Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[M.Dancer]

Not really, when the things cost as much as they do. We can't afford multiple fleets. It becomes far to expensive to acquire and maintain.

I doubt that is true. We were doing it during the 70s....a given the price tag of the F 35....we could buy twice as many 3rd generation warplanes if not more.

[dre]

I doubt that is true. We were doing it during the 70s....a given the price tag of the F 35....we could buy twice as many 3rd generation warplanes if not more.

I agree with Morris on this. Most of our needs revolve around running routine patrols (many hundreds per year) over Canadian airspace. They should be capable planes but they dont need be the most advanced craft on earth.

Theres no reason to buy a Ferrari F40 for driving down to the corner store to buy bread. And if you do the cost of your bread is going to skyrocket. If you start using state of the art aircraft for these 'meat and potatoes' missions then your costs per patrol are going to go way way up... Permanently.

Id take care of this need first... we know we have to fly these missions NOW... TODAY... and they can be flown with 30 - 50 million dollar planes.

That would be the primary "Role".

A secondary Role would supporting the UN and NATO. Thats something that can be tackled after the fact. Clearly we have some legal obligations there and we should meet them. But it hasnt been very well defined what they actually are. F35 proponents have acted like unless we buy these planes we cant meet these obligations but Im not sure thats the case. Has any one even ASKED Nato or the UN what they need most? Maybe they need transports, or armored vehicles more.

Edited December 23, 2010 by dre

[Smallc]

we could buy twice as many 3rd generation warplanes if not more.

I'm sure we could...and then we could have a fleet that's really a laughingstock.

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure we could...and then we could have a fleet that's really a laughingstock.

The only ones laughing would be the know nothings

[William Ashley]

I'm sure we could...and then we could have a fleet that's really a laughingstock.

What if we just bought 10,000 Bugatti Veyron, bad ass leather jackets, shades and gave them to 1 in 10 Canadian forces personal, and positioned them strategically near any foreigners that might see them - throw in a mini uzi and a baseball bat and maybe some brass knuckles. Make them all domestically in Canada too.

It saves face and the jet fuel costs are reduced.

http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=Bugatti%20Veyron&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

We could give harleys, matrix body armour (composite puncture/blast/bullet/impact) with cool studs and horns to the rest of the CF too on replacement parts costs.

sawed offs and white phosphourous grenade launchers.

----------------------------------------------------------

BTW I'm still behind this deal but think we should just wait on wikileaks to release the schematics then build them ourselves - we'd probably get them faster.

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[dre]

I'm sure we could...and then we could have a fleet that's really a laughingstock.

Just a hunch... but I bet when the dust settles I betcha it will be countries that tried to police the world using borrowed money that get laughed at.

[Smallc]

Just a hunch... but I bet when the dust settles I betcha it will be countries that tried to police the world using borrowed money that get laughed at.

By the time these planes are actually bought, we'll be borrowing little if anything.

[William Ashley]

By the time these planes are actually bought, we'll be borrowing little if anything.

and before you ignore the veyron plan --- consider the fact of NORAD.. they need to protect us anyway.. and have nukes.

If their planes get shot down - its a no brainer.

Win - Win.

now you can ignore me.

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

Just a hunch... but I bet when the dust settles I betcha it will be countries that tried to police the world using borrowed money that get laughed at.

Not anymore than nations that try to go to war with borrowed rotary wing aircraft, borrowed heavy airlift, borrowed comms suites/sensor pods/designators, borrowed ordnance, and borrowed light ground transport.

[dre]

Not anymore than nations that try to go to war with borrowed rotary wing aircraft, borrowed heavy airlift, borrowed comms suites/sensor pods/designators, borrowed ordnance, and borrowed light ground transport.

That doesnt bother me at all. Canada has spent a great deal relative to its size in blood and treasure for other peoples security. More than we have spent on our own. But at the end of the day its charity just like all the other foreign aid we give. We should give what we can afford when we can afford it, and we should buy what makes sense for our own needs. We dont owe anybody jack shit.

[Bonam]

I agree with Morris on this. Most of our needs revolve around running routine patrols (many hundreds per year) over Canadian airspace. They should be capable planes but they dont need be the most advanced craft on earth.

Theres no reason to buy a Ferrari F40 for driving down to the corner store to buy bread. And if you do the cost of your bread is going to skyrocket. If you start using state of the art aircraft for these 'meat and potatoes' missions then your costs per patrol are going to go way way up... Permanently.

Id take care of this need first... we know we have to fly these missions NOW... TODAY... and they can be flown with 30 - 50 million dollar planes.

We ARE flying those missions now, using our existing fleet of hornets. They are aging and need to be replaced over time. It's not gonna happen all at once. Even after the first F-35s begin getting delivered to the Canadian airforce, most patrols will be conducted by our old planes. It probably will be well into the 2020s before most of our patrols are conducted by F-35s. Do you seriously propose that we replace our hornets, throughout the 2020s, with planes that are already 1-2 generations obsolete TODAY?

[dre]

By the time these planes are actually bought, we'll be borrowing little if anything.

I'll believe that when I see it. In any case thats not a reason to waste money.

[bush_cheney2004]

... We should give what we can afford when we can afford it, and we should buy what makes sense for our own needs. We dont owe anybody jack shit.

....that's a great answer for Canadian Forces living (and dying) with the consequences. You don't owe them "jack shit".

[dre]

We ARE flying those missions now, using our existing fleet of hornets. They are aging and need to be replaced over time. It's not gonna happen all at once. Even after the first F-35s begin getting delivered to the Canadian airforce, most patrols will be conducted by our old planes. It probably will be well into the 2020s before most of our patrols are conducted by F-35s. Do you seriously propose that we replace our hornets, throughout the 2020s, with planes that are already 1-2 generations obsolete TODAY?

Whatever fullfills the mission requirements for the best price. You dont need a 200 million dollar aircraft to patrol the arctic.

[dre]

....that's a great answer for Canadian Forces living (and dying) with the consequences. You don't owe them "jack shit".

This isnt about them... but you raise a good point. When theres mega-purchases like this going on the money has to come from somewhere, and often other parts of the military budget suffer. So you end up like the US... lots of fancy high tech aircraft, but the grunts in the field dont have body armor, night vision goggles and properly armored trasports.

Dont pretend theyre doing this for the "troops".

[Bonam]

Whatever fullfills the mission requirements for the best price. You dont need a 200 million dollar aircraft to patrol the arctic.

And what are those mission requirements? What are we patrolling the arctic for? You do realize that the origin of the necessity for arctic patrols was to intercept Russian strategic bombers right? You need top notch aircraft to fly such missions. They aren't there to take photos of the ground or to search for lost Inuit hunters. They aren't there to assert arctic sovereignty either: that would be much better and cheaper served by having "boots on the ground" in the arctic.

The point of having a fighter on a patrol, and not a satellite observing from orbit, is just what the name would imply: it needs to have the ability to fight.

And, at the same time, our aircraft need to fulfill the other mission profiles that the Canadian air force may be called upon to perform.

The F-35 is designed precisely to be able to fill these multiple, diverse, roles.

If Canada was gonna buy multiple types of aircraft, some to carry out arctic patrols, others to carry out other types of missions, you would have a point. But since we are planning to only have one aircraft, it needs to be versatile and capable.

[dre]

And what are those mission requirements? What are we patrolling the arctic for? You do realize that the origin of the necessity for arctic patrols was to intercept Russian strategic bombers right? You need top notch aircraft to fly such missions. They aren't there to take photos of the ground or to search for lost Inuit hunters. They aren't there to assert arctic sovereignty either: that would be much better and cheaper served by having "boots on the ground" in the arctic.

The point of having a fighter on a patrol, and not a satellite observing from orbit, is just what the name would imply: it needs to have the ability to fight.

And, at the same time, our aircraft need to fulfill the other mission profiles that the Canadian air force may be called upon to perform.

The F-35 is designed precisely to be able to fill these multiple, diverse, roles.

If Canada was gonna buy multiple types of aircraft, some to carry out arctic patrols, others to carry out other types of missions, you would have a point. But since we are planning to only have one aircraft, it needs to be versatile and capable.

And what are those mission requirements?

Good range, good speed, low maintenance costs, safe, some air combat capability, and a radio.

If Canada was gonna buy multiple types of aircraft, some to carry out arctic patrols, others to carry out other types of missions, you would have a point. But since we are planning to only have one aircraft, it needs to be versatile and capable.

That was my whole point. We shouldnt have only one aircraft especially since theyre getting so expensive. If you have a 200 million dollar plane doing a job that a 20 million dollar plane can do your costs per mission are going to go way up and stay there permanently.

The point of having a fighter on a patrol, and not a satellite observing from orbit, is just what the name would imply: it needs to have the ability to fight.

Settelites cant track air traffic in a large area reliably. Radar stations are better but you would need an awful lot of them. The purpose of these patrols is very much surveillance. They watch for planes and submarines, and they also watch for illegal immigrants, drug shipments, etc. They DO escort bombers away from our airspace sometimes but a third generation or fourth generation fighter can do that job just fine.

[Moonbox]

I think one myth that might be useful to dispel is the idea that Canada can only fly one platform. There are smaller countries out there flying bigger fleets of planes with multiple craft. It doesn't really make any sense to say that we can't either. Having a stealthy $130 Million strike craft flying patrols over the arctic is just stupid. With only 65 of the stupid things, and the world's second largest land mass, we'll have one of the 'stealthiest' airforces in the world, disregarding the F-35's anti-radar qualities.

[Smallc]

I think one myth that might be useful to dispel is the idea that Canada can only fly one platform. There are smaller countries out there flying bigger fleets of planes with multiple craft.

Many of those countries are also totalitarian dictatorships, which we shouldn't try to emulate. You were disproven on your last point, and so now you've moved on to something else. What would you prefer we buy? The Eurofighter? This is going to be our closest ally's main operational aircraft for the next 40 years. This will allow seamless integration and quick updates. Other than the Eurofighter typhoon, there is no option (and other than speed and range, it's benefits are questionable at best).

[M.Dancer]

Many of those countries are also totalitarian dictatorships, which we shouldn't try to emulate. You were disproven on your last point, and so now you've moved on to something else. What would you prefer we buy? The Eurofighter? This is going to be our closest ally's main operational aircraft for the next 40 years. This will allow seamless integration and quick updates. Other than the Eurofighter typhoon, there is no option (and other than speed and range, it's benefits are questionable at best).

How many are being purchased by Israel?

The F-16D can ge had for $20M USD, the super hornet for $55M...

For the price of the F-35, you can get 2 F-16d and 1 super hornet....instead of 65 crafts, you would have 190+

[Smallc]

For the price of the F-35, you can get 2 F-16d and 1 super hornet....instead of 65 crafts, you would have 190+

You haven't maintained or operated those aircraft yet. I tend to agree though, we should be getting the Super Hornet if it's so much less. We could maintain a fleet of 80 while still outsourcing some training as we will be now. It would allow us to increase operational squadrons by 1 to have 3 as we used to.

[M.Dancer]

You haven't maintained or operated those aircraft yet. I tend to agree though, we should be getting the Super Hornet if it's so much less. We could maintain a fleet of 80 while still outsourcing some training as we will be now. It would allow us to increase operational squadrons by 1 to have 3 as we used to.

Those are fly away costs btw..

I would argue against having all our warplanes be of the same type. We need basically 3 types. Air superiority, strike and close ground support. We could do that with 2 but even then, nothing says Hi to the troops like a A-10 thunderbolt.

[Moonbox]

Many of those countries are also totalitarian dictatorships, which we shouldn't try to emulate.

Like Australia, Spain, Poland, Ukraine right? The costs are just overwhelming them aren't they??? Britain, France, Germany and Italy seem capable of doing so as well, and it's not like they're enormous countries. We're also significantly wealthier than them and have more area to protect.

You were disproven on your last point, and so now you've moved on to something else.

Don't flatter yourself. You didn't disprove anything. The only thing you can justify the purchase of this plane for is for its ability to safely strike ground targets in uncontested airspace. For that alone I think we should probably purchase some of them to allow us to participate in future NATO missions. That doesn't mean we need to buy 65 of them, nor does it preclude the purchase of other, more affordable craft which will be able to field in more meaningful numbers.

What would you prefer we buy? The Eurofighter? This is going to be our closest ally's main operational aircraft for the next 40 years. This will allow seamless integration and quick updates. Other than the Eurofighter typhoon, there is no option (and other than speed and range, it's benefits are questionable at best).

The Eurofighter is cheaper, faster, more maneuverable and carries more ordnance. Its benefits are not 'questionable'. For an air patrol/interdiction role, it's a far better choice than the F-35.

The F-35 is the type of plane designed to bash the door in and strike ground targets in the early days of a potential conflict. It's a great option for co-operative foreign deployments with the US, but it's a VERY lousy option for sovereignty patrols over Canadian airspace. It's too expensive to deploy in meangingful numbers. It's too slow for use as an interceptor/inderdictor and it has unimpressive range. Look at Canada and how big it is. Spread 65 planes across it and keep in mind that at any given time >20% of them would likely be down for maintanance. Add their low speed and low range and how can you tell anyone it's a good plane to patrol our airspace with???

[Bonam]

We could do that with 2 but even then, nothing says Hi to the troops like a A-10 thunderbolt.

A hovering helicopter gunship?

[M.Dancer]

Australia has purchased Super Hornets and the F-35