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

[Wild Bill]

Well I see that you have links...great. I never said THEY ARE THE BEST THINGS EVER, I made it clear in my last post as well I'm not disputing that some have crashed. But as you so clearly showed us they were built in 1963 & as you are right in saying it takes roughly 30 hours mechanical work per 1 hour of flight, so the fact that 12 have (lets assume all were mechanical failure instead of pilot error) crashed should be absolutely no surprise I mean we should have spent the money a lot sooner. What I'd also like to note here is that I believe the last Canadian Sea King crash was in 2003 (going by memory so correct me if I'm wrong), so 7 years without a crash is pretty good if you ask me, considering they are suppose to "fall out of the sky". From what I've been told from people close to the Sea Kings is that they just weren't being taken care of properly so maybe not totally Sirkorsky's faulty design. But my friend you are reading articles, not to go into too much detail but lets just say I have a very very close connection some of these helicopters (Sea Kings as well as the new Sirkorsky helicopters replacing them) so I am speaking from experience through being around these pilots & mechanics on a consistant basis. ALL these pilots say that they LIKE the Sea Kings because of their ease of use, so I'm confident in saying that my post was true in 1970 as well as 2010. I understand some may not like them, but all the pilots I know say they do the job for now (the main downside being the amount of labour required for 1 hour of flight time). But if you want to tell me I'm wrong because you read it somewhere be my guest big guy, theres just some things you can't learn from reading, first hand knowledge for me personally, means a little more.

I'm not saying your wrong in any way, shape or form, I was just trying to point out that you can't call them Flying Coffins. By the way the President of the United States, his helicopter....guess what, its a SEA KING!

You seem to be sliding all around the point! You make a strong claim that the Sea Kings are a great helicopter and undeserving of all the criticism. Then when you face detailed criticism you say "well, yes that's true but still, some pilots like them and I happen to know a few of them!"

Hey, I know some fabulous guitar players but don't ask me to play like them myself!

We're not talking about British Sea Kings here, or American, or those of any other country. We're talking about CANADIAN Sea Kings!

What's the difference? Canadian Sea Kings are nearly 50 years old! I'm sure they were great to fly when they were new! So what? We have to deal with what we have and what we have is old and obsolete!

It was Sea king Canadian Forces pilots themselves who came up with that satirical song, produced a version where they sang and played their own instruments and released it to the media.

Perhaps you knew them all too?

[williat]

All I was trying to point out is that they were a good overall purchase, and I stated that I believed they should be replaced due to age, as well as clearly there are more efficient forms (requiring less man hours) of helicopters are available. Like I said I never said they were the best machines ever built, nor were they "Flying Coffins"...

[Topaz]

Question, are these going to be built in the US? If so, like some of their other planes, they require the plane to be brought back to the US for computer problems? Would the US company give up the info. to Canadian military to fix the plane on our own? Don't we have Canadian companies to build our own? If not, we should, create jobs needed here.

[M.Dancer]

65 to replace 80....(0riginally 138)...which replaced...over 400...which replaced...

This is probably the best platform in the sky....the question is ....will 65 be enough? |Should we have additional platforms ....different platforms?

Personally I don't think either air superiority or supremacy will be an issue...I believe we have a moral duty to be able to provide flexible close infantry support that can deliver a multitude of different weapons in all weather conditions and be robust to boot.

[Smallc]

Well, 80 would cost $11B....138 would cost $19B....400 would cost $55B....I don't think you're going to see too many countries buying a large number of these....and there isn't going to be much like them in the air for a long time.

DND thinks we need fewer because they're that much better. Hopefully they're right, because I doubt we can afford to spend more than $10B on a single project.

That said, if we had, say, 35 oF-35s and 65 F-18 Super Hornets, that may be an answer....then again, the 65 F-35s are probably still better.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

Well, 80 would cost $11B....138 would cost $19B....400 would cost $55B....I don't think you're going to see too many countries buying a large number of these....and there isn't going to be much like them in the air for a long time.

DND thinks we need fewer because they're that much better. Hopefully they're right, because I doubt we can afford to spend more than $10B on a single project.

That said, if we had, say, 35 oF-35s and 65 F-18 Super Hornets, that may be an answer....then again, the 65 F-35s are probably still better.

There is no need to have 80 or 130 F-35s...we could mix up the inventory with some super hornets or other proven (and cheaper) craft.

[Smallc]

There is no need to have 80 or 130 F-35s...we could mix up the inventory with some super hornets or other proven (and cheaper) craft.

But then why spend the money on cheaper aircraft? The other aircraft aren't 5th generation fighters. As of now, there are only two such fighters available in the world, and they're both flown by the same country.

I can see a use for Super Hornets, sure, but this may really be the best overall strategy. I'm going to have to go with DND on this one.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

But then why spend the money on cheaper aircraft? The other aircraft aren't 5th generation fighters. As of now, there are only two such fighters available in the world, and they're both flown by the same country.

I can see a use for Super Hornets, sure, but this may really be the best overall strategy. I'm going to have to go with DND on this one.

Because we don't need every tactical craft to be an air superiority fighter. The A 10 comes to mind....

[Smallc]

Because we don't need every tactical craft to be an air superiority fighter. The A 10 comes to mind....

The F-35A is set to replace the A-10 in a couple of decades.

[ZenOps]

Complete waste of money.

Lets put it to a democratic poll. I'd be willing to bet 98+% of Canadians would vote it down.

Not that I'm opposed to military stockpiling. Canada could definitely use an increased naval capacity, but fighter planes are expensive to maintain, and useless in any international mission.

If they are meant to defend locally against Russian (bombers), I'd think Harper should be more concerned about Ignatieff (strong Russian background), lol.

[Bonam]

Question, are these going to be built in the US?

Yes.

If so, like some of their other planes, they require the plane to be brought back to the US for computer problems?

Yes.

Would the US company give up the info. to Canadian military to fix the plane on our own?

No.

Don't we have Canadian companies to build our own?

No. We killed our aerospace industry decades ago.

If not, we should, create jobs needed here.

Look at all the controversy here over spending $9 bil. To recreate our own military aerospace industry capable of producing comparable aircraft would take about 100 times as much. Moreover most Canadians think of "military industrial complex" as a dirty phrase. That's why so many aerospace engineers like myself end up having to head down to the US to find work.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

No. We killed our aerospace industry decades ago.

Well I don't know about that. We still have the third largest commercial aircraft manufacturer. There are significant clusters of Aerospace firms in Manitoba and Quebec (in addition to Bombardier).

Also, to say these will completely be built in the US is not correct. It is expected that over the life of the F-35, Canadian companies will benefit to the tune of $9B.

[bush_cheney2004]

Rebuild the Avro Arrow! (you knew this was coming sooner or later.)

[Machjo]

This is already budgeted.

So the federal debt's paid off and we have a healthy surplus for a rainy day already? I'm impressed.

[Smallc]

So the federal debt's paid off and we have a healthy surplus for a rainy day already? I'm impressed.

If we waited for the federal debt to be paid off before we bought anything, we wouldn't be able to buy anything for several years. The country would grind to a halt.

[punked]

If we waited for the federal debt to be paid off before we bought anything, we wouldn't be able to buy anything for several years. The country would grind to a halt.

The country would not grind to halt it might take quite a few years with a spending freeze but we could do it. Our debt is only half a trillion dollars. Which means if we spent NO money it would take 2 years to pay off. Setting a goal of no debt in the next 20 is achievable if we stop with the tax cuts.

[eyeball]

The difference between BP and Gazprom is the latter is owned and operated by the extraordinarily corrupt and unanswerable dictators and murderers of the Russian government.

You think Gazprom will be more environmentally conscious than BP???!!

No more or less when it comes to profiting. You think we'll be able to use our shiny new fighters to force them to clean up their act?

What's the point of buying them then?

In any case you do realize you're talking about our allies and friends in our war on terror and against drugs and pirates and economic downturns etc etc?

[Moonbox]

I'm really confused by how upset people are about this. We've been using the F-18 for as long as I've been alive. By the time the F-35 enters full production the F-18 will be a ~40 year old design. Think about that for a second.

40 years is almost half a century. The difference 40 years makes in military technology is incredible.

Let your weapons fall behind 40-50 years and instead of throwing Saddam out of Kuwait with M1's and F-18's the USA would have had to do it with Shermans and P-51 Mustangs.

Five to ten years from now the F-18 will be nearly obsolete. SAM tracking etc will likely be advanced enough to shoot them out of the sky.

[eyeball]

delete

Edited June 9, 2010 by eyeball

[Machjo]

If we waited for the federal debt to be paid off before we bought anything, we wouldn't be able to buy anything for several years. The country would grind to a halt.

I agree. But focusing on priorities would be nice.

As long as we have a federal debt, we ought to have a minimalist approach to spending. Keep the planes we have now till the debt's paid off, and then buy new jets. Besides, the price might go down or some better newer plane might come out by then.

All we do is spend spend spend to try to keep up with the Joneses. And then we wonder why we always have a debt.

[Machjo]

The country would not grind to halt it might take quite a few years with a spending freeze but we could do it. Our debt is only half a trillion dollars. Which means if we spent NO money it would take 2 years to pay off. Setting a goal of no debt in the next 20 is achievable if we stop with the tax cuts.

I agree it's not responsible to cut taxes when we're in debt. That said, it's equally foolhardy to increase spending while in debt.

[Machjo]

I'm really confused by how upset people are about this. We've been using the F-18 for as long as I've been alive. By the time the F-35 enters full production the F-18 will be a ~40 year old design. Think about that for a second.

40 years is almost half a century. The difference 40 years makes in military technology is incredible.

Let your weapons fall behind 40-50 years and instead of throwing Saddam out of Kuwait with M1's and F-18's the USA would have had to do it with Shermans and P-51 Mustangs.

Five to ten years from now the F-18 will be nearly obsolete. SAM tracking etc will likely be advanced enough to shoot them out of the sky.

Bad examples. The F18 is quite capable even against modern fighters today. Also, had no one thought 40 years ago to raise taxes and reduce spending so as to pay off the debt so that we'd be debt free today?

We failed to do that so now let's bite the bullet. Where's a fiscal conservative party when we need it most?

[Smallc]

I agree it's not responsible to cut taxes when we're in debt.

If it attracts investment, thereby creating more revenue, it is. Canada is quickly gaining a competitive advantage in the developed world. We have to work to keep that.

[Smallc]

We failed to do that so now let's bite the bullet. Where's a fiscal conservative party when we need it most?

If you look at the countries that are our peers, we're quite fiscally conservative.

[Smallc]

The country would not grind to halt it might take quite a few years with a spending freeze but we could do it. Our debt is only half a trillion dollars. Which means if we spent NO money it would take 2 years to pay off. Setting a goal of no debt in the next 20 is achievable if we stop with the tax cuts.

Even if we leave the debt where it is, it will become less and less of a problem. The debt to GDP ratio will begin to fall again after 2012, and it should continue to do so for a long time going forward. We need to work on making payments on the debt when we can, while at the same time not sacrificing the priorities of development and attracting business investment. Not every tax cut is bad.