Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[Moonbox]

And if a war ever breaks out where the US actually needs significant numbers of planes consistently flying combat missions and the losses are more than an occasional plane here and there, all the newest planes will start to be rapidly mass produced by the hundreds or by the thousands.

Completely incorrect. There is not a single nation in the world that could afford the losses you'd see in a large scale conventional war like WWII.

The USA knows this and this is why they have tens of thousands of retired planes arranged in rows in the desert. We'll likely never see another conflict like WWII, but if we did, it wouldn't be fought by F-35's. It'd be fought by F-16's at best, but more likely Voodoos, Starfighters or even P51's lol.

[GWiz]

Completely incorrect. There is not a single nation in the world that could afford the losses you'd see in a large scale conventional war like WWII.

The USA knows this and this is why they have tens of thousands of retired planes arranged in rows in the desert. We'll likely never see another conflict like WWII, but if we did, it wouldn't be fought by F-35's. It'd be fought by F-16's at best, but more likely Voodoos, Starfighters or even P51's lol.

[Bonam]

Completely incorrect. There is not a single nation in the world that could afford the losses you'd see in a large scale conventional war like WWII.

The USA knows this and this is why they have tens of thousands of retired planes arranged in rows in the desert. We'll likely never see another conflict like WWII, but if we did, it wouldn't be fought by F-35's. It'd be fought by F-16's at best, but more likely Voodoos, Starfighters or even P51's lol.

No. If WWI and WWII taught us anything on this issue, it is that wars like this are the fastest drivers of technological progress. A technical edge can be devastating on the battlefield. Germans slaughtered Russians at a 5:1 to 10:1 ratio throughout much of the war due in large part to superior technology, whether it came to tanks, planes, or simply having better armed soldiers and better communications, cryptography, etc.

Before WWII, we were barely flying around on tiny propeller-powered planes. After WWII, we had jet and rocket propulsion. Before WWII, nuclear reactions were the realm of theoretical physicists, after WWII, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons were a reality. There were huge advancements made in computers, paving the way for the information age and the dawning technological singularity. Materials science progressed more than it had in generations, with new alloys, ceramics, and composites being developed. Those are just a few examples.

If we had a WWIII, and the nations involved avoided using nuclear weapons, we would see the same thing. If such a war lasted 5+ years, by the end of it we'd have hypersonic aircraft, nuclear-powered aircraft, orbital weapons systems, directed energy weapons, robotic soldiers, autonomous linked-AI swarms of UAVs, military applications of self-replicating nano-assemblers, etc. All this would go along with new defensive technologies designed to counter them. All these technologies already exist or will soon exist, and were a war fought where they were needed, they would be quickly put into use.

Of course, the reality is that in any such war, if a nation started to lose badly, to take what it deemed unacceptable losses that posed an existential threat, they could use nuclear weapons to eradicate the opposing faction. Offensive nuclear weapon technologies (MIRVs with electronic countermeasures) can overcome even the densest ABM defenses that exist today. And new, more advanced nuclear weapon designs are just sitting there waiting to be put into production, stopped only by a piece of paper and a lack of need for them.

For this reason alone (the existence of nuclear weapons and the impossibility of guaranteeing adequate defense against them), another world war is all but impossible.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Bonam

[Army Guy]

I am well aware... I'm also aware of the U.S.'s political climate which will have a tremendous bearing on projects like the F-35 and their escalating costs going forward...

The "big picture" between the "Bush Era" and today are quite different as is the "will" of the American public towards wars and Military spending... Military spending is no longer the "untouchable" it once was... That worries me...

And while this project does have it's issues with delays and costs over runs, the US government has already decided to par other projects down or turn the taps off, the F-22 is one example, The fact that there is not a wide variety of aircraft to choose from is another.....Like you said during the cold war we had the F-14, F-15, F16, F-18 Bombers, stealth aircraft, transports etc etc. there is no where to go from here they are at the last standing project aside form the few Black projects IE UCAV, etc.....

And while military spending is no longer untouchable, and will suffer hits..... it would shock the world if this project was trashed...as the US Airforce needs to replace so many aircraft in the near future....and this is one of the only aircraft in the wings....

Nothing there I wasn't aware of or disagree with... However none of it applies exclusively to the F-35 since the "package" will also include the F/A-18 E/F and any "new tech" airframes, like unmanned fighters, going forward over at least the next 20 years...

Actually i was responding to your comment that Nothing the F-35 has promised has been delivered....The F-35 once completed will incorporate much more capabilities than just your average Multi mission aircraft, but also have capabilities from Jiont stars, EW suits surpassing that of the Growler, have a state of the art comms system, capable of not only air to ground, air to air but sat comms as well and serveral other types.

And while true that the F-35 will be involved with other airframe types , i think the F-35 will be or form a major part in those packages.

The plain FACT is that countries like Canada could end up holding the short end of the stick and get stuck with TREMENDOUS costs just to get the F-35s they NEED because countries like Canada will not have any other options at that point in TIME...

This is a major concern, inregards to the end stick price, that being said there is always an opition, or a plan B, to cancel the entire purchase , i mean there are plenty of examples of contracts being canceled even while aircraft are in the production phase.

I do however think that Canada will stick it out, providing there is a reasonable line in the sand. what that piont is i'm not sure, i'm sure our government has discussed it internally, i'm hoping there is a plan B in place...

In Canada, the Department of National Defence reports it will spend about $9 billion for its 65 F-35s. That works out to about $138.5 million per aircraft. The cost could double when a maintenance contract is added.

Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the author of two books on the F-35, says the rising costs of the fighter jet could be a "death spiral."

"The risk is that as the unit costs go up numbers come down, can the production process adapt?,"

Sweetman said in a telephone interview with CBC News.

Your costing figures are not broken down, but normally include things like training for pilots and techs , parts packages, wpns sys packages, etc etc....

Is that truly something you recommend that the Canadian Government and it's TAXPAYERS should do?

As I've been saying throughout, I'm concerned about what's BEST for CANADA and NOT what's best for the U.S., NATO, or any other foreign entity...

I think that the Airforce is long over due a replacement aircraft, and today the F-35 is the best choose providing that pricing does not spiral out of control. That being said i would recommend the purchase today, being a taxpayer and a member of the military.

I think it is time for Canada to step up to the plate and take it responsibilities as a G-8 nation , a Member of numerous defence agreements seriously, and to stop the free magic carpet ride we enjoyed in the last 30 or more years. I think that this purchase is a good start.

[Army Guy]

No. If WWI and WWII taught us anything on this issue, it is that wars like this are the fastest drivers of technological progress. A technical edge can be devastating on the battlefield. Germans slaughtered Russians at a 5:1 to 10:1 ratio throughout much of the war due in large part to superior technology, whether it came to tanks, planes, or simply having better armed soldiers and better communications, cryptography, etc.

That is only half the leason we learned, despite the Germans having the some tech advantage on the battle fields, it was they who were defeated...part of that defeat can be pionted right back to the tech advantages themselfs....complicated systems, not easy to mass produce, equipment fielded well before it was time....etc etc....The Russians have always known this, and have hedgeed thier bets on a proven method, Dumb it down, and produce thousands of them, shit look at the T64, 72, 80, simple shit made to simple standards that can be mass produced out of moms kitchen....Even the US followed this theory during WWII in it's tank production, the Sherman was a piece of crap, but they made thousands of them...simply outproduced the enemy....it's a proven design...

Today even Russian wpns take weeks and months to complete one veh....tommorrows WAR will start off with a whiz bang but end with sticks and stones....

[Bonam]

That is only half the leason we learned, despite the Germans having the some tech advantage on the battle fields, it was they who were defeated...part of that defeat can be pionted right back to the tech advantages themselfs....

Not sure that I agree. Germany was defeated primarily because it was fighting an alliance of nations whose combined populations and economies vastly exceeded that of Germany.

[William Ashley]

Canada would be better served by a nuclear deterent.

65 ICBM's for instance, anyone attacks canada just launch them where they'll go off.

Make em stealth too.

Its the idea of proportional response, anyone f----- with Canada just end the game.

Forget about this pinpicking of locations just nuke em all.

It'd hopefully cost less than 21 billion too.

Canada doesn't have money for shiney toys.

Edited February 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada would be better served by a nuclear deterent.

It already is.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada would be better served by a nuclear deterent.

65 ICBM's for instance, anyone attacks canada just launch them where they'll go off.

Make em stealth too.

Good gravy...not enough strontium in your bones yet?? You do know what an atomic weapon is...right? It's not just a really big firecracker.

[DogOnPorch]

It already is.

True enough...and some folks seem pretty keen to see them used...which is...well...nutz.

[GWiz]

True enough...and some folks seem pretty keen to see them used...which is...well...nutz.

As you know far better than I there's no shortage of "nutz" on this here for'em...

[DogOnPorch]

As you know far better than I there's no shortage of "nutz" on this here for'em...

How bad can a megatonne sized nuclear explosion be, anyways? I'm sure with a good pair of runners a fellow could outrun the shock-wave...lol.

[GWiz]

I think that the Airforce is long over due a replacement aircraft, and today the F-35 is the best choose providing that pricing does not spiral out of control. That being said i would recommend the purchase today, being a taxpayer and a member of the military.

I think it is time for Canada to step up to the plate and take it responsibilities as a G-8 nation , a Member of numerous defence agreements seriously, and to stop the free magic carpet ride we enjoyed in the last 30 or more years. I think that this purchase is a good start.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

You see I for one am NOT willing to take the chance of Canada having to cancel when it's too late and Canada ends up with NOTHING but a few "servicable" OLD and falling apart CF-18s as you are...

Nor am I willing to mortgage my grandchildrens future along with Canada's by an at any cost purchase that could easily end up costing 30 t0 50 BILLION DOLLARS just to put on a show for people who couldn't care less about Canada...

The fact that YOU are willing to do that means that either you didn't read or fully understand that the F-35 is looking like a very untenable purchase for Canada or that YOU don't care about the Canadian Debt load and it's future implications...

Did you follow any of the links to see what I was trying to convey to you? I think not, or you would surely have come to a different conclusion, OR, as I've stated before, you are shilling for the CONS with no regard for the vast majority of Canadians... Care to have another look -

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=626929 ?

[GWiz]

How bad can a megatonne sized nuclear explosion be, anyways? I'm sure with a good pair of runners a fellow could outrun the shock-wave...lol.

Not even if that person was in one o' dem dar SUPER F-35s and had a mile headstart...

No worries though, if ANY country, including the U.S. of A. were to EVER touch off a NUKE, even a small one, that country would simply cease to exist within a matter of minutes thereafter... Of course so might the rest of humanity on this here little planet, but that's a choice that wouldn't matter, and EVERY nuclear power in the world KNOWS this including the minor players... I believe the term (both in the past and still VERY MUCH IN EFFECT today) is "Mutually assured destruction" with the "mutual" not necessarily applying to those other than the initial user...

[DogOnPorch]

Not even if that person was in one o' dem dar SUPER F-35s and had a mile headstart...

No worries though, if ANY country, including the U.S. of A. were to EVER touch off a NUKE, even a small one, that country would simply cease to exist within a matter of minutes thereafter... Of course so might the rest of humanity on this here little planet, but that's a choice that wouldn't matter, and EVERY nuclear power in the world KNOWS this including the minor players... I believe the term (both in the past and still VERY MUCH IN EFFECT today) is "Mutually assured destruction" with the "mutual" not necessarily applying to those other than the initial user...

Well to normal minds this fact is obvious. Then there's Iran...lol.

[William Ashley]

Well to normal minds this fact is obvious. Then there's Iran...lol.

The middle east can take care of itself.

[DogOnPorch]

The middle east can take care of itself.

Iran isn't in the ME.

[Bonam]

No worries though, if ANY country, including the U.S. of A. were to EVER touch off a NUKE, even a small one, that country would simply cease to exist within a matter of minutes thereafter... Of course so might the rest of humanity on this here little planet, but that's a choice that wouldn't matter, and EVERY nuclear power in the world KNOWS this including the minor players... I believe the term (both in the past and still VERY MUCH IN EFFECT today) is "Mutually assured destruction" with the "mutual" not necessarily applying to those other than the initial user...

Countries have "touched off" nukes by the thousands since the 1940s, with the most recent instances only a few years ago.

[Wild Bill]

Not even if that person was in one o' dem dar SUPER F-35s and had a mile headstart...

No worries though, if ANY country, including the U.S. of A. were to EVER touch off a NUKE, even a small one, that country would simply cease to exist within a matter of minutes thereafter... Of course so might the rest of humanity on this here little planet, but that's a choice that wouldn't matter, and EVERY nuclear power in the world KNOWS this including the minor players... I believe the term (both in the past and still VERY MUCH IN EFFECT today) is "Mutually assured destruction" with the "mutual" not necessarily applying to those other than the initial user...

I wish I could follow your reasoning, GWiz. I don't think it's as black and white as you picture.

Consider this scenario. The nutbar ayatollahs who rule Iran drop a nuke on Tel Aviv. Israel being such a small country, there's not much left.

Why would one assume that other countries would instantly retaliate and blow up Iran? First off, such action wouldn't restore all the lives lost in Israel. Second, would some later-day Obama kill off all those Iranian civilians, who had no say at all in the actions of their leaders? Remember, Iranian citizens don't even get to vote for their rulers!

Plus the problem of radiation and fallout affecting neighbouring countries.

I just don't see it myself. More likely, international outrage would be so extreme as to allow another coalition to be formed to invade Iran with conventional military and replace the regime, while totally destroying Iran's nuclear and probably even conventional warfare capability.

Which leads to the really scary thing - to a fundamentalist ayatollah, this might all be worth it! Sure, they would lose power, at least for a generation or two. Still, Israel would be wiped off the earth! Someday the radiation would die down and the land would be resettled, likely with Arabs!

I really think that an ounce of prevention...

[GWiz]

Countries have "touched off" nukes by the thousands since the 1940s, with the most recent instances only a few years ago.

Tests don't count... And you know that's not what is being talked about... Nor is it germain to this here thread...

[GWiz]

I wish I could follow your reasoning, GWiz. I don't think it's as black and white as you picture.

Ahhh, but it is... It has to be...

[GWiz]

The middle east can take care of itself.

Ghadaffi thanks you for your support...

[Army Guy]

Canada would be better served by a nuclear deterent.

65 ICBM's for instance, anyone attacks canada just launch them where they'll go off.

Make em stealth too.

Its the idea of proportional response, anyone f----- with Canada just end the game.

Forget about this pinpicking of locations just nuke em all.

It'd hopefully cost less than 21 billion too.

Canada doesn't have money for shiney toys.

Nuclear deterrence has not prevented non-nuclear states from attacking allies of nuclear weapon states. Examples include China entering the Korean War when the US had a nuclear monopoly in 1950; Argentina invading the British Falkland Islands in 1982; and Iraq invading close US ally Kuwait in 1990. In all these cases nuclear deterrence failed. The US in Korea and Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan, preferred withdrawal to the ultimate ignominy of resorting to nuclear weapons to secure victory or revenge against a non-nuclear state.

All that being said the use of Nuk wpns has been thought of.

Such as the British in the 1982 Falklands War, A key British Intel operator had heard afterwards of an extremely secret contingency plan to threaten Argentina with a nuclear strike if – as was possible at one point – the British military risked unthinkable defeat.

In 1991 during the first Gulf War,The American journalist Seymour Hersh, in his bestseller The Samson Option, recounted how Israel reacted:

The [uS] satellite saw that Shamir had responded to the Scud barrage by ordering mobile missile launchers armed with nuclear weapons moved into the open and deployed facing Iraq, ready to launch on command. American intelligence picked up other signs indicating that Israel had gone on a full-scale nuclear alert that would remain in effect for weeks. No one in the Bush administration knew what Israel would do if a Scud armed with nerve gas struck a crowded apartment building, killing thousands. All Bush could offer Shamir, besides money and more batteries of Patriot missiles, was American assurance that the Iraqi Scud launcher sites would be made a priority target of the air war.

Many high ranking Russian defectors during the cold war could not fathom western thinking in regards to NUK and chemical wpns and there use, a unused wpn was a useless wpn,according to Russian military minds and Tac nuks and chem wpns were part of Russia's opening acts of war, so much so that these wpns were could be delivered by Divisional level authority....for them it was part of the third world war, and their game winning solution regardless of consquences....

So historically having Nuk wpns has been a waste of time for nations such as Canada....

[GWiz]

So historically having Nuk wpns has been a waste of time for nations such as Canada....

Which brings us back to the issue at hand -

- Last week, Alan Williams, the former Assistant Deputy Minister of defence responsible for procurement, testified before Parliament that it was a mistake to go to a sole-source competition and that an open competition would get the best fighter at the lowest price with the most jobs. In a vitriolic response, Stephen Harper said that Mr. Williams had changed his opinion since he was in government – a charge that Mr. Williams called an “absolute lie.”

“This is the single largest military procurement in Canadian history,” said Liberal Defence Critic Dominic LeBlanc. “We are deeply concerned that the government hasn’t been straight with Canadians, and that without competition, we’re not getting the right plane, the best price, or the greatest benefits for our aerospace industry.”

Mr. Garneau and Mr. LeBlanc set out the following questions on the F-35 deal:

1. What are the defence priorities and the domestic and foreign mission requirements that our new fighter jets must be able to support?

2. What are the roles, capabilities and operational performance requirements that any new fighter must be able to meet in order to support these future domestic and international priorities and missions?

3. What evidence does the government have to demonstrate that their deal gets the right equipment for our Air Force while achieving the following:

a. The lowest cost and best value for taxpayer dollars, with controls to prevent cost escalation; and

b. Guaranteed regional benefits with a transfer of intellectual property to grow the Canadian aerospace industry, including in-service support?

“Without compelling answers to each of these questions, we don’t understand why the government is sole-sourcing a plane chosen by the Pentagon,” said Mr. LeBlanc. “It seems like all of our NATO allies are questioning the skyrocketing costs of the F-35, so why is the Canadian government alone in writing a blank cheque to Lockheed Martin with no questions asked?”

There is no penalty for cancelling the current deal and holding an open competition for our next fighter jet. A Liberal government would remain committed to the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding that gives Canadian industry access to F-35 contracts, without any obligation to purchase the planes.

“If the Conservatives don’t provide us with satisfactory answers, we will cancel this deal and hold an open competition upon forming government,” concluded Mr. Garneau. “An open competition – which could still result in the selection of the F-35 – would provide better value to taxpayers, guarantee industrial regional benefits for manufacturing and maintenance, and result in knowledge transfer to help build our aerospace industry.” -

http://www.dominicleblanc.ca/

Much more -

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=593400

[Wild Bill]

There is no penalty for cancelling the current deal and holding an open competition for our next fighter jet. A Liberal government would remain committed to the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding that gives Canadian industry access to F-35 contracts, without any obligation to purchase the planes.

Does this man give anything to back this claim up? Why on earth would the Americans agree to no penalties AND be willing to give access to Canadian firms to contracts for F-35 components? What could possibly be their motivation? Charity? Or the value they place on eternal friendship with the Canadian Liberal Party?

This makes no sense at all! MAYBE we could skin out of cancellation fees but I find it impossible to believe that they would still cut Canada in on a piece of the manufacturing pie, considering we were putting diddley squat into the baking of the pie at that point!