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

[bush_cheney2004]

Now that I read up about it, it seems I'm wrong. Though I have a really good memory and they definitely told us that these guys were being trained to go over because everyone who went got a ride in one. Oh well, obviously a person in uniform a little overzealous as to what they're doing.

Yep...dead wrong...as in Canadian KIAs finally forcing the issue to the fore. PM Harper got it done.

[nicky10013]

Yep...dead wrong...as in Canadian KIAs finally forcing the issue to the fore. PM Harper got it done.

You seem to revel in being a bastard on the internet. Something tells me you wouldn't have the confidence to say something like this in public.

[nicky10013]

Maybe should ask some independent helicopter experts. We have the largest helicopter company in the World here in Canada. It's not like we don't have the expertise. The factory where they were built is in Quebec.

We would then find out the real reason the Griffons are not where they should be: To fast forward the Chinook purchase and nothing else.

Same reason the CC-150s and Antonov 124s don't fly into Kandahar when in fact they technically could. To fast forward the Boeing C-17 purchase (See: Evidence before the Standing Committee on National Defence)"

[bush_cheney2004]

You seem to revel in being a bastard on the internet. Something tells me you wouldn't have the confidence to say something like this in public.

Wrong...I will always be a "bastard" by design....(my parents were not married). You don't like being challenged...then don't play this game. I am not here to kiss your ass.

I see that you like my linkees!

Edited August 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[nicky10013]

Wrong...I will always be a "bastard" by design....(my parents were not married). You don't like being challenged...then don't play this game. I am not here to kiss your ass.

I see that you like my linkees!

I don't mind being challenged. What I don't like is people deliberately using fallacious arguments. Like I said, I doubt you have the same courage in real life.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't mind being challenged. What I don't like is people deliberately using fallacious arguments. Like I said, I doubt you have the same courage in real life.

Moot point...we certainly know that you can't even manage that much on an internet forum. My "argument" was solid...with demonstrable facts....yours was...ummm....poppycock.

[Smallc]

Still, I think the purchase of at least the C-17s was very much worth it.

[waldo]

so... the latest from Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay, has been all about the demoralized troops... supposedly a demoralization caused by Opposition parties having the nerve to actually question a lack of competitive sourcing. But now we're being advised the Air Force was expecting and was planning for a full-blown sourced competition. How... demoralizing!

Air force expected competition on fighter-jet contract:

Air force officers working on the purchase of Canada’s new fighter planes expected there would a competition this year for the multibillion-dollar deal, according to Defence Department documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.

The plan written by officers for the Next Generation Fighter Capability project called for a “competitive process” for both the aircraft and the long-term maintenance contract, according to a project outline developed in the summer of 2009.

That schedule planned for the competition to be run in 2010, with a contract to be awarded by 2012, according to the project documents

According to MacKay, the government had to move on the F-35 purchase to avoid any gap between the arrival of a new planes and the phasing out of the current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.

But the fighter-replacement timeline, obtained by the Ottawa Citizen through access-to-information law, suggested there would be no issues with a gap.

According to that timeline, running a competitive process this year would allow for a contract to be signed in 2012, with aircraft delivered in 2015-16. Those planes would become operational between 2018 and 2023, according to the document.

[wyly]

Still, I think the purchase of at least the C-17s was very much worth it.

I don't know whether it was the right choice of plane but yes a big transport plane was needed...it has a proven track record, but was it a better deal or better plane than the Antonov 124 which even NATO has leased?

[Smallc]

I don't know whether it was the right choice of plane but yes a big transport plane was needed...it has a proven track record, but was it a better deal or better plane than the Antonov 124 which even NATO has leased?

NATO has also bought the C-17. The Antonov simply can't go into places that the C-17 can. That's the same reason the Airbus wasn't useful in most cases (other times, it was because the jet can't accept oversize loads).

Edited September 20, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

,

Edited September 20, 2010 by Smallc

[capricorn]

so... the latest from Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay, has been all about the demoralized troops... supposedly a demoralization caused by Opposition parties having the nerve to actually question a lack of competitive sourcing. But now we're being advised the Air Force was expecting and was planning for a full-blown sourced competition. How... demoralizing!

From your link.

MacKay’s spokesman Jay Paxton said Sunday that at last week’s defence committee the air force leadership “was incredibly supportive of the F-35 procurement and this government’s efforts to build the Canadian Forces.”

He noted that air force commander Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons the F-35 is the best value for taxpayers and will keep Canada at the forefront.

The head of Canada’s air force calls the planned $9 billion purchase of 65 new stealth jetfighters an expensive, but necessary part of the defence network.

Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps is defending the Federal Government’s planned purchase of the new F-35 Lightning II.

Deschamps says he understands that the hefty price-tag has raised public eyebrows, but points out the purchase of the current fleet of CF-18s was almost as expensive in relative terms as the new program.

“Is it an unreasonable cost? I don’t think so,” Deschamps said.

http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=75322

Are you demoralized that the leadership of the Air Force might know what's best for our Air Force and national defense?

[Topaz]

The Tories had better tread lightly on signing any contracts for this fighters until debates have been had in the Commons. What is the hurray? I found this article about the F-35 and the F-22 and the article includes what other NATO countries ae holding off a bit because of the cost. Granted this article was dated March of this year but its an interesting article. http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=4596

[wyly]

NATO has also bought the C-17. The Antonov simply can't go into places that the C-17 can. That's the same reason the Airbus wasn't useful in most cases (other times, it was because the jet can't accept oversize loads).

I'm no plane expert but a quick look at the info on both and the Antonov doesn't seem to be at huge disadvantage, can land on dirt stips, shorter landing space c17, longer take off... but carries much more payload...not that this matters now and the C17 is a proven aircraft as well...

[DogOnPorch]

The troubles with Russian aircraft and Canada are no doubt numerous...but some that come to mind are:

-All the avionics and such including in-flight voice would be in Russian.

-Spare parts would have to come from Russia...not Kansas City, Seattle (et al).

-Incompatible with US/Euro aircraft (refueling for example).

[Wilber]

I'm no plane expert but a quick look at the info on both and the Antonov doesn't seem to be at huge disadvantage, can land on dirt stips, shorter landing space c17, longer take off... but carries much more payload...not that this matters now and the C17 is a proven aircraft as well...

It has at least one huge disadvantage. The main cargo deck has limited pressurization meaning live cargo is restricted to the upper deck which can only carry 88 people.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Wilber

[waldo]

Are you demoralized that the leadership of the Air Force might know what's best for our Air Force and national defense?

so... are you suggesting that prior to Conservative Defense Minister MacKay's unilateral decision to end the planned competitive sourcing process, the Air Force didn't, as you say, "know what's best for our Air Force and national defense"? That when the Air Force was fully anticipating, planning for and prepared for a competitive sourced bid process... that it (the Air Force) didn't, as you say, "know what's best for our Air Force and national defense"?

[M.Dancer]

so... are you suggesting that prior to Conservative Defense Minister MacKay's unilateral decision to end the planned competitive sourcing process,

I believe it was ended by the liberals after the competitiuon to produce the next fighter and the Liberals signed on to the development of the winning bid.

[waldo]

I believe it was ended by the liberals after the competition to produce the next fighter and the Liberals signed on to the development of the winning bid.

well of course - Dancer trots out the latest Harper Conservative talking point... that there was an actual competition - one where the U.S. government selected the Lockheed Martin’s F-35 for it's requirements. Quite contradicting as there was a competitive process being planned for by Canadian Forces... I mean, after all, didn't they know the U.S. government had already dealt with Canada's requirements and supplanted the need for, apparently, an actual 'made-in-Canada', Canadian Forces driven and executed, competition - one that meets the needs and requirements of Canada.

Air force officers working on the purchase of Canada’s new fighter planes expected there would a competition this year for the multibillion-dollar deal, according to Defence Department documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.

The plan written by officers for the Next Generation Fighter Capability project called for a “competitive process” for both the aircraft and the long-term maintenance contract, according to a project outline developed in the summer of 2009.

That schedule planned for the competition to be run in 2010, with a contract to be awarded by 2012, according to the project documents.

Instead, the Conservative government decided to proceed without a competition and select the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter built by U.S. aerospace firm Lockheed Martin.

[PIK]

so... the latest from Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay, has been all about the demoralized troops... supposedly a demoralization caused by Opposition parties having the nerve to actually question a lack of competitive sourcing. But now we're being advised the Air Force was expecting and was planning for a full-blown sourced competition. How... demoralizing!

Air force expected competition on fighter-jet contract:

Buying russian gear is a dumb idea. The americans would be alot more dependable for parts and services then the russians would ever be.

[waldo]

Buying russian gear is a dumb idea. The americans would be alot more dependable for parts and services then the russians would ever be.

ah, yes... the 'Red Menace'! The article I linked to, that you quoted, offers suggestion of actual competing interests: the Swedish Saab Gripen, the British BAE Typhoon and the U.S. Boeing F-18 Super Hornet, for example. Just where did a Russian entrant figure into an actual, now squashed, competitive bid undertaking - one denied by the Harper Conservatives?

[Alta4ever]

ah, yes... the 'Red Menace'! The article I linked to, that you quoted, offers suggestion of actual competing interests: the Swedish Saab Gripen, the British BAE Typhoon and the U.S. Boeing F-18 Super Hornet, for example. Just where did a Russian entrant figure into an actual, now squashed, competitive bid undertaking - one denied by the Harper Conservatives?

With your selective reading ability you missed this post

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16512&view=findpost&p=581529

[waldo]

With your selective reading ability you missed this post

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16512&view=findpost&p=581529

and with your non-existent reading ability you missed an acknowledging reply - here:

btw, do you have anything to offer concerning the 'Red Menace' Russian gear reference that PIK introduces... you know, as relates to the actual quote statements you include in your reply?

[Alta4ever]

.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Alta4ever

[wyly]

The troubles with Russian aircraft and Canada are no doubt numerous...but some that come to mind are:

-All the avionics and such including in-flight voice would be in Russian.

-Spare parts would have to come from Russia...not Kansas City, Seattle (et al).

-Incompatible with US/Euro aircraft (refueling for example).

the An 124 isn't Russian it's Ukrainian so spare parts come from there and how would that affect spare parts? parts for planes can be delivered anywhere in the world in a day or two, if the plane was in Afghanistan and needs parts how is the USA in an more advantageous position than the Ukraine?...some of the An 124s avionic systems are made in the USA, and if made for export I'm sure the manufacturer would have no issues changing in-flight voice to whatever language was required...it was good enough for NATO to have leased...it's a super long range aircraft why would it need refueling with US/Euro aircraft?