wyly Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 The F35 is a good bird, and we need a replacement for the F18. If not this bird than which one? how do you know it's good? it's not even finished development...a "good bird" IMO would be applied to something flying and proven... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 how do you know it's good? it's not even finished development... a "good bird" IMO would be applied to something flying and proven... Blasphemy! That would mean the CF-105 Avrow Arrow is not a "good bird". Shame! Shame! Shame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Canada NEEDS to open bid to see if the F35 is the one and if it is then we can all agree and if it isn't then there time to find another one. http://www.thehillti.../f35-10-18-2010 There was an open bid, and the only aircraft that meet the specs is the F-35....those specs where written by DND, more to the piont the Airforce, who will be flying them, who's ass will be in the driver seat, when the shit hits the fan....does anyone out there really think the airforce gives a shit what the avg Candian thinks about their first choice....do you really think you get a say in anything the government spends your tax dollars on....give me a break.... When you decide on new furniture, you send your husband out to bring something home....when your husband wants a new tool do you go out and buy it for him..why is that....you want a choice in what aircraft we buy.....sign up for the damn airforce....or force your government not to send us into battle.....until then start getting use to the idea of F-35 flying round some parts of Canada... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 There was an open bid, and the only aircraft that meet the specs is the F-35....those specs where written by DND, more to the piont the Airforce, who will be flying them, who's ass will be in the driver seat, when the shit hits the fan....does anyone out there really think the airforce gives a shit what the avg Candian thinks about their first choice....do you really think you get a say in anything the government spends your tax dollars on....give me a break.... When you decide on new furniture, you send your husband out to bring something home....when your husband wants a new tool do you go out and buy it for him..why is that....you want a choice in what aircraft we buy.....sign up for the damn airforce....or force your government not to send us into battle.....until then start getting use to the idea of F-35 flying round some parts of Canada... and the DND of the day wanted the Arrow because they had to have the best toys...it was cancelled for the correct reasons, it was too much money for a plane of limited use...and reports from the today's DND are saying that this bid was done incorrectly ...what the military wants on it's xmas list is not always practical they'll always want bigger cannon, the latest toys for no other reason than they want it, not that they actually need it...an uber plane for an enemy we don't have, and of no use vs any who are determined to destroy us... F35-an incredible waste of money...we would be far better off with a 100 super hornets, 100 A10's and a couple of An124-200 with change left over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 F35-an incredible waste of money...we would be far better off with a 100 super hornets, 100 A10's and a couple of An124-200 with change left over... Except for $75M an aircraft, we couldn't have any of that. The price of the F-35 is only $5B. The other $4B is for project related infrastructure. At that price, it's easy to see that we got the best for a very reasonable price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Britain is now having second thoughts on the F-35 and I would think more countries will think twice before buying any military equipment because of the cost. Countries are still suffering financially and its real smart to be very cautious when buying. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/10/defense-britain-may-drop-stovl-f-35-variant-101810w/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Topaz, read the articles you link to. It says they're considering getting the F-35C (conventional carrier version) instead of the F-35B short take off vertical land version. That's because the F-35C costs less, and the new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers can easily be modified to accept conventional carrier aircraft (as was eventually planned anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Britain is now having second thoughts on the F-35 and I would think more countries will think twice before buying any military equipment because of the cost. Countries are still suffering financially and its real smart to be very cautious when buying. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/10/defense-britain-may-drop-stovl-f-35-variant-101810w/ Interesting article, now factor in recent hints about budgets in the UK and I think the author was spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) and the DND of the day wanted the Arrow because they had to have the best toys...it was cancelled for the correct reasons, it was too much money for a plane of limited use...and reports from the today's DND are saying that this bid was done incorrectly ...what the military wants on it's xmas list is not always practical they'll always want bigger cannon, the latest toys for no other reason than they want it, not that they actually need it...an uber plane for an enemy we don't have, and of no use vs any who are determined to destroy us... F35-an incredible waste of money...we would be far better off with a 100 super hornets, 100 A10's and a couple of An124-200 with change left over... SO your don't deny there was an open bid process ? As for the Arrow, thats a separate topic on it's own, but to sum up your wrong Canada was developing a world class aircraft that could have put Canada on the map in regards to developing and manufacturing military aircraft...and yes developing your own aircraft is expensive, but then again we knew that going in. Besides are we saying that replacing the arrow with the bomac missle system and US made fighters was a better option...it was cheaper, but in the long run that decision was proven a train wreck as well... As for the Arrow, amassing how alot of it's tech had an influence on future US fighter designs... DND is a large organization and not everyone in it is an F-35 fan, including some in the Airforce, and for good reason, most will tell you the F-35 is a fantastic aircraft, it performs as advertised despite it's teething problems, which all new aircraft go through. a major concern within DND is not the quality of the aircraft but rather the amount we are purchasing, 65 is a pretty thin number when you take into account our current fleet of 80 is not enough to cover all our current taskings...that is just for our defense, not including any out of country deployment...But ask them if they think our current F-18 fleet is up to the job, and they will tell you barely even after we upgrade them... As for the military always wanting the biggest cannon, your right, without a doubt 100 % correct, seeing how it is their lives that are being asked to defend this nation, why should they not atleast have the best money can buy...after all you or me can not say for certain which country /nation/ or group our government will declare enemies of the state and ask our young men and women to destroy...having the biggest stick on the block does save lives, and to own and operate that stick you need funding, lots of it....And in todays world every nation must have a military, even Neutral ones. So the question you have to answer is which is more important money....or lives.....traditional governments and citizens have decided money is more important.....i mean a Canadian soldiers life is worth 250,000 plus one years wage, approx 300,000 in total....and Canadians grow on trees, lots of voluteers... Thats because the don't have anything invested, and god forbid another world event drags us into a world war, it is going to be your sons and daughters flying these cheaper machines, and the bad guys will own the biggest stick....will money be the highest priorty then...it's just a question.... your choice of aircraft suck, have you even thought about how long Canada normally keeps equipment for...so in 20 to 25 years will these choices be still viable...would you fly them into combat... Edited October 19, 2010 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) 65 is a pretty thin number when you take into account our current fleet of 80 is not enough to cover all our current taskings Anyone in the airforce that actually knows anything will tell you that there are 48 F-18s in combat squadrons now, and that there will be 48 F-35s in Combat squadrons when we get them. There will be zero difference, other than the apparent outsource of some training. 80 is exactly the number needed for the only white paper we ever put out in the last decade or so. It allows us to contribute to NORAD and NATO at the same time and still have about 6 aircraft left over. ...that is just for our defense, not including any out of country deployment...But ask them if they think our current F-18 fleet is up to the job, and they will tell you barely even after we upgrade them... Really? because there are articles in the Maple Leaf that say the exact opposite...from pilots. The US General in charge of NORAD said that the upgrades make it his most modern aircraft other than the F-22. Edited October 19, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 We have the longest coastline in the world. We have the longest undefended border in the world. We have one of the worlds smallest population densities on one of the worlds largest national landmasses. For that we are seeking a grand total of 65 aircraft, that are designed to serve both NATO and NORAD and provide national security for all citizens. Can we admit that our designs are not sufficient for our requirements? Can we admit that we cannot even defend our nation, let alone do so while helping a friend? The entire debate is a joke, we should know this. 65 aircraft! A lousy 65 aircraft to serve us? Come on folks wake up and smell the coffee, military toys are not cheap, and you only get what you pay for. We should focus on an achievable goal, not pie in the sky. We need to spend far more then we have or simply give up. Since we cant give up on national security I suggest we suck it up and settle down to the reality of the situation. Lets do this right. Lets develop a plan to defend out borders first. Thats where the money belongs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Except for $75M an aircraft, we couldn't have any of that. The price of the F-35 is only $5B. The other $4B is for project related infrastructure. At that price, it's easy to see that we got the best for a very reasonable price. the last report I read from the US has the F35 up to 125 mill per plane, a super hornet comes in at about 60 mill, a A10 about 11mill...I didn't do spreadsheet to tabulate actual numbers, I was only trying to demonstrate we can more value for our dollar than buying F35s...this like Germany in WW2 building the best tanks around only to have them overwhelmed by cheaper more numerous opponents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 As for the military always wanting the biggest cannon, your right, without a doubt 100 % correct, seeing how it is their lives that are being asked to defend this nation, why should they not atleast have the best money can buy...after all you or me can not say for certain which country /nation/ or group our government will declare enemies of the state and ask our young men and women to destroy... name those enemies...we can not defend ourselves against the superpowers even with 100 F35's...any other countries don't have the capability to attack ushaving the biggest stick on the block does save lives, and to own and operate that stick you need funding, lots of it....And in todays world every nation must have a military, even Neutral ones.big guns just give soldier boys big woodies...the biggest stick is a nuke, and we don't have those nor we will we ever get them, so the plane is a waste of money any potential enemy that could successfully attack us has nukes...and even without nukes they have conventional cruise missiles that would neutralize our air bases in the first day totally neutralizing our expense planes before they fire a shot...Thats because the don't have anything invested, and god forbid another world event drags us into a world war, it is going to be your sons and daughters flying these cheaper machines, and the bad guys will own the biggest stick....will money be the highest priorty then...it's just a question....another world war, you're in fantasy land if you believe a few fighters are going to make a difference, we'll be swatted out of existence by any super power...your choice of aircraft suck, have you even thought about how long Canada normally keeps equipment for...so in 20 to 25 years will these choices be still viable...would you fly them into combat...in 20-25 years fighters will all be unmanned and we will have wasted billions for a plane that we don't need...all this talk of wars with enemies we don't have (and can't match even if we did have) is all soldier boy fantasies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 the last report I read from the US has the F35 up to 125 mill per plane, a super hornet comes in at about 60 mill, a A10 about 11mill...I didn't do spreadsheet to tabulate actual numbers, I was only trying to demonstrate we can more value for our dollar than buying F35s...this like Germany in WW2 building the best tanks around only to have them overwhelmed by cheaper more numerous opponents... The Inspector General of Armored Forces in the Third Reich (Col-Gen Heinz Guderian) had to put up with competing firms in a time of total war as well as Hitler's whims re: which tanks to mass produce. If it was up to Guderian, all firms would have built either the Panther or the much cheaper Hetzer while older tanks would be converted to assault guns (Sturmgeschutz)...instead, there were all manner of strange machines rolling out of the factories...all in relativly low numbers. This was part of Germany's undoing during the Second World War...Panzer divisions with fewer and fewer Panzers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 name those enemies...we can not defend ourselves against the superpowers even with 100 F35's...any other countries don't have the capability to attack us That is why we have allies, for co defense. We are defended not just by the 65 we would have, but by the 1000s our alliance has...and since it is mutual defense, each individual country relies on us and our allies to defend them. But you can't be part of the allaince by neglecting your own defense, and the defense of others. Who would attack us (NATO)? Surely you don't need a primer... in 20-25 years fighters will all be unmanned and we will have wasted billions for a plane that we don't need... and in 100 years those unmanned fighters would be obsolete....progress is not a valid argument for maintaining obsolence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Anyone in the airforce that actually knows anything will tell you that there are 48 F-18s in combat squadrons now, and that there will be 48 F-35s in Combat squadrons when we get them. There will be zero difference, other than the apparent outsource of some training. 80 is exactly the number needed for the only white paper we ever put out in the last decade or so. It allows us to contribute to NORAD and NATO at the same time and still have about 6 aircraft left over. Smallc we've had this pissing match serveral times, and still we don't agree... Heres is the numbers direct from a military source.... 36 aircraft are required for Sovereignty and homeland defense, That is a minimum number.... 6 or more A/c are commited to United nations or NATO 20 are commited to testing and training ( note that these aircraft are NOT mission ready aircraft......) total so far is 62 aircraft.....but the fun does not stop there the airforce still needs to comit an air to ground capability to the army....that is providing everyone of those aircraft are servicable.... Here is the chink in the armour, Servicabilty rate of the current F-18 is 50 percent....and with it's current fleet of 80 CF-18 it sometimes can not meet it's primary function of Sovereignty and home land defense.... So now if we are to believe SMALL C 65 Aircraft will be more than enough shit we have aircraft to spare....yes we do, however, even a brand new airplane will suffer from maintence woes....although it's servicability rate will be much greater than 50 % it is estamated to be around 85 %, meaning even with 65 aircraft it will not be possiable to cover all it's currently assigned missions in Canada....Unless your doing some new math anyway you cut it if 80 is not enough how can we mange with 65.... Below is an article written in the Canadian military journal dated the summer of 2006...by a Airforce major....who at the time worked at Canadian Air Division Headquaters.... Canadian military journal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 SO your don't deny there was an open bid process ? Anyone who thinks these airplanes went through an open bid process is playing fast and loose with the truth. To have the gall to claim that the process where the JSF program was awarded to Lockheed is mind-boggling. No bid was tendered. No companies came to Ottawa to make presentations to DND and more importantly parliament. This contract was sole sourced. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) Anyone who thinks these airplanes went through an open bid process is playing fast and loose with the truth. To have the gall to claim that the process where the JSF program was awarded to Lockheed is mind-boggling. No bid was tendered. No companies came to Ottawa to make presentations to DND and more importantly parliament. This contract was sole sourced. End of story. It was not sole sourse 2 planes 2 companies, that is all they had to pick from, 1st lets get something straight, chretein was the one that started this process ,there was the x-32 and x-35 and the x-35 was picked to be the one, as of 2001 we have put in 150 million bucks.ye So s there was a open bid because they were the only 2 planes that the liberal wanted to look at. How much more have we paid into it in the last 10 years. Harp[er is just finishing what chretien started. We also get to bid on the building of up to 5000 planes. That might be less because as of today britian is cutting it's miltary bugdet by 8%. So their sub plan is now on hold and probably the planes as well. And to say we won't need pilots amynore is foolish. How many times in history have people said dumb things like that. Remember the missles from america, they said we would never need a plane again.General Hillier even aid we don't need tanks, now even he has admitted how dumb that was, they have worked well in afghanistan and will work well in dafur or the congo. Edited October 20, 2010 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Saudis Arabia, is considering buying 85 jets and its not the F-35's its the F15's. http://hosted2.ap.org/ARLID/APPolitics/Article_2010-10-19-US-Saudi-Arms/id-c4a7aca5fa574b32b870e722ca05ebd9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Saudis Arabia, is considering buying 85 jets and its not the F-35's its the F15's. http://hosted2.ap.org/ARLID/APPolitics/Article_2010-10-19-US-Saudi-Arms/id-c4a7aca5fa574b32b870e722ca05ebd9 Correct...the Saudis know what they want and where to get it. No screwing around with political infighting. These "Silent Eagles" would be on top of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons purchased in 2006. They're buying attack helos too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 the last report I read from the US has the F35 up to 125 mill per plane, Good for them, the MOU has them at 75M per plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 So now if we are to believe SMALL C 65 Aircraft will be more than enough shit we have aircraft to spare....yes we do, however, even a brand new airplane will suffer from maintence woes....although it's servicability rate will be much greater than 50 % it is estamated to be around 85 %, meaning even with 65 aircraft it will not be possiable to cover all it's currently assigned missions in Canada....Unless your doing some new math anyway you cut it if 80 is not enough how can we mange with 65.... Because, as I've already said, the number of aircraft in combat squadrons will not be changing. The training is where something new will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Good for them, the MOU has them at 75M per plane. oops... this just in USA DOD has now estimated the cost at 138 mill per plane...probably explains the reports of japan canceling it's order and going with their domestic F2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) oops... this just in USA DOD has now estimated the cost at 138 mill per plane...probably explains the reports of japan canceling it's order and going with their domestic F2 That cost most likely includes all infrastructure or other things. The plane itself will not cost that. Edited October 20, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 It was not sole sourse 2 planes 2 companies, that is all they had to pick from, 1st lets get something straight, chretein was the one that started this process ,there was the x-32 and x-35 and the x-35 was picked to be the one, as of 2001 we have put in 150 million bucks.ye So s there was a open bid because they were the only 2 planes that the liberal wanted to look at. How much more have we paid into it in the last 10 years. Harp[er is just finishing what chretien started. We also get to bid on the building of up to 5000 planes. That might be less because as of today britian is cutting it's miltary bugdet by 8%. So their sub plan is now on hold and probably the planes as well. And to say we won't need pilots amynore is foolish. How many times in history have people said dumb things like that. Remember the missles from america, they said we would never need a plane again.General Hillier even aid we don't need tanks, now even he has admitted how dumb that was, they have worked well in afghanistan and will work well in dafur or the congo. Any, and to this point, every defense industry expert who actually worked on the 150 million dollar investment will tell you the 150 million dollars was to get contracts on the developments of the jets. That is in no way an endorsement of any plane. Secondly, again, the notion that the JSF contest was in some way not a sole sourced bid is incredibly stupid. How many different aircraft companies come to Canada and were allowed to bid? The answer is 1. It's sole sourced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.