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

[Smallc]

Hey, we bought those subs the Brits were planning to use as flower planters.

According to many analysts, they are good subs...if we can ever get them working. They are said to be the navy's top priority.

[nicky10013]

What's assanine is that you keep bringing straw man into the discussion over and over and over again. Repetition is not a strong argument either.

We are not purchasing these fighters in anticipation of invasion, from overseas or from the USA.

We are not purchasing these fighters solely to protect arctic sovereignty. There are MANY MANY MANY reasons why the DND have chosen these fighters and they are pretty much the same reasons why we have a military in the first place.

I don't think you have a clue what your actual argument is because it seems to be a mess of "We don't have any enemies and thus we don't need a military", along with, "There are cheaper alternatives" and then finally "We're too small to defend against an invasion from the US (or Russia) etc blah blah blah".

All three of these are bad arguments and easily refuted on their own lack of merits but by combining them together you've come up with an incredibly convoluted, nonsensical and contradictory point of view.

If our lack of enemies concludes a lack of need for military equipment (history has shown us that's a retarded position to take) then why are we talking about the Super Hornet? If our biggest threat is the USA (also retarded to think) then why bother with defensive forces at all? We can't contend with them anyways right?

Brilliantly stupid wyly. If we're not going to protect ourselves, then people WILL take advantage of us and there's about 12000 years of history to back that up. If someone were to forcibly claim land or resources from our borders and we were completely unable and unwilling to meet such intrusion with force we'd be at the mercy of whoever would offer us help. The price would be our sovereignty and abilities of self-determination.

Of course, all of this ignores our NORAD and NATO obligations, but that's another matter altogether.

My point has been is that this is the biggest defence project in history. To spend 16 billion without a review of defence policy, where we want our forces to be in 30-40 years and what requirements we need to meet to fit that description is the brilliantly stupid thing.

A sole sourced contract with absolutely no competition comes a close second. I don't dispute the needs for planes of some kind, but without a coherent strategy on what they're supposed to be and how they're going to be employed, the process will be extremely wasteful.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Hey, we bought those subs the Brits were planning to use as flower planters.

I'll be happy as long as the missile explode when they are supposed to.

[Alta4ever]

According to many analysts, they are good subs...if we can ever get them working. They are said to be the navy's top priority.

I wonder why the brits were so eager to get rid of them. Its just another example of liberal half measures and procurement of garbage for this countries finest.

[nicky10013]

I wonder why the brits were so eager to get rid of them. Its just another example of liberal half measures and procurement of garbage for this countries finest.

From: Alerte-Info-Alert <[email protected]>

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:33:01 -0700

To: Alerte-Info-Alert<[email protected]>

Subject: Ignatieff Liberals Embarrassed by Russian Bomber Flights Over Arctic

Mere days ago Michael Ignatieff pledged to cancel the new fighter jets the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces urgently need.

Embarrassingly for him, Russian bomber flights over the Arctic -- just two days ago -- underscore why our men and women in uniform need modern equipment to do their jobs.

On Wednesday two CF-18 Hornet fighter aircraft quickly responded when two Russian TU-95 Bear aircraft entered the Canadian buffer zone in front of our airspace.

Canadian pilots visually identified the aircraft as Russian and shadowed them until they turned around.

This incident demonstrates why it is vitally important for the Canadian Armed Forces to have the best technology and equipment available. This is true whether we are asserting our Arctic sovereignty, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan or aiding reconstruction efforts in Haiti.

For too long, the Canadian Armed Forces suffered under Liberal budget cuts and the Liberal failure to adequately equip our men and women in uniform -- a shameful period known as the "Decade of Darkness."

Sadly, Mr. Igantieff is planning to take Canada's Armed Forces back to this disgraceful period by cancelling our government's purchase of the F-35 Next Generation Joint Strike Fighter.

Perhaps because he wasn't in Canada at the time, Mr. Ignatieff is unaware of how past Liberal governments gutted our military.More proof that Michael Ignatieff isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself.

If anyone was curious about the strange timing of the government release to the press of this intercept as politically convenient cover for the F-35 purchase, here's the confirmation.

What the press release about the "decade of darkness" is that the CF-18 was purchased by Trudeau. Funny, eh?

[Smallc]

I wonder why the brits were so eager to get rid of them.

A simple google search will tell you that the British decided to go all nuclear. We didn't.

[Alta4ever]

My point has been is that this is the biggest defence project in history. To spend 16 billion without a review of defence policy, where we want our forces to be in 30-40 years and what requirements we need to meet to fit that description is the brilliantly stupid thing.

A review of defense policy? Is this same thinking that has stalled sea king replacements for so long. No don't buy that today maybe we won't need to 40 years from now.

Your post has got to be the most asinine thing I have read.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

A simple google search will tell you that the British decided to go all nuclear. We didn't.

And we bought 4 submersible barges.

[nicky10013]

A review of defense policy? Is this same thinking that has stalled sea king replacements for so long. No don't buy that today maybe we won't need to 40 years from now.

Your post has got to be the most asinine thing I have read.

Considering the contract isn't going to be signed for another 2 years, I think we've got time to review. Of course, you knew that and decided to call me asinine anyway.

[DogOnPorch]

And we bought 4 submersible barges.

Aye, aye...they are crusin' classics submarines. Like a good ol' Bel Air...or Parisienne.

Nice n' all...but the wife complains you spend too much time fixin' it.

Edited July 30, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Smallc]

And we bought 4 submersible barges.

Well, one is working now, and a second should be working soon if not already. We'll soon have 3 working. The 4th is a different matter.

[Alta4ever]

Considering the contract isn't going to be signed for another 2 years, I think we've got time to review. Of course, you knew that and decided to call me asinine anyway.

So what, I wouldn't want DND to sign a contract until they have all the details hammered out, that would be called prudence.

[nicky10013]

So what, I wouldn't want DND to sign a contract until they have all the details hammered out, that would be called prudence.

Hahahahaha yet a full competition for fighters isn't. This is more entertaining than TV.

[wyly]

I doubt that, Russia's been designing planes specifically to sell, and they rarely sell the ones they've designed for their own military use.

Russia and Indian weapons developers work together the Indian planes are as good and even better in some cases...Indian has a better approach than Canada, India buys the best product available for it's needs regardless of origin, american, british, french, Brazilian, Russian...

The F35 has the ability to fly low speed low level. Army Guy has been advocating for the F35.

the F35 does not have the armour to protect it in close support as the A10 does it will have to stand off out of range of ground fire, the A10 has no such worries from light arms fire...

A10 costs

As the F-35 also pretends to replace the A-10 (something it is functionally incapable of doing, unless you entertain the delusion that bombing map coordinates from 20,000 feet is Close Air Support), A-10 cost should be compared as well.

[PIK]

According to many analysts, they are good subs...if we can ever get them working. They are said to be the navy's top priority.

Very true, that problem was chretien allowing them to just sit in salt water for 3 years before he finally said yes, if he would have just done it we wanted them, we would not be spending all this money fixing them and maybe one sailor would still be alive.

[wyly]

A simple google search will tell you that the British decided to go all nuclear. We didn't.

the electric subs do the job just fine...

[Smallc]

the electric subs do the job just fine...

They do, except that they can't go under the ice for more than a couple hours.

[wyly]

Well, one is working now, and a second should be working soon if not already. We'll soon have 3 working. The 4th is a different matter.

my only concern is we maybe didn't do a very good inspection before we purchased them, or maybe we should have made it a conditional sale(they work or you pay for the repairs)...

[Alta4ever]

Hahahahaha yet a full competition for fighters isn't. This is more entertaining than TV.

Ok so the other fighter that meets the requirements is the f-22 tell me smart ass is it for sale?

[PIK]

Ok so the other fighter that meets the requirements is the f-22 tell me smart ass is it for sale?

I love it when they say it is sole soursed, countries look at what was available and the F-35 was the one that was picked and we have invested 100 of millions on it, but yet you want to pick something different just to be difficult. But we do not 20 years to wait for the liberals to buy something, remember the frigates and are the helicopters here yet? Edited July 30, 2010 by PIK

[nicky10013]

Ok so the other fighter that meets the requirements is the f-22 tell me smart ass is it for sale?

Nope. However, funny enough, neither you or I know what the requirements actually are. Peter McKay said that but didn't elaborate. Either way, isn't that kind of stupid? Even if you know the F-35 is the only plane out there, do you go into a negotiation on price saying THIS IS THE BEST THING EVER AND THE ONLY THING WE'RE GOING TO BUY! Kind of a poor negotiation strategy, no? After going through a thorough and open process, declaring that this was really the only plane that came close after the deal was closed seems to me to be a smarter way to go. That way, no one would be asking the question, is this the best plane for the job. The fact that it went up against the Typhoon or F-18E and won would've settled the question. Then again, over 4 years, this government's penchant for openness has been stunningly absent.

Stand up for Canada...Stand up for accountability. Hahahahaha yeah right.

[wyly]

They do, except that they can't go under the ice for more than a couple hours.

I would think they can stay submerged more than a couple of hours but surprisingly I can't find anything on the web that gives an answer...the subs if they were running are well rated, nearly impossible to detect and equal to nuclear subs other than the length of time they can stay at sea...

[nicky10013]

I love it when they say it is sole soursed, countries look at what was available and the F-35 was the one that was picked and we have invested 100 of millions on it, but yet you want to pick something different just to be difficult. But we do not 20 years to wait for the liberals to buy something, remember the frigates and are the helicopters here yet?

The money invested was to secure canadian private involvement in the development for the plane and that's what happened. Furthermore, it is sole sourced. Declaring it isn't is simply lying. Just by sayng that the F-35 was chosen in terms of a competition between Lockheed and Boeing is so disengenous it isn't even funny.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Russia and Indian weapons developers work together the Indian planes are as good and even better in some cases...Indian has a better approach than Canada, India buys the best product available for it's needs regardless of origin, american, british, french, Brazilian, Russian...

The planes Russia sells are crap compared to the ones they use, and we are buying the best available product for our needs. I seriously doubt the planes India is getting will be better than the F-35, maybe in a few areas but the F-35 is one of the best planes in the world.

the F35 does not have the armour to protect it in close support as the A10 does it will have to stand off out of range of ground fire, the A10 has no such worries from light arms fire...

No plane has enough armour to really protect it in close support situations. If they did they probably couldn't fly. How much you want to bet you could shoot an A-10 out of the sky with small arms fire? You could probably do it to an F-35 but both would take a huge amount of luck to hit the damn things. Then try with an AA missile, you'll take down the A-10 way more often because it will be harder to lock on to the F-35

[PIK]

The money invested was to secure canadian private involvement in the development for the plane and that's what happened. Furthermore, it is sole sourced. Declaring it isn't is simply lying. Just by sayng that the F-35 was chosen in terms of a competition between Lockheed and Boeing is so disengenous it isn't even funny.

They look at different models, just because we did not let the euros in or look at migs ,does not mean sole soursed. Anyways we should not be buying euro anyways because it will only cause problems down the road.Troops under the libs drove the itulis(SP) jeep around afghansitan, harpers troops are driving armoured vehicles.Matter of fact 2 of them are for sale just up the road do you want one.