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

[Machjo]

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

Why the relativity? A big spender might be frugal compared to a bigger spender, but he's still a big spender.

[Machjo]

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.

We talk tax cuts yet defend big spending. The way I see it, tax cuts must dovetail with spending cuts and debt reduction, and not be seen as somehow unrelated.

[kimmy]

Is this part of a long term scheduled capital expenditure plan that the military has in place?

I mean, Harper didn't just reach into his pocket and say "here you go, head on down to the mall and buy something nice," right?

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

Is this part of a long term scheduled capital expenditure plan that the military has in place?

I mean, Harper didn't just reach into his pocket and say "here you go, head on down to the mall and buy something nice," right?

-k

Yes there is a general plan to get our military up to par, once that's done than we can reduce spending to maintance and the occasional buying of neccessary equipment. What we don't want to do is cut the militaries budget again because that will cost more, both financially and in human lives.

[Jack Weber]

This does'nt involve the shipbuilding policy I heared about a few days ago,is it?

Because that involved 30 billion over 30 years,or something like that...

[Bonam]

Yes there is a general plan to get our military up to par, once that's done than we can reduce spending to maintance and the occasional buying of neccessary equipment.

Doesn't work that way. The military needs to be continually brought up to par, technology continues to change and evolve and equipment always needs to be replaced and upgraded, and new classes of equipment come into existence (i.e. satellites, drones, etc). We'll be investing a lot in military robotics over the upcoming decades if we continue to have any interest in keeping up with other nations.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Bonam

[Machjo]

This does'nt involve the shipbuilding policy I heared about a few days ago,is it?

Because that involved 30 billion over 30 years,or something like that...

Yup. The Bank of Canada had better start revving up the printing presses. A few billion here, a few bilion there, you know, it quickly adds up.

[eyeball]

Yes there is a general plan to get our military up to par, once that's done than we can reduce spending to maintance and the occasional buying of neccessary equipment. What we don't want to do is cut the militaries budget again because that will cost more, both financially and in human lives.

Up to par with what or who exactly? To the point where no one would ever think of invading us seems reasonable enough and nukes seem by far the most cost effective option.

As for our conventional military commitments and obligations, they're simply not sustainable, especially in light of some the conflicts our allies have either provoked or aggravated through their interference and pursuit of their interests.

I say we give nuclear armed neutrality a whirl and use our money to build a space elevator or something.

[Bonam]

Up to par with what or who exactly? To the point where no one would ever think of invading us seems reasonable enough and nukes seem by far the most cost effective option.

As for our conventional military commitments and obligations, they're simply not sustainable, especially in light of some the conflicts our allies have either provoked or aggravated through their interference and pursuit of their interests.

I say we give nuclear armed neutrality a whirl and use our money to build a space elevator or something.

Nuclear arms would definitely be a good investment. Doesn't seem politically viable in Canada, however. Imagine the headlines if Harper proposed a plan to produce nuclear weapons...

Oh and put me down as 100% in support of building the space elevator.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Bonam

[wyly]

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.

the AK47 is how old? 60 years and is the most popular weapon on the planet and it will be around for another 60yrs...new doesn't always mean better or more effective we could buy more F-18's and they'd still be effective for another 40 years...

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.

america's wars have what to do with us???

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.

SAM tracking is good enough now to shoot anything out of the sky just because Iraq or the Taliban didn't have them doesn't mean they don't exist...the US just chooses to fight wars with countries that don't have these systems in place which gives the impression they're technology is invincible...SAM technology advances quicker than aircraft technology at much less cost, we can spend billions on these F35's and Russians will develop a SAM system to take them down at a fraction of the cost...so what's the point of buying them? they're overkill for taking out insurgent forces and even with them we're no match for the Russians or Americans...

[wyly]

I say we give nuclear armed neutrality a whirl and use our money to build a space elevator or something.

yup, we could be like Sweden but with nukes...no country F***'s with you when you have nukes, North Korea has figured that out....

[eyeball]

Nuclear arms would definitely be a good investment. Doesn't seem politically viable in Canada, however. Imagine the headlines if Harper proposed a plan to produce nuclear weapons...

I'd vote for him if he also proposed Canada adopt a position of neutrality.

Oh and put me down as 100% in support of building the space elevator.

Consider yourself down.

[msdogfood]

We have commitments to NATO and fighters were used in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

But your question deserves an answer from someone who understands this better.

----

OTOH, you have the right idea. The optics here are terrible. If I were Ignatieff, I would get a non-confidence motion before the House as quickly as possible. The Liberals should vote down the budget bill and force an election.

There should be one simple issue: the Conservatives spending priorities. This is fundamentally what we elect politicians to do and on this score, $1 billion plus for a summit, $9 billion for fighters, $2 million for a fake lake. This is not the way most Canadians (in particular, Canadians who voted Tory) want their tax dollars to be spent.

I think the Conservatives are going to take a hammering in the polls on this.

All true yes they well get a hammering in the polls on this. if the G 8 / G20 does not kill them first!???

But This needs to get more press first!!

[Jack Weber]

Yup. The Bank of Canada had better start revving up the printing presses. A few billion here, a few bilion there, you know, it quickly adds up.

That money put into shipbuiding is not a bad idea...Major employment...It was'nt only aimed at the Navy,but the merchant fleet on the Great Lakes...

[Molly]

That money put into shipbuiding is not a bad idea...Major employment...It was'nt only aimed at the Navy,but the merchant fleet on the Great Lakes...

Shipping export grain on the lakes is dreadfully expensive.. What do those boats haul? Iron ore to Hamilton? What else?

[Yesterday]

Yup. The Bank of Canada had better start revving up the printing presses. A few billion here, a few billion there, you know, it quickly adds up.

Hi, are you kidding? Giggle, they'll take out loans from RBC and the like then amortize it across a 100 years of taxes for us.

[Army Guy]

OTOH, you have the right idea. The optics here are terrible. If I were Ignatieff, I would get a non-confidence motion before the House as quickly as possible. The Liberals should vote down the budget bill and force an election.

All true yes they well get a hammering in the polls on this. if the G 8 / G20 does not kill them first!???

Why are the optics bad ? Because this government is doing something unpopular spending our tax dollars on something that provides "little return" to the individual tax payer...Investing in our military is a nessicary evil, if we are to continue to make valued contributions to Our defense agreements, our foreign policy, our position as one of the G-8 nations....

I'd like to know what the optics where like when cuts where made to our security appartus, because there is more to it than just DND, take a look at our other depts, Coast guard , RCMP, CSIS, border guards, customs, ....our drive to par down our debt has come at a great cost to all these debts...So do we as voters punish those that are taking measures to correct this ? And WHY ?

I know that there are many other concerns that voters concentrate on, our sercurity is not as sexy as say health or education....but that does not mean they should be shelved.....Canada has done this many times in the past, start of WWI we had a military of just over 5000 troops, the start of WWII was not a whole lot better...it cost the lifes of good Canadian soldiers to get re equiped, trained, to a level where we could compete on the battle field....todays conflicts are come as you are ....History means nothing i guess when it comes to our dollars....and the lifes of our troops does have a dollar value...sad when you think of it....A soldier is willing to give up his very life for his country, and comrads, but his very own people he has vowed to protect and serve can't crack thier wallets open....

Perhaps DND and our government should publish exactly how much it is going to cost to bring our forces into fighting shape...then Canadians should decide once and for allif they support the troops, or they can live without the services they provide....because right now the optics are saying ...we support you as long it does not cost anything....

Edited June 9, 2010 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

Here is an excellent article on our current CF-18 and thier roles they play within our military. It's from the Canadian military journal written by a maj in the airforce. It describes in detail the F-18 and all it's roles....

To comprehend fully the impact that government policy has on the CF-18 fighter force, one must first understand the specific roles of fighter aircraft. In NORAD, the Canadian Forces are committed to provide 36 fighters for air sovereignty and homeland security.5 In addition to this, Canada is committed to provide six or more fighters to the United Nations and/or NATO at any given time, should the need arise.6 The CF-18 also has an air-to-surface role in support of the land forces. The first two roles are similar, but surface support is very different from air combat. These air-to-surface missions require additional training for the pilots, demand different weapons, and place a greater amount of structural fatigue upon the aircraft.

Since 1971, Canada has reduced the number of fighter aircraft in support of global security and homeland security, from over 200 units of multiple types, to less than 80 of a single type, the CF-18 Hornet. At first glance, one would think this should not be a problem with 80 fighters. Yet of these 80 fighters, only 60 are available for mission support at any given time. Twenty CF-18s are assigned to training or testing roles for the air force, and they are not mission ready on a regular and routine basis. When originally purchased, the CF-18 had a serviceability rate of 80 percent. Since it has passed its original 20-year life expectancy, there are problems arising that normally would not have been encountered in a projected service life. These problems often require parts that need to have special assembly lines established to produce parts for an obsolete aircraft. In no small measure due to the age of Canada’s Hornet fleet, the current unclassified serviceability rate is a little more than 50 percent.7 Given this situation, with only 60 fighter aircraft available, Canada does not appear to always be able to meet its NORAD mandate of 36 fighters, let alone the nation’s other commitments.

My linkwww.journal.forces.gc.

Also i've included the art i mentioned earlier about the actual thought process that went into chosing the next maned or unmaned fighter.

My linkwww.journal.forces.gc.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Army Guy

[M.Dancer]

the AK47 is how old? 60 years and is the most popular weapon on the planet and it will be around for another 60yrs

How old are the electronics in the AK-47? What are the maximum Gs that an AK 47 can pull and what do they do to its structural integrity/ fatigue?

[Argus]

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.

That would require two separate parts supplies be maintained, and that maintenance staff be thoroughly trained in both aircraft. It would also require more training flights for our limited number of pilots. and rejigging of squadron roles.

[Smallc]

That would require two separate parts supplies be maintained, and that maintenance staff be thoroughly trained in both aircraft. It would also require more training flights for our limited number of pilots. and rejigging of squadron roles.

Yes, I tend to agree with you. What we are getting is probably the best that we can afford.

[M.Dancer]

That would require two separate parts supplies be maintained, and that maintenance staff be thoroughly trained in both aircraft. It would also require more training flights for our limited number of pilots. and rejigging of squadron roles.

The inventory of the airforce already has multiple craft.....buffaloes, Harvards, hercules, auroras etc....another would not be an issue.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, I tend to agree with you. What we are getting is probably the best that we can afford.

Probably the best whether we could afford or not...

The Eurofighter comes in about 35 million cheaper and is probably the best we need...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/typhoon/

[Army Guy]

Estamates from other sources actually have the Euro fighter as being more expensive depending on the program, and what other equipment ordered Site is old 2006, but they do give detailed discriptions and other links to validate.

Euro fighter UK was at 143 US dollars.

F-35 US was at 112 US dollars.

This prices where based on the entire program, each country has designed, number of aircraft ordered, etc etc and the fact they are 2006 price based, todays prices are much higher...

My link/www.defense-

[Moonbox]

the AK47 is how old? 60 years and is the most popular weapon on the planet and it will be around for another 60yrs...new doesn't always mean better or more effective we could buy more F-18's and they'd still be effective for another 40 years...

Use your brain. Comparing an assault rifle to a fighter jet is like comparing a kitchen knife to a submarine. It doesn't make sense. The AK-47 is simple, cheap design that requires no training and is easy to maintain. It's perfect for third world armies and militia and there's been no reason to improve on the design because there have been no improvements in human flesh over that time. Advances in body armor could render the AK-47 much less useful against modern well-equipped infantry, but until that time there's no need.

A fighter plane, on the other hand, has to contend with advances in countless different technologies to stay ahead.

america's wars have what to do with us???

Nothing. I was just trying to put into perspective what it would be like to go into battle with 40-50 year old equipment.

SAM tracking is good enough now to shoot anything out of the sky just because Iraq or the Taliban didn't have them doesn't mean they don't exist...the US just chooses to fight wars with countries that don't have these systems in place which gives the impression they're technology is invincible...SAM technology advances quicker than aircraft technology at much less cost, we can spend billions on these F35's and Russians will develop a SAM system to take them down at a fraction of the cost...so what's the point of buying them? they're overkill for taking out insurgent forces and even with them we're no match for the Russians or Americans...

I'm not sure you really know what you're talking about. Considering that the USA, the most advanced military in the world, is investing something like $350B to purchase thousands of F-35's I think it's safe to say they're confident that present day and forseeable future SAM won't be able to compete with their fighter design. If you knew anything about the F-35 you'd know it's designed as a stealth fighter, and thus evade detection in the first place.

Thus far there's been no indication that modern SAM can render cutting-edge fighters ineffective.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Moonbox