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

[Wilber]

OTOH we could show a lot of chutzpah by shrugging off and laughing at their ridiculous little probes. What on Earth are they going to see that they can't pull off Google Earth anyway?

If we're really serious about defending ourselves all we need do is build a few really nasty nukes. Besides there's only one country in the world we need to worry about being invaded by and it ain't Russia.

Their probes have nothing to do with seeing anything on the surface. They are probing to see how and with what we respond.

The problem with nukes in a world full of them is no sane person can use them. A country with nukes will chose conventional warfare against another country with nukes because using them will ensure their own destruction. The Cold War demonstrated that.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Wilber

[wyly]

Their probes have nothing to do with seeing anything on the surface. They are probing to see how and with what we respond.

something they've done a thousand times before, nothing changes, are you suggesting that suddenly after thousands of the "probes" that norad is going to fall asleep and not notice...the continued hysteria and paranoia over these flights are comical...if the russians were to attack they'll come in low under the radar with cruise missiles not aging unescorted bombers...which brings us back to the question I keep asking, why, for what purpose are they going to start ww3? it's lunacy left over from the cold war, which you probably realise ended some time ago...

The problem with nukes in a world full of them is no sane person can use them. A country with nukes will chose conventional warfare against another country with nukes because using them will ensure their own destruction. The Cold War demonstrated that.

what nukes demonstrate is countries with nukes don't get invaded, if we're in serious danger of invasion only nukes will prevent it, F35's and their bases will be eliminated on day one of any conflict with a super power ...

[DogOnPorch]

something they've done a thousand times before, nothing changes, are you suggesting that suddenly after thousands of the "probes" that norad is going to fall asleep and not notice...the continued hysteria and paranoia over these flights are comical...if the russians were to attack they'll come in low under the radar with cruise missiles not aging unescorted bombers...which brings us back to the question I keep asking, why, for what purpose are they going to start ww3? it's lunacy left over from the cold war, which you probably realise ended some time ago...

The various bomber types of the Russian strategic air force and navy do carry types of cruise missiles as per the US. Not that they're going to use them...their main job these days is to spy and test defences.

PS: The Cold War will never end.

what nukes demonstrate is countries with nukes don't get invaded, if we're in serious danger of invasion only nukes will prevent it, F35's and their bases will be eliminated on day one of any conflict with a super power ...

Maybe...maybe not. Assumes a lot goes right for said superpower enemy's attacks. The SOP for SAC re: incoming ICBMs is to scramble all forces caught on the ground using MITO (minimum interval take-offs).

Cool vid...

Edited October 20, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[PIK]

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.

Pick up your phone and give boeing a call and asked them if it was sole sourse. But why all of a sudden liberals are against this, what don't you understand that chretien, canadian PM and leader of the liberal party was the one that started this process ,had 2 companies bid on it and both built prototypes and then PICKED THE F-35 (X-35). All harper has done is agree with him. So what are we seeing here, the libs are going to cancell this and spend tons of money starting over again ,only to find out that is the one to go with, we are still waiting for new helecopters to replace the seas kings thanks to the liberals. Edited October 20, 2010 by PIK

[Army Guy]

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.

And while your assement looks good on paper, in reality it's not going to work, serviceabilty rates for brand new aircraft are one thing, however in 5 years from now these rates will decline....Also you've stated training will be sub contracted out perhaps, thats fine, but some time a pilot is going to have to train on the F-35....so regardless of what they do, you can't just jump into a F-35 after training on a different type and poof your a qualified pilot on the F-35 ....

Also trials and eval's still have 4 to 6 aircraft to perform and test anything the airforce is looking at in the furture.....

And as the article mentions they have yet to look at Aircraft to train with the Army in the direct support role....nor have you considered any UN or NATO deployment as only 6 aircraft are currently assigned, last time we deployed it was with 14 aircraft....not to mention the other missions we are expected to accomplish....

The airforce has said 80 where not enough and i'm sure some bean counter has said 65 is more than enough except when you talk to the guys doing the mission....

[Smallc]

And I'm telling you (over and over again, for some reason) that nothing on the operational side of things will change. 48 is still 48, and it will always be 48. Training will mostly be done in the US, leaving 17 planes for other purposes. You have to understand that we are gaining capability with these aircraft. They can fly farther and are able to do more damage when they get there. The 65 number did not come from the bean counters, and very few experts are questioning it.

[M.Dancer]

And I'm telling you (over and over again, for some reason) that nothing on the operational side of things will change. 48 is still 48, and it will always be 48.

The point is, 48 is too small...96 would also be too small..

[Smallc]

The point is, 48 is too small...96 would also be too small..

Based on? Certainly not the airforce.

[M.Dancer]

Based on? Certainly not the airforce.

The airforce it seems is not unanimous on the subject.

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

.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/roberds-eng.asp

[Army Guy]

And I'm telling you (over and over again, for some reason) that nothing on the operational side of things will change. 48 is still 48, and it will always be 48. Training will mostly be done in the US, leaving 17 planes for other purposes. You have to understand that we are gaining capability with these aircraft. They can fly farther and are able to do more damage when they get there. The 65 number did not come from the bean counters, and very few experts are questioning it.

Just so we are clear, it was the Airforce that said 80 airframes was not enough, i provided you an article written and approved by the air force, and while 48 of those 80 airframes where in operational sqns, they are saying they could not at times cover off the basic assignments such as homeland security, let alone maintain other taskings........most of that was becuase of serviceabilty rates, and while the F-35 has a much better serviceabilty rate now, it won't as the Airframe gets older....not accounting for the fact that they are purchasing fewer, which would negate any short term serviceabilty bonuses of having a newer aircraft....

And the entire piont of this aircraft can do more than the F-18 could ever do, is great, but when you take into account that having 15 less aircraft negates any advantage you would have gained in the short term...that and the fact you begin to loss that advantage once newer aircraft come on the market....Canada has a long history of keeping it's aircraft for 25 years or more....in the end we will not have the numbers we need...

As for the number 65 where did it come from, not DND which has serveral articles published on 80 not being enough, one of which i've provided you...It may have come from the government which has said here is the the amount we accepted on , buy what you can...after all something is better than nothing....Can we all imgine the price tag of 80 or more aircraft....Canadians would have a heart attack....there pissing themselfs now...

[PIK]

Just so we are clear, it was the Airforce that said 80 airframes was not enough, i provided you an article written and approved by the air force, and while 48 of those 80 airframes where in operational sqns, they are saying they could not at times cover off the basic assignments such as homeland security, let alone maintain other taskings........most of that was becuase of serviceabilty rates, and while the F-35 has a much better serviceabilty rate now, it won't as the Airframe gets older....not accounting for the fact that they are purchasing fewer, which would negate any short term serviceabilty bonuses of having a newer aircraft....

And the entire piont of this aircraft can do more than the F-18 could ever do, is great, but when you take into account that having 15 less aircraft negates any advantage you would have gained in the short term...that and the fact you begin to loss that advantage once newer aircraft come on the market....Canada has a long history of keeping it's aircraft for 25 years or more....in the end we will not have the numbers we need...

As for the number 65 where did it come from, not DND which has serveral articles published on 80 not being enough, one of which i've provided you...It may have come from the government which has said here is the the amount we accepted on , buy what you can...after all something is better than nothing....Can we all imgine the price tag of 80 or more aircraft....Canadians would have a heart attack....there pissing themselfs now...

Would there be a plan in place to keep some of the F-18's flying with the F-35's?

[Wilber]

something they've done a thousand times before, nothing changes, are you suggesting that suddenly after thousands of the "probes" that norad is going to fall asleep and not notice...the continued hysteria and paranoia over these flights are comical...if the russians were to attack they'll come in low under the radar with cruise missiles not aging unescorted bombers...which brings us back to the question I keep asking, why, for what purpose are they going to start ww3? it's lunacy left over from the cold war, which you probably realise ended some time ago...

It's true that these probes are not new and there is no need for hysteria but if they don't mean anything, why do they do them? I doubt very much it is just an effort to make Harper look good. Like the B-52, the Bear's primary function as a bomber is now a cruise missile carrier. Although it may be unlikely there is no way of knowing if these aircraft are carrying missiles or not. Would you be comfortable with an armed neighbour you didn't know occasionally coming into your yard unannounced for a look around as long as they didn't steal or damage anything?

Bottom line is if Canada isn't willing to take its security and sovereignty seriously, why should anyone else.

what nukes demonstrate is countries with nukes don't get invaded, if we're in serious danger of invasion only nukes will prevent it, F35's and their bases will be eliminated on day one of any conflict with a super power ...

But they have done nothing to stop the dozens of wars which have taken place since the major powers got nukes. They didn't stop the Korean War, Viet Nam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Falklands or the Iran, Iraq War to name just a few.

So we get a few nukes, that would be the easy part. Then what will we do with them, blow ourselves up? Who will sell us the means of delivering them? Developing our own nukes and the delivery systems required to get them to a target without being intercepted would be prohibitively expensive. The two bombs dropped on Japan would have been useless without the B-29 to deliver them. The effort that went into designing and building the B-29 rivaled that of building the bomb itself. Even then we could never hope to match country's like the US, Russia or China.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

what nukes demonstrate is countries with nukes don't get invaded, if we're in serious danger of invasion only nukes will prevent it, F35's and their bases will be eliminated on day one of any conflict with a super power ...

Tell that to the Isrealis. During the Yom Kippur war it is believed they had 13 nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them, yet in spite of the fact they came close to losing that war, they didn't use them.

[M.Dancer]

Tell that to the Isrealis. During the Yom Kippur war it is believed they had 13 nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them, yet in spite of the fact they came close to losing that war, they didn't use them.

Good point. Almost as good if not better, did the UK arsenal of neclear weapons stop Argentina from invading the Falklands? Did the UK use neclear weapons to expell the Argentinian forces...

And while on the subject of WMDs, did Iraq's known arsenal of WMDs prevent the coaition for expelling Iraq from Kuwait and invading Iraq?

[wyly]

It's true that these probes are not new and there is no need for hysteria but if they don't mean anything, why do they do them? I doubt very much it is just an effort to make Harper look good. Like the B-52, the Bear's primary function as a bomber is now a cruise missile carrier. Although it may be unlikely there is no way of knowing if these aircraft are carrying missiles or not. Would you be comfortable with an armed neighbour you didn't know occasionally coming into your yard unannounced for a look around as long as they didn't steal or damage anything?

an attack of two bombers with cruise missiles really? you think that'll happen...our armed neighbour Russia never enters our territory without permission, our armed neighbour to the south does enter our territorial limits without permission and ignores our claim to the NWP, the Russians do not..

Bottom line is if Canada isn't willing to take its security and sovereignty seriously, why should anyone else.

we don't take it seriously if we did we'd stop the americans from entering the NWP without permission...

But they have done nothing to stop the dozens of wars which have taken place since the major powers got nukes. They didn't stop the Korean War, Viet Nam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Falklands or the Iran, Iraq War to name just a few.

Korea had nukes? Viet Nam had nukes? Afghanistan? Falklands? Iran? Iraq? nope...countries with nukes don't get invaded...you could make the arguement Falklands is British but Argentina sees it as theirs and the Brits weren't under threat so didn't need to use nukes...

So we get a few nukes, that would be the easy part. Then what will we do with them, blow ourselves up? Who will sell us the means of delivering them? Developing our own nukes and the delivery systems required to get them to a target without being intercepted would be prohibitively expensive. The two bombs dropped on Japan would have been useless without the B-29 to deliver them. The effort that went into designing and building the B-29 rivaled that of building the bomb itself. Even then we could never hope to match country's like the US, Russia or China.

a Minuteman 3 costs about $8 million per unit and another 3 mill per warhead...it's relatively inexpensive to develop the delivery for nukes we have all the technology we need, we need nothing from any other country but there are plenty that would sell us the completed missile for cheap, China, France, India, USA, Russia and a number of other countries are all willing to sell us delivery systems....we are the most nuclear capable country on the planet that does not have nukes... if need be we could have bomb and the delivery system in 6-12 months if the situation was expedited...we don't have to match any other countries nuke arsenal even a few mirv's would be enough to deter attack, no country will risk having it's capital erased from the map...

so now I'll ask again the dreaded question that all the war lovers avoid...why are russians our enemies? for what reason would they start ww3 over canada?...

I really don't expect an answer because no one can think of any... it's a ludicrous idea, it will never happen but admitting that would shatter the myth and destroy the argument for spending stupid amounts of money for useless military toys...

Edited October 20, 2010 by wyly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

an attack of two bombers with cruise missiles really? you think that'll happen...our armed neighbour Russia never enters our territory without permission, our armed neighbour to the south does enter our territorial limits without permission and ignores our claim to the NWP, the Russians do not..

we don't take it seriously if we did we'd stop the americans from entering the NWP without permission...

Korea had nukes? Viet Nam had nukes? Afghanistan? Falklands? Iran? Iraq? nope...countries with nukes don't get invaded...you could make the arguement Falklands is British but Argentina sees it as theirs and the Brits weren't under threat so didn't need to use nukes...

a Minuteman 3 costs about $8 million per unit and another 3 mill per warhead...it's relatively inexpensive to develop the delivery for nukes we have all the technology we need, we need nothing from any other country but there are plenty that would sell us the completed missile for cheap, China, France, India, USA, Russia and a number of other countries are all willing to sell us delivery systems....we are the most nuclear capable country on the planet that does not have nukes... if need be we could have bomb and the delivery system in 6-12 months if the situation was expedited...we don't have to match any other countries nuke arsenal even a few mirv's would be enough to deter attack, no country will risk having it's capital erased from the map...

so now I'll ask again the dreaded question that all the war lovers avoid...why are russians our enemies? for what reason would they start ww3 over canada?...

I really don't expect an answer because no one can think of any... it's a ludicrous idea, it will never happen but admitting that would shatter the myth and destroy the argument for spending stupid amounts of money for useless military toys...

I think WW III will be about Siberia and China, that is my guess.

[DogOnPorch]

It's handy to have wyly around with his ability to see into the future.

[bush_cheney2004]

we don't take it seriously if we did we'd stop the americans from entering the NWP without permission...

Fat chance...Canada cannot stop the Americans from doing so. Far easier and cheaper to grant permission after the fact...just as before.

The Americans even have better North Pole movies! LOL!

[M.Dancer]

you could make the arguement Falklands is British but Argentina sees it as theirs and the Brits weren't under threat so didn't need to use nukes...

Nice way to move the goal posts...yet, sovereign british terrirtory was invaded and you claimed that nations with nukes don;t get invaded...

[DogOnPorch]

Circa 1815: Prussia is one of our staunchest friends. I can not forsee the day when they'd ever be a problem such as we have seen with that rapscallion, Napoleon.

[Wilber]

an attack of two bombers with cruise missiles really? you think that'll happen...our armed neighbour Russia never enters our territory without permission, our armed neighbour to the south does enter our territorial limits without permission and ignores our claim to the NWP, the Russians do not..

They are testing readiness and making a statement about their ability to project power, there is no other reason for them to be there with military aircraft.

we don't take it seriously if we did we'd stop the americans from entering the NWP without permission...

We don't stop the Russians either. Do you seriously believe they've never had subs operating in Arctic waters that Canada considers to be its territory?

Korea had nukes? Viet Nam had nukes? Afghanistan? Falklands? Iran? Iraq? nope...countries with nukes don't get invaded...you could make the arguement Falklands is British but Argentina sees it as theirs and the Brits weren't under threat so didn't need to use nukes...

Except for the Iraq Iran war all those wars involved at least one country that had nukes, sometimes more than one. Israel had nukes in 1973, it didn't stop them from being invaded.

a Minuteman 3 costs about $8 million per unit and another 3 mill per warhead...it's relatively inexpensive to develop the delivery for nukes we have all the technology we need, we need nothing from any other country but there are plenty that would sell us the completed missile for cheap, China, France, India, USA, Russia and a number of other countries are all willing to sell us delivery systems....we are the most nuclear capable country on the planet that does not have nukes... if need be we could have bomb and the delivery system in 6-12 months if the situation was expedited...we don't have to match any other countries nuke arsenal even a few mirv's would be enough to deter attack, no country will risk having it's capital erased from the map...

Good luck trying to buy Minutemen from the US or a delivery system from any other country that would let you land a bomb on their heads. Not unless they maintained ultimate control over the warheads and how they are used. The British don't own the Trident missiles their subs carry.

It kills me how many of you peace nicks think we should join the nuclear weapons club for no other reason than you believe it is cheap.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Wilber

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why have nukes at all? If you have them you might have to use them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why have nukes at all? If you have them you might have to use them.

We did. Next....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We did. Next....

We are not in the same league BC, Canada has no business with nukes, none at all.

[Wilber]

We are not in the same league BC, Canada has no business with nukes, none at all.

Hear, Hear.