine slows the change...

[Moonbox]

The replacement being designed for the F-18E Super Hornet will largely be unmanned. Maybe 1/4 of the versions built will be manned.

The F-35 is likely going to be the last primarily manned fighter we see.

[segnosaur]

The arrow was canceled because the US was pushing for more missile technology. That was going to render all fighters useless. It never fully came to be, and I think the Arrow was canceled prematurely. There is still a huge need for manned aircraft.

Actually, you're only partly right.

When the Arrow was conceived the danger was Russian long-range bombers flying over our airspace. The Arrow was designed to deal with such interceptions: It could fly very fast to reach its target.

However, eventually the main danger shifted from bombers to long range missiles. The Arrow would not be effective at dealing with that particular threat. (The U.S. and Canada did implement missiles, most notably the Bomarc to handle bomber threats.)

You are right, there is a need for manned aircraft. But the limitations of the Arrow would have probably made it unsuitable in roles other than as an interceptor.

[Moonbox]

ICBM's made the Avro obsolete.

A common myth that Liberals like to support is that the Avro was leaps ahead in terms of technology etc. This is unfortunately not true as both the Americans and the British came out with similar or better designs only a few years later.

It was a good plane in its own rights, but it was designed for an obsolete role. As you may have noticed, we don't really use interceptor planes anymore.

[nicky10013]

ICBM's made the Avro obsolete.

A common myth that Liberals like to support is that the Avro was leaps ahead in terms of technology etc. This is unfortunately not true as both the Americans and the British came out with similar or better designs only a few years later.

It was a good plane in its own rights, but it was designed for an obsolete role. As you may have noticed, we don't really use interceptor planes anymore.

First of all, how can it be a Liberal myth? The only people I hear groaning about the Arrow are despondent Conservatives wishing for the military of yester-year, the arrow being the pinnacle of a mighty force that could've dominated the globe. Alas, those people who vote CPC time and gain due to allegience to the military neglect to remember that the nostalgia was brought about by Diefenbaker.

If we're going to be honest with ourselves, they took the design cues from us. It also just wasn't obsolescence, the program was incredibly expensive. They banked on the Americans, British and French buying the aircraft without thinking that those countries would protect their own aerospace industries.

[bush_cheney2004]

If we're going to be honest with ourselves, they took the design cues from us. It also just wasn't obsolescence, the program was incredibly expensive. They banked on the Americans, British and French buying the aircraft without thinking that those countries would protect their own aerospace industries.

Not being so honest.....if you mean it had wings, then I think the design cues utimately came from a beach on Kitty Hawk, NC. But more specifically, the Americans gave Canada an engine, a B-47 test bed for the Iroquois engine, wind tunnel time at Langley AFB that actually found deficiencies, fire control, and abandoned missile technology.

The Americans already had several competitive interceptor designs much closer to production....and they were actually funded and built in quantity without any penny pinching worries.

[DogOnPorch]

The Arrow was to have only one job...shooting nuclear tipped missiles at formations of Soviet Tupolev and Myasishchev bombers bound for North American targets. No bombs...no machine guns/cannons...no search and rescue capabilities.

Edited July 19, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Not being so honest.....if you mean it had wings, then I think the design cues utimately came from a beach on Kitty Hawk, NC. But more specifically, the Americans gave Canada an engine, a B-47 test bed for the Iroquois engine, wind tunnel time at Langley AFB that actually found deficiencies, fire control, and abandoned missile technology.

The Americans already had several competitive interceptor designs much closer to production....and they were actually funded and built in quantity without any penny pinching worries.

I have some cool photos of that B-47 somewhere.

[August1991]

In the air to air biz, there is no such thing as the second best aircraft. Given all things being equal, the best stays alive while the rest get shot down...usually in disproportionate numbers.

And who are we going to face, who is NATO going to face, in the air-to-air biz?

Syria? Iran? Israel alone could handle the fighter jets of both countries. China? Russia? All things considered, western countries should look at other threats right now (meteors?) rather than fighter jets of China or of Russia.

Agreed, NATO needs some stealth fighter jets if only to face potential pesky threats such as a war in the Middle East. But, do we station any jets in Germany now? Europe is not a serious potential theatre of battle as it once was in, say, 1962.

ICBM's made the Avro obsolete.

There you go Sherlock. The Avro was an excellent way to defend us against long range bombers - when in fact we in Canada were facing long range missiles, and our Western European allies were facing short range tactical missiles - or ground troops and tanks under the cover of the threat of the missiles.

-----

We won the Cold War. The US can keep a few LCBMs since they are cheap to maintain, just in case. But we don't need air-to-air fighters. Who are we going to fight against?

Failed states threaten the modern world. We face failed states with access to sophisticated weapons who can terrorize us into doing their bidding. We face failed states who harbour organizations who threaten us.

If we are to spend $16 billion on military hardware, I just don't see "5th Generation Stealth Jets" as a wise use of our resources. I'm no expert but it seems to me that the LG HugeThing seems more useful than the Sony PlayWhatever.

I would prefer spending the money/resources to defend us against fanatical idiots who might fly big planes into big buildings. About 80 Canadian soldiers were killed by IEDs in Afghanistan, over half of all our soldiers there. When our soldiers are called to go abroad and fight again - and I fear that it will happen since this war is far from over, they won't need fighter jets. $16 billion could go a long way in figuring out a defense to IEDs, for example.

I suspect that "Air-to-Air 5th Generation Stealth Fighters" will be as useful in the next few battles in this 21st century war as horses, dreadknoughts and infantry were in World War I.

"Military Intelligence", what an oxymoron.

Edited July 19, 2010 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

The Arrow was to have only one job...shooting nuclear tipped missiles at formations of Soviet Tupolev and Myasishchev bombers bound for North American targets. No bombs...no machine guns/cannons...no search and rescue capabilities.

Right...it was a clean design that could do one thing very well....haul ass. American X-planes were doing this years earlier.

Edited July 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

And who are we going to face, who is NATO going to face, in the air-to-air biz?

Just because the Taliban (and such) do not have a viable airforce doesn't preclude Canada facing an enemy that does have one in the future.

Agreed, NATO needs some stealth fighter jets if only to face potential pesky threats such as a war in the Middle East. But, do we station any jets in Germany now? Europe is not a serious potential theatre of battle as it once was in, say, 1962.

However: It's good that war will never happen again.

[DogOnPorch]

Right...it was a clean design that could do one thing very well....haul ass. American X-planes were doing this years earlier.

Amazing things they were, too. I'm a big Scott Crossfield fan...met him once.

[bush_cheney2004]

Amazing things they were, too. I'm a big Scott Crossfield fan...met him once.

Bottom line is that Canada killed the Arrow...not America. The top notch Canadian engineers voted with their feet and helped put men on the Moon instead. Go big or go home.

[wyly]

The replacement being designed for the F-18E Super Hornet will largely be unmanned. Maybe 1/4 of the versions built will be manned.

The F-35 is likely going to be the last primarily manned fighter we see.

so why waste money on a F35 that will be obsolete in short order...the Super Hornet is half the price, replace older versions as needed until unmanned fighters take over which will be a quarter the price of a Super Hornet...

[DogOnPorch]

so why waste money on a F35 that will be obsolete in short order...the Super Hornet is half the price, replace older versions as needed until unmanned fighters take over which will be a quarter the price of a Super Hornet...

Gloster Gladiators will work just fine against the Me-109.

[August1991]

I have some cool photos of that B-47 somewhere.

This is one of the few occasions where I will use those smilies to signal irony/sarcasm.

DogOnPorch, you have made my case against this $16 billion boondoggle.

[DogOnPorch]

This is one of the few occasions where I will use those smilies to signal irony/sarcasm.

DogOnPorch, you have made my case against this $16 billion boondoggle.

Have you ever flown an aircraft?

[wyly]

Gloster Gladiators will work just fine against the Me-109.

and harsh language is just as effective against a non existent imaginary enemy as the F35...

[DogOnPorch]

Fan of the Gadiator are we?

[Jack Weber]

Fan of the Gadiator are we?

"Strength and Honour!!!!"

[Mr.Canada]

This is one of the few occasions where I will use those smilies to signal irony/sarcasm.

DogOnPorch, you have made my case against this $16 billion boondoggle.

The planes themselves will cost $9 Billion, combined with the cost to maintain them for the duration of their lifetime will be $16 Billion. I think it's important to be clear on those facts.

I prefer Canada to be a partner in the safety of our nation and region. Failure to do so will mean that the rest of NATO will get to decide on how to best secure Canada and the region without us having any say at all. I don't like that scenario but it's obvious you're a fan of it.

We must buy now so that we'll have them before the Hornets behave like the Sea Kings and fall from the sky. Buying Military equipment isn't like shopping at WalMart it takes years to have an order delivered. Chretien canceled the Sea King replacements nearly 20 years ago and we're still waiting for the replacements to be fully implemented. When Chretien canceled that deal it cost us over $500 million to do so.

We don't need a replay of that.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Wilber]

disagree, many of todays fighter planes are unflyable by humans it's only through computors making millions of calculations and adjustments that humans can fly them, the F16 was the first fighter deliberately designed to be unstable/unflyable...aquiring and locking onto multiple unseen distant targets, the job of computors not humans...tacking and hunting down unseen targets the job of missle computors...navigation, computors...planes evasive manuvers are limited to the G's a human can withstand not what the plane is capable of...unmanned planes have already completed the most difficult of landing situations on carriers...unmmaned planes have already conducted thousands of recon and ground attack missions...the first experimental fighter prototypes have already been built, the technology is already here, only the reluctance to take the human out of the machine slows the change...

You miss the point. Certainly there are many aircraft designs that are unstable and require fly by wire systems to make them flyable but they are not push button aircraft. Certainly they have autopilots to do routine flying but not maneuvers such as air to air combat. The pilot sends commands to the flight control computers through the stick and rudder pedals and to the engine management system through the throttles. Weapons systems also make extensive use of computers but it is the pilot who decides when and how they will be used. Just because computers can allow us to do many things we couldn't before doesn't make humans obsolete.

Dog fighting was declared passé over 40 years ago. Training wasn't emphasized and original F-4's weren't even equipped with a gun. Viet Nam showed the folly of that, Top Gun was a direct result, there was a scramble to equip F-4's with a gun and every fighter since has Incorporated a gun in its design. Air to air combat is rarely a high speed, high altitude video game between computer systems. Every other war since Viet Nam has shown it is largely subsonic, conducted at relatively if not very low altitudes and pilot training and skill is a large factor in the outcome. Just ask the Israelis.

Not to knock carrier aviation but the only time a carrier pilot takes off or lands with a tail or crosswind is when he lands at an airport. On a carrier he always has at least a 30 knot headwind right down the runway. Pretty nice.

No doubt we will see more and more use of unmanned aircraft and eventually unmanned fighter aircraft but the demise of the manned fighter is farther away than you think.