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

[nicky10013]

The point is you don't need bases to handle VSTOL aircraft. See Harrier.

Hold up, Hold up. According to defense news, Canada purchased the cheapest variant of the aircraft. Which is the CTOL version, or the F-35A. This doesn't have the vertical take off and landing capability.

[Handsome Rob]

A plane like the Typhoon can't be touched by any plane in the world except for the F-22 and possibly the F-35 (even though there are various reports that the Typhoon surprisingly handled the F-22 quite well in training in the US). 8 Typhoons went unscathed vs 27 F-15s and F-16s. My point being is that if the plane is this good, and the only countries flying the apparently better plane are our friends, then why pay up for the potentitally more expensive plane "just because it's stealthy."

What an incredibly ignorant statement. I can produce a newspaper article that claims mock combat netted victory of the 4.5 gen fighter against greater numbers of 4th gen fighters, therefore, it is without question more capable than a 5th generation fighter that hasn't seen deployment yet.

Beyond that, the ability to defeat 4th generation aircraft is clearly more than enough, because obviously in the next 30 years Canada will only ever encounter the need to engange in combat with 50 year old airplanes.

Look, Eurofighters slaughtered by rebuilt SU-27's flown by India.

The Eurofighter is fairly new and designed as a far more multirole then the JSF ever was. As for commonality, as I pointed out, Europeans are in NATO, too.

No, it wasn't. The Joint Strike Fighter. The Eurofighter was designed as an air to air platform, and is still being updated today, to meet AGM capabilities. Yes, their are European NATO members.

From what I can rustle up, the Typhoon has the greater range.

It has greater ferry range, F-35 combat radius is 610 NM against Eurofighter's 325 NM, with both aircraft carrying PGM's. It's propaganda, ferry range is meaningless, that's why we have 130J's.

The Globe didn't really like it as well and no one can accuse them of being biased. Furthermore, if the contract was tendered (open to all companies) by the Liberals OR the Conservatives there wouldn't have been nearly as big an issue.

Nobody else matches the competition. Would you tender a bid for a bicycle when you needed a car?

[Handsome Rob]

Hold up, Hold up. According to defense news, Canada purchased the cheapest variant of the aircraft. Which is the CTOL version, or the F-35A. This doesn't have the vertical take off and landing capability.

Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. All F-35's carry this.

[Handsome Rob]

Blow the runway and even an F-18 with arrestor hooks can't land. You save money by not implementing and maintaining an arrestor hook system. You don't even need to invest in runways. The F-35 does not need a runway, or an arrestor hook. But they would be outfitted anyways with arrestor hooks. Because shit happens.

Yes, it does.

[Moonbox]

Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. All F-35's carry this.

No. They don't. The STOL and VTOL are more expensive variants.

[Handsome Rob]

No. They don't. The STOL and VTOL are more expensive variants.

Corrected. Wasn't aware they varied the F135.

[Moonbox]

[dre]

What an incredibly ignorant statement. I can produce a newspaper article that claims mock combat netted victory of the 4.5 gen fighter against greater numbers of 4th gen fighters, therefore, it is without question more capable than a 5th generation fighter that hasn't seen deployment yet.

Beyond that, the ability to defeat 4th generation aircraft is clearly more than enough, because obviously in the next 30 years Canada will only ever encounter the need to engange in combat with 50 year old airplanes.

Look, Eurofighters slaughtered by rebuilt SU-27's flown by India.

No, it wasn't. The Joint Strike Fighter. The Eurofighter was designed as an air to air platform, and is still being updated today, to meet AGM capabilities. Yes, their are European NATO members.

It has greater ferry range, F-35 combat radius is 610 NM against Eurofighter's 325 NM, with both aircraft carrying PGM's. It's propaganda, ferry range is meaningless, that's why we have 130J's.

Nobody else matches the competition. Would you tender a bid for a bicycle when you needed a car?

In this case nobody has established that we are actually likely to need a car in the first place. The vast majority of what the airforce does is fly patrols over Canada, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. You dont need 140 million dollar planes to do either of those things.

The other thing being mentioned is the possibility that we might need GEN5 fights for nato missions, but thats an assumption at this point.

And since we are FLAT ASS BROKE and the government doesnt even have enough money to fund its own existance never mind buy state of the art weapons, I think they should be as thrifty as possible.

[wyly]

In this case nobody has established that we are actually likely to need a car in the first place. The vast majority of what the airforce does is fly patrols over Canada, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. You dont need 140 million dollar planes to do either of those things.

as well these planes will be made obsolete by unmanned fighters well before their life expectancy is used up...

The other thing being mentioned is the possibility that we might need GEN5 fights for nato missions, but thats an assumption at this point.

NATO missions vs who? any NATO mission would be vs countries with older equipment of Russian export planes without all the bells and whistles...NATO will never take on Russia, China or India the only non Nato countries that could possibly be an opponent so why do we need a fighter for a country we will never fight?..until the unmanned fights take over the less expensive Super Hornet is all we need...

[bush_cheney2004]

as well these planes will be made obsolete by unmanned fighters well before their life expectancy is used up...

This idea presumes that Canada could or would pony up the dollars for not only such aircraft, but the infrastructure, datalinks, etc. to support them. To date, and like other allies, Canada has difficulty maintaining secure radio interoperability, weapons kits, IFF suite, etc.

NATO missions vs who? any NATO mission would be vs countries with older equipment of Russian export planes without all the bells and whistles...NATO will never take on Russia, China or India the only non Nato countries that could possibly be an opponent so why do we need a fighter for a country we will never fight?..until the unmanned fights take over the less expensive Super Hornet is all we need...

It's not suppose to be a fair fight....regardless of the potential foe.

[Guest TrueMetis]

as well these planes will be made obsolete by unmanned fighters well before their life expectancy is used up...

NATO missions vs who? any NATO mission would be vs countries with older equipment of Russian export planes without all the bells and whistles...NATO will never take on Russia, China or India the only non Nato countries that could possibly be an opponent so why do we need a fighter for a country we will never fight?..until the unmanned fights take over the less expensive Super Hornet is all we need...

Russia and China our building planes specifically to sell so don't be surprised if other countries start to seriously improve their air forces.

[Bonam]

You are missing one thing. In combat the runways are prime targets. Blow the runway and most aircraft are rendered useless. The F-35 is VTOL, meaning you don't need to spend the money extending the runways. You don't even NEED a runway. Just a small clear patch to land on.

I am surprised that many simply don't get it here.

-Canada has already made an investment in he F-35 program by tooling things here in Canada.

-The F-35 can easily be put into service in Canada because of our NATO obligations, this is due to the US and Canada being so close and working close together on most NATO operations.

-The F-35 is a VTOL aircraft which makes remote bases more accessible, no need to build and maintain long remote runways that rarely get used.

-Parts and service for the aircraft are easy considering our proximity to the US.

The F-35b is STOVL, not VTOL. That means it cannot take off vertically, it needs a runway to take off. Also, what makes you think we are getting this variant? Most likely our planes will be the F-35a variant, which do not have STOVL.

[Wilber]

In this case nobody has established that we are actually likely to need a car in the first place. The vast majority of what the airforce does is fly patrols over Canada, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. You dont need 140 million dollar planes to do either of those things.

The other thing being mentioned is the possibility that we might need GEN5 fights for nato missions, but thats an assumption at this point.

And since we are FLAT ASS BROKE and the government doesnt even have enough money to fund its own existance never mind buy state of the art weapons, I think they should be as thrifty as possible.

Because you maintain nothing can change, there is no need to do anything. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union we maintained a wing in Germany as part of our NATO commitment. A 104 guy told me once that for a long time they didn't worry because they could always run away faster than the other guy could chase them. Eventually it got to the point where they couldn' even do that. Things change, that's why you need a military and deciding you need something now that takes six years to get, is a bit late.

[DogOnPorch]

Canadian Forces seen firing-up their new 'thrifty' replacement for the CF-18.

[Wilber]

The F-35b is STOVL, not VTOL. That means it cannot take off vertically, it needs a runway to take off. Also, what makes you think we are getting this variant? Most likely our planes will be the F-35a variant, which do not have STOVL.

I don't know which one we are buying but VSTOL aircraft such as the Harrier can take off vertically, they just can't carry anywhere near the weight they can if they make a short takeoff run. No doubt the F-35 is the same.

[Bonam]

I don't know which one we are buying but VSTOL aircraft such as the Harrier can take off vertically, they just can't carry anywhere near the weight they can if they make a short takeoff run. No doubt the F-35 is the same.

Perhaps, but what good is a F-35B taking off without most of its payload gonna do? Again, it's STOVL, not VTOL. And, this is only true for the F-35B. Neither the F-35A nor F-35C have STOVL.

[dre]

Because you maintain nothing can change, there is no need to do anything. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union we maintained a wing in Germany as part of our NATO commitment. A 104 guy told me once that for a long time they didn't worry because they could always run away faster than the other guy could chase them. Eventually it got to the point where they couldn' even do that. Things change, that's why you need a military and deciding you need something now that takes six years to get, is a bit late.

Thats not what I said at all.

But the reality is that when youre flat broke chances are youre not going to be able to afford insurance against every possible negative consequence under the sun. Its just not possible. Sometimes you just cant have everything you want, and you need make do with only the bare necessities. Thats the position we are in now.

Canadians face a larger threat from DEFECIT SPENDING than we do from foreign migs.

So we should be frugal. Most of our operations (flying patrols over our own airspace and shooting down rogue airliners) can be done with much cheaper planes. So maybe we should buy 20 of these F35's, and 50 GEN4.5 planes for these other tasks... I dunno. But we should be as cheap and frugal as possible.

[Wilber]

Perhaps, but what good is a F-35B taking off without most of its payload gonna do? Again, it's STOVL, not VTOL. And, this is only true for the F-35B. Neither the F-35A nor F-35C have STOVL.

VSTOL is really good because it can take off with a full load in a fraction of the distance of a conventional aircraft and because the speeds are so much lower, they don't need prepared runways. All they need is some kind of roll up metal surface that will keep them from lifting the sod in the field or melting the asphault in the parking lot they are flying out of. For vertical takeoff you need more than one pound of thrust for every pound you weigh. Every pound of aerodynamic lift you can add to that increases your payload by the same amount even though you don't have enough aerodynamic lift to support the aircraft on its own. That's why Harriers can operate off very small carriers without using a catapult. All they need is a short takeoff run and a little ramp on the bow of the ship to take off at max weight.

[DogOnPorch]

[Wilber]

But the reality is that when youre flat broke chances are youre not going to be able to afford insurance against every possible negative consequence under the sun. Its just not possible. Sometimes you just cant have everything you want, and you need make do with only the bare necessities. Thats the position we are in now.

According to some, we are always in that position, that's why we wait 35 years to replace anything in our military. We wait till stuff rusts out then bitch when our cheap habits finally catch up to us.

So we should be frugal. Most of our operations (flying patrols over our own airspace and shooting down rogue airliners) can be done with much cheaper planes. So maybe we should buy 20 of these F35's, and 50 GEN4.5 planes for these other tasks... I dunno. But we should be as cheap and frugal as possible.

The more types you have, the higher your operating costs. Just ask any airline exec. Why do you think WestJet and Southwest only operate one type of aircraft?

Edited July 26, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

Because you maintain nothing can change, there is no need to do anything. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union we maintained a wing in Germany as part of our NATO commitment. A 104 guy told me once that for a long time they didn't worry because they could always run away faster than the other guy could chase them. Eventually it got to the point where they couldn' even do that. Things change, that's why you need a military and deciding you need something now that takes six years to get, is a bit late.

Who are we going to fight that major war with? Yes, things do change but I have to say that I find it rather ironic that people who are critical of purchasing 5th gen fighters are accused of living in the past or not planning for the future. The purchase of these planes is completely of the old world cold war mind set. The nature of warfare has changed. Globalization has changed it all for us. The west really only has one true country left that can give the west a run for it's money and that's China. Right now, the trillions of dollars of trade between the west and China, we'll at least have the 6 year warning period. International geopolitical relations just do not deteriorate that quickly. Indeed, relations with China really haven't been better. More trade than ever, they actually hopped on board sanctions on North Korea, China is becoming less and less of a problem.

We need a fighter that fits our needs for the projected next 30 years, I agree, but those needs aren't fighting a major war with China. Furthermore, the notion that 65 F-35s vs 35 Typhoons would make more than a pin prick of a difference in such a conflict is laughable.

Indeed, shouldn't we be at least warry of the purchase? Most people are acting as though nothing can touch this bloody thing, yet in the defense weekly article it said that the US and Lockheed were incredibly relieved to find an international buyer becase not only have there been huge technical issues, the project has been close to the chopping block in congress. Indeed, after only procuring 168 I want to say, the F-22 program has already been cancelled. Needless to say, the F-22 was the basis for the F-35.

Edited July 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

We need a fighter that fits our needs for the projected next 30 years, I agree, but those needs aren't fighting a major war with China. Furthermore, the notion that 65 F-35s vs 35 Typhoons would make more than a pin prick of a difference in such a conflict is laughable.

You guys miss the point entirely. We are a nation of 35 million sitting on the second largest land mass of any country in the world, two thirds of it are surrounded by oceans. There is absolutely no way we can defend this country on our own. We must have allies to do so. Being an ally is a two way street. If you don't have anything useful to offer your allies, you are nothing more than a freeloader.

I'm continually amazed by people who brag about this country being so great but are so grudging when it comes to ensuring its security..

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You guys miss the point entirely. We are a nation of 35 million sitting on the second largest land mass of any country in the world, two thirds of it are surrounded by oceans. There is absolutely no way we can defend this country on our own. We must have allies to do so. Being an ally is a two way street. If you don't have anything useful to offer your allies, you are nothing more than a freeloader.

I'm continually amazed by people who brag about this country being so great but are so grudging when it comes to ensuring its security..

Well said.

[dre]

Well said.

Why do you guys think we can magically create money we dont have? Your spend! spend! spend! mindset is gonna catch up with us some day, and when it does youre going to WISH our only problem was hostile foreigners.

[Wilber]

Why do you guys think we can magically create money we dont have? Your spend! spend! spend! mindset is gonna catch up with us some day, and when it does youre going to WISH our only problem was hostile foreigners.

Funny but other countries manage to do it, countries we depend upon for our security.