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

[Guest TrueMetis]

WW2, Germans arguably had the best/most advanced aircraft and initially the best trained pilots in the end it could not replace planes faster than the Russians or the British, over whelming numbers defeated them...

Not a very good argument. German planes and Allied planes where pretty much equal.

[wyly]

That is true, but it does speak to a need for jet fighters in the future, and probably an upgrade. The only thing Im concerned about is the lack of speed from the F-35 (though it has good range). I wonder if in fact the equally expensive Typhoon wouldn't have been a better buy for what we need (despite it's lack of real stealth).

as someone has already pointed out most combat is done at sub sonic speed so what good would it do? the speed of combat is determined mostly by the human inside planes are capable of much more than humans could survive...

and it's range is comparable to other planes out there...

the stealth factor is over played it's effective in a nose on view and is lost the moment the plane lights up to aquire a target, or turns on it's after burners...it's advantage from what I understand is only when it recieves info from an AWAC and allow it to remain cloaked, of course the first target sought out by a sophisticated enemy with long range missles will be the AWACs...when it comes out of hiding it'll locked on to by radiation and heat seeking missles and not far in the future visual missiles...

and that's the problem with these super expensive weapons there are relatively inexpensive counter weapons that can be developed much more quickly...Israel was quite upset with Russia for selling anti tank rockets which ended up in Hezzbollah hands which has effectively neutralized(and defeated) it's modern tank force....

[wyly]

Not a very good argument. German planes and Allied planes where pretty much equal.

I would dispute that, their jet planes well advanced and they had others as well the allies were always playing catch up, but in the end it didn't matter despite any advantage the Germans would have they could not produce the numbers that would make a difference....

[Guest TrueMetis]

I would dispute that, their jet planes well advanced and they had others as well the allies were always playing catch up, but in the end it didn't matter despite any advantage the Germans would have they could not produce the numbers that would make a difference....

They didn't make a difference because they weren't operational until the war was basically over.

[DogOnPorch]

WW2, Germans arguably had the best/most advanced aircraft and initially the best trained pilots in the end it could not replace planes faster than the Russians or the British, over whelming numbers defeated them...

Nope...that was a fair fight. The plane produced in the largest numbers during WW2 was the Bf/Me-109. German pilot quality managed to be quite high even at the war's end. The Luftwaffe had reduced its fighting strength on the Eastern Front to near nothing in order to fight the US/Commonwealth bomber offensive...so the Russians managed to gain air superiority due to no real competition.

Edited July 31, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

lol, still, I think they have enough of the other 3 models.

Here's the last Mya-4 mission touching down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6ulmV-Tn7Q

[bush_cheney2004]

.....That being said this line caught my eye. This is a good point. Our territorial sovereignty hasn't been formally breached since 1814....

..and your line caught my eye...because it is false. Canada's "sovereignty" didn't exist in 1814, and when it did the Japanese and Germans were quite happy to violate it during WW2, even discounting Newfoundland and Labrador as part of Canada.

[Alta4ever]

Jesus, you really did go off your meds. How is wanting a true free market competition to see what's best full of shit? Don't you conservatives love that kind of thing? If anything, it would make the price of the plane come down. Furthermore, I never said replace it witha European plane. I said make it compete with a European plane and see where it comes out. If the F-35 is the best, then so be it. However, not you or anyone else on here can equivocally make the statement that the F-35 is the best plane to fit our needs because the contract wasn't put out to tender. Period. End of story. So really, who is full of shit?

Pick any aircraft and put it up against an f-35, with similar pilots, the f-35 will win every time.

Oh but you don't seem to care if our armed forces have to deal with antiquated garbage that is going to get them killed, as long as it was cheaper, to you those lives are expendable aren't they nicky. Our Armed forces deserve the best.

If the liberals really didn't want the f-35 and had no intention of buy the g-damn plane why the hell invest in its development? This is pure partisan politics and Ignatieff like usual is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

..and your line caught my eye...because it is false. Canada's "sovereignty" didn't exist in 1814, and when it did the Japanese and Germans were quite happy to violate it during WW2, even discounting Newfoundland and Labrador as part of Canada.

So, the Germans and Italians launched an invasion of Canada?

[nicky10013]

That is true, but it does speak to a need for jet fighters in the future, and probably an upgrade. The only thing Im concerned about is the lack of speed from the F-35 (though it has good range). I wonder if in fact the equally expensive Typhoon wouldn't have been a better buy for what we need (despite it's lack of real stealth).

I don't disagree. But like I've been saying, we don't know what plane is best for that until there's an openely tendered process.

[nicky10013]

Pick any aircraft and put it up against an f-35, with similar pilots, the f-35 will win every time.

Oh but you don't seem to care if our armed forces have to deal with antiquated garbage that is going to get them killed, as long as it was cheaper, to you those lives are expendable aren't they nicky. Our Armed forces deserve the best.

If the liberals really didn't want the f-35 and had no intention of buy the g-damn plane why the hell invest in its development? This is pure partisan politics and Ignatieff like usual is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

When did I ever say that. I even specifically said, if they F-35 wins in an open competition, so be it. Really, who is the one that's been unreasonable?

As for the money invested in the program, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reason why we put money in the development program is so Canadian firms would be awarded development contracts. They were. Mission accomplished, end of story.

[bush_cheney2004]

So, the Germans and Italians launched an invasion of Canada?

Didn't have to..."sovereignty" was violated with naval actions and balloon bombs. Who said anything about Italy?

[nicky10013]

Didn't have to..."sovereignty" was violated with naval actions and balloon bombs. Who said anything about Italy?

Excuse me, somehow misread that for Japanese. And you're also playing with semantics here. With what I laid out, it was clear that what I was implying was a full scale invasion. Any threat otherwise could be dealt with by SAMs.

Edited July 31, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

Excuse me, somehow misread that for Japanese. And you're also playing with semantics here. With what I laid out, it was clear that what I was implying was a full scale invasion.

I was ready for this weak response....using your logic, a "full scale" cruise missile attack on Canada's major cities would also not "violate" sovereignty. Ditto SLBMs, ICBMs, and manned bombers. Nope, it has to be like Normandy in '44 before you will consider it to be a concern, and I'm not too sure about that.

[Alta4ever]

Excuse me, somehow misread that for Japanese. And you're also playing with semantics here. With what I laid out, it was clear that what I was implying was a full scale invasion. Any threat otherwise could be dealt with by SAMs.

Tactics have been developed long ago alone with weapons to deal with SAM sites. You can't have air superiority without being in the air.

Time for more recommended reading

Air Power: from Kitty Hawk to Gulf War II: A History of the People, Ideas and Machines That Transformed War in the Century of Flight [Hardcover]

Stephen Budiansky (Author)

Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat edited by Robin Higham and Stephen J. Harris. University Press of Kentucky

Edited July 31, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

I was ready for this weak response....using your logic, a "full scale" cruise missile attack on Canada's major cities would also not "violate" sovereignty. Ditto SLBMs, ICBMs, and manned bombers. Nope, it has to be like Normandy in '44 before you will consider it to be a concern, and I'm not too sure about that.

If you read my entire post, which you clearly didn't, or ignoring because you did (even with the one you just directly quoted), I said that bombers could be dealt with by SAMs. ICBMs and SLBMs and generally cruise missiles there are no defence against so why attempt to procure something you can't stop.

[nicky10013]

I didn't read the rest because I was frankly lazy. That and the fact that most people on this issue are fiercly in one camp or the other which is kinda stupid.

That being said this line caught my eye. This is a good point. Our territorial sovereignty hasn't been formally breached since 1814. That doesn't speak to the stupidity that it will never happen again, it speaks to the fact that a transcontinental invasion uses so much resources and so much planning, that we'd probably know about it a year in advance. On top of that, the only countries that could undertake such a move are probably Russia and China. Though, the lack of a true blue water navy for either dictates that the likelihood that any breach of Canadian territorial integrity would come ballistically are through air power. We could buy patriot batteries and any ballistic missile shield either doesn't work, or by the time that it does, the new Russian and Chinese ICBMs being developed right now will be able to defeat the countermeasure.

Now, my point isn't to say that it's smart to replace fighters with missile batteries. That being said, I'm not a defence expert. The entire point is we never had the conversation to begin with.

[nicky10013]

Tactics have been developed long ago alone with weapons to deal with SAM sites. You can't have air superiority without being in the air.

Time for more recommended reading

Air Power: from Kitty Hawk to Gulf War II: A History of the People, Ideas and Machines That Transformed War in the Century of Flight [Hardcover]

Stephen Budiansky (Author)

Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat edited by Robin Higham and Stephen J. Harris. University Press of Kentucky

So, if there is a full scale air attack, like a full scale ground attack, 65 F-35s are going to be able to deal with a Russian/Chinese Air Force? I highly doubt it.

Like I said, I'm not saying we shouldn't buy planes, but there needs to be a defence review to see what our needs really are. We also need to be more realistic that 65 of these things are going to be able to defend a territory as large as Canada.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If you read my entire post, which you clearly didn't, or ignoring because you did (even with the one you just directly quoted), I said that bombers could be dealt with by SAMs. ICBMs and SLBMs and generally cruise missiles there are no defence against so why attempt to procure something you can't stop.

Can't stop? What are you talking about? Of course they can be stopped ever hear the saying "the best defence is a good offence" just destroy the missile sites, which of course would require air superiority.

[nicky10013]

Can't stop? What are you talking about? Of course they can be stopped ever hear the saying "the best defence is a good offence" just destroy the missile sites, which of course would require air superiority.

How the hell can we initiate a first strike on Russian or Chinese ICBMs with 65 F-35s?

[bush_cheney2004]

If you read my entire post, which you clearly didn't, or ignoring because you did (even with the one you just directly quoted), I said that bombers could be dealt with by SAMs. ICBMs and SLBMs and generally cruise missiles there are no defence against so why attempt to procure something you can't stop.

More falsehoods.....manned bomber attacks cannot be eliminated with SAMs, only degraded. The preferred defense is air superiority to begin with. Ditto cruise missiles (which are sub-sonic), and can be attacked successfully with look-down radar with a capable platform. ICBM/SLBM attacks means you've already lost all respect anyway!

[Smallc]

as someone has already pointed out most combat is done at sub sonic speed so what good would it do?

Ummm...it's a long way from the two airforce bases to anywhere else. That's why speed matters.

[nicky10013]

More falsehoods.....manned bomber attacks cannot be eliminated with SAMs, only degraded. The preferred defense is air superiority to begin with. Ditto cruise missiles (which are sub-sonic), and can be attacked successfully with look-down radar with a capable platform. ICBM/SLBM attacks means you've already lost all respect anyway!

They can't? Uhh, forgive me for sounding naive, but why the hell not. If you ask me, that works into my argument because if SAM batteries can't pull it off, neither can 65 F-35s.

If you can take down cruise missles, buy the radar.

As for ICBMs, sure.

[Smallc]

and it's range is comparable to other planes out there...

No it isn't. It's combat range is second to none and only the Typhoon equals it.

[bush_cheney2004]

How the hell can we initiate a first strike on Russian or Chinese ICBMs with 65 F-35s?

Start smaller with SCUD missile launchers!