F35 procurement now on CPAC

[Topaz]

Don't you think its time for Canada to build its OWN jets and give all the jobs to Canadians?? There's no reason we couldn't is there?

[Guest Derek L]

Don't you think its time for Canada to build its OWN jets and give all the jobs to Canadians?? There's no reason we couldn't is there?

No. Go read up on the history of the Avro Arrow. The cost of designing a modern aircraft, on our own, would be many orders greater then JSF. Hence JSF with nine partner nations and Eurofighter with four.

[RNG]

No. Go read up on the history of the Avro Arrow. The cost of designing a modern aircraft, on our own, would be many orders greater then JSF. Hence JSF with nine partner nations and Eurofighter with four.

You just barely beat me to it.

[segnosaur]

I've asked a poster in another thread, and I'll ask you (and any others)

What is the Liberals/NDP's plan to replace the current CF-18?

No party has ever said they wouldn't.

Well, the Liberals have claimed they will hold an "open competition", but they have not stated when such a competition would be held, or what characteristics they will require of any purchases.

And I've seen at least one Liberal ad that basically had a checklist pointing out Harper will buy jets, Liberals will support families... (Not even "cheaper" jets, but they seem to be shying away from any purchases at all.)

[segnosaur]

Watch and learn about the politics of procurement. Specifically dealing with the new F35. A big issue with Canadians. Hopefully CPAC will set the record straight.

ya it's a big issue 63% of canadians don't think we need them...

Actually, I believe the statement in the poll is not "we don't need them", but "now is not a good time", which is a slightly different issue. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-dont-share-harpers-zest-for-fighter-jets-debt-reduction-poll-shows/article1950801/)

And, although I might be branded as an "elitist" (or something similar), it may not always be best to expect average citizens to actually make wise decisions when it comes to military spending, especially when its given as such a simple format. Such procurements are complex; they involve issues like maintenance costs, industrial side benefits, etc. Ask them point blank "Should be spend billions for new planes" they may say no; point to the cost of alternatives, and the expected life of our CF18 fleet and at least some may change their minds.

A bunch of my ex-airforce buddies say the F-35 is the only one.

and right up to pearl harbour there admirals by the boat load who swore battleships were the only way to go...the japanese disagreed...

Ummmm... if you're going to use a Pearl Harbor analogy, you have things backwards.

Those saying we should stick with the old technology (like the CF18 fleet) are the ones that are more like those who favored battleships over aircraft carriers. On the other hand, the F-35 has new technology unavailable in the CF18 (or in many alternatives.) Basically, its those favoring the F-35 who are more like the Japanese who saw the advantages to the "new technology" of aircraft carriers.

(Oh, and by the way, it is a bit simplistic to say the "japanese disagreed" that battleships were the way to go. Even though they did make great use of air power, many in the Japanese military still clung to the idea of the battleship as key. Even after Pearl Harbor they continued building battleships (including the battleship Yamoto.)

and what military toys the forces want and what they need are two very different things...

Yup.

And what the military needs and what non-expert civilians think they need is also different.

[wyly]

And what the military needs and what non-expert civilians think they need is also different.

and the military is never wrong

civilians decide on the direction of our forces not the military...you have us confused with military dictatorships...

no matter by tuesday the F35 could be history...

Edited April 29, 2011 by wyly

[Guest Derek L]

and the military is never wrong

civilians decide on the direction of our forces not the military...you have us confused with military dictatorships...

no matter by tuesday the F35 could be history...

Civilians do decide the direction and when to use the military, and rightly so, but the same civilians who set the objectives of the military, need the top generals/admirals advice on the requirements to meet those objectives.

If not, you get:

Hitler taking a vacation, after the fall of France and not invading the United Kingdom right away

Stalin purging the officer corps of his military, and nearly losing to the Nazis

LBJ and McNamara deciding how to fight the Vietnam War

Cheney and Rumsfeld deciding how to occupy Iraq

If you wanted to build a house, would you tell the builders how to do it and with what tools?

[segnosaur]

And what the military needs and what non-expert civilians think they need is also different.

and the military is never wrong

Of course they can be wrong. So can doctors, accountants and jugglers.

But, they are also more knowledgeable about military equipment than your average civilian. I trust a doctor more than my neighbor to know what's best for my health because he's been trained to deal with it.

civilians decide on the direction of our forces not the military...

Yup, of course they should. But that doesn't necessarily mean that civilians should necessary micromanage our military procurements.

By all means, let the voters decide what overall tasks that we want from our military. (Want to protect the arctic? Engage in humanitarian missions? Involve ourselves in international organizations like NATO? All valid issues to be decided by the public.) But if we say "We want Canada to be able to do mission X", then we shouldn't be surprised if the military comes back and says "we can't do mission X without equipment Y".

It would be difficult if not impossible to (for example) participate in missions like Libya or Kosovo without functioning aircraft without certain technical characteristics. As long as we (including our elected representatives) want to participate in such missions we'll need people with the knowledge to procure the hardware required.

[Moonbox]

Outside of the partner nations ~3100 orders, there still is a rather large potential market. Japan being one of the biggest markets of a none partner nation, with a requirement of ~350 aircraft to replace their legacy fleet. South Korea & Singapore have both have requirements of a 5th generation stealth aircraft, with a combined requirement of 150-200 aircraft. Add India and Taiwan, to the list of potential customers, and you’re over the 4000 mark. These countries all have the same requirements as us, they need replacements in the same time frame as us and they are all hardly third world crapholes.

All of those countries have defence budgets similar to Canada's. Believe it or not we spend the 13th most on our military in the world. Japan's defense spending is a little over double ours. You have them pegged at buying 6 times more fighters than us. South Korea and Singapore combined have a defense budget around 30% higher than Canadas, yet you have them pegged at buying 2-3x more fighters than us. India isn't even considering the F-35 for their fighter replacement. Taiwan is nothing.

Derek go over the actual NUMBERS. There REALLY isn't a market for another 2000 planes out there. Look at this chart and you'll see. Canada is the world's 13th largest military spender and we're buying 65 planes. You'd need 30 other countries like Canada to buy into the program and those countries don't exist. Even if you added up all the countries who are not buying the plane, all of them COMBINED don't have the budget for 2000 planes. It's the MONEY that's the problem. Check who has the money to spend and you'll see there's no possibility for 2000 planes in the next 20 years.

Building parts for a fleet of 3000-5000 aircraft, spread over decades will be more lucrative then a one time order 65 aircraft locally built or the equal amount of offsets.

Also it will avoided the feat or famine approach that has been used for years.

No. Building parts for 3000 aircraft will not offset the cost to the government of buying 65 planes. If we were building ~10% of the plane, or the parts for it, you might have a case. The tax revenue might help offset it. As it stands we're going to be building a miniscule fraction of the jet.

[Moonbox]

Civilians do decide the direction and when to use the military, and rightly so, but the same civilians who set the objectives of the military, need the top generals/admirals advice on the requirements to meet those objectives.

This is a good point. Leave it at that.

If not, you get:

Hitler taking a vacation, after the fall of France and not invading the United Kingdom right away

Oh dear. Now you just look dumb. How do you propose the Germans would have crossed the English channel with the RAF and Royal Navy patrolling it?

If you wanted to build a house, would you tell the builders how to do it and with what tools?

At least you sort of recovered with a decent analogy....

[Guest Derek L]

All of those countries have defence budgets similar to Canada's. Believe it or not we spend the 13th most on our military in the world. Japan's defense spending is a little over double ours. You have them pegged at buying 6 times more fighters than us. South Korea and Singapore combined have a defense budget around 30% higher than Canadas, yet you have them pegged at buying 2-3x more fighters than us. India isn't even considering the F-35 for their fighter replacement. Taiwan is nothing.

Japan currently has ~six times the fighters as us, South Korea also has a larger air force. Unlike us, they also have a wing-nut living next door with nuclear weapons. In any event, such as Libya and Afghanistan, most conflicts Canada has entered into have been of our choosing. Also, the democratic Asian nations are faced with a growing military power in their region with Red China……China is already building their own 5th generation stealth fighter, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and long range missiles.

The Spratly Islands and North Korea will likely be future hot spots.

Fear the mineshaft gap.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh dear. Now you just look dumb. How do you propose the Germans would have crossed the English channel with the RAF and Royal Navy patrolling it?

I doubt he would have succeded right after Dunkirk, but his chances would have been better then mid september of 1940. For the record, Goring, Raeder and von Rundstedt opposed (not openly) Sealion.......Doesn't that also help prove my point?

[Moonbox]

Japan currently has ~six times the fighters as us, South Korea also has a larger air force.

Japan's effective airforce isn't 6x bigger than ours. They have around 200 thirty year old F-15's and about 100 F4 phantoms which were obsolete 30 years ago so you can hardly even count them. The Japanese are also building around 100 brand new enlarged and updated F-16's which are coming online right now. If the Japs keep the same mix of new and vintage fighters moving forward, they'll MAYBE need 100 new fighters in the next 10-15 years and it's no guarantee they'll be F-35's.

South Korea also has a larger air force

South Korea's airforce operates on budget fighters. They're flying the bargain F-16's and old balls F-4 and F-5 (which were getting shot down by Mig-21's in Vietnam). They've already ordered about 50 updated F-15E's to bring their airforce up to date so it's unlikely they'll be buying large numbers of F-35's.

Look at the numbers again I'll say. The markets simply ARE NOT there.

[Smallc]

.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

They've already ordered about 50 updated F-15E's to bring their airforce up to date so it's unlikely they'll be buying large numbers of F-35's.

F-15K Slam Eagle, I believe. Slightly modified from the original F-15E Strike Eagle.

[Moonbox]

I doubt he would have succeded right after Dunkirk, but his chances would have been better then mid september of 1940. For the record, Goring, Raeder and von Rundstedt opposed (not openly) Sealion.......Doesn't that also help prove my point?

No your point is just confusing. You said that Hitler should have invaded Britain following Dunkirk. That would have been a bad decision (and bad military advice) because he had no control of the English Channel by sea or air. His lieutenants thought it was a bad idea too so what are you even talking about?

[Guest Derek L]

Japan's effective airforce isn't 6x bigger than ours. They have around 200 thirty year old F-15's and about 100 F4 phantoms which were obsolete 30 years ago so you can hardly even count them. The Japanese are also building around 100 brand new enlarged and updated F-16's which are coming online right now. If the Japs keep the same mix of new and vintage fighters moving forward, they'll MAYBE need 100 new fighters in the next 10-15 years and it's no guarantee they'll be F-35's.

South Korea's airforce operates on budget fighters. They're flying the bargain F-16's and old balls F-4 and F-5 (which were getting shot down by Mig-21's in Vietnam). They've already ordered about 50 updated F-15E's to bring their airforce up to date so it's unlikely they'll be buying large numbers of F-35's.

Look at the numbers again I'll say. The markets simply ARE NOT there.

I do know what the Japanese air force consists of. About ~200, 30 year old Eagles, ~100 home grown F-16s (the F-2) and ~100 F-4s. Like I said, an older legacy fleet

~400/65 =?

The Phantoms will go first, followed by the Eagles, then the F-2s…….might almost take a decade or so…….only if there was modern aircraft that was going to be produced into the 2020-30 timeframe…….

As for the Korean air force, look at when they procured those aircraft, and then look at the USAF air force number stationed in Korea at that time, and the South’s economy. Contrast that today.

[RNG]

The BBC news website today reports that India has just announce they have eliminated all contenders except two European entries. Quote from the article "The Indian defence ministry picked the pan-European Eurofighter and France-based Dessault's Rafale ahead of jets made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin." So no F-35's there.

Whole story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13233177

Edited April 29, 2011 by RNG

[RNG]

The BBC news website today reports that India has just announce they have eliminated all contenders except two European entries. Quote from the article "The Indian defence ministry picked the pan-European Eurofighter and France-based Dessault's Rafale ahead of jets made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin." So no F-35's there.

Whole story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13233177

This is a test

Hi

Edited April 29, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

No your point is just confusing. You said that Hitler should have invaded Britain following Dunkirk. That would have been a bad decision (and bad military advice) because he had no control of the English Channel by sea or air. His lieutenants thought it was a bad idea too so what are you even talking about?

If Hitler’s objective was to invade England, it would have been easier for him when the BEF’s weapons were on the beaches of France. Again, nowhere did I say he would have won.

[Guest Derek L]

F-15K Slam Eagle, I believe. Slightly modified from the original F-15E Strike Eagle.

Yeah, and that program was started over a decade ago to replace the oldest of their aircraft. Lockheed hadn't even won the JSF program yet.

[Guest Derek L]

The BBC news website today reports that India has just announce they have eliminated all contenders except two European entries. Quote from the article "The Indian defence ministry picked the pan-European Eurofighter and France-based Dessault's Rafale ahead of jets made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin." So no F-35's there.

Whole story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13233177

Likely better offsets for Indian industry -120 JSF, that should bring Eurofighter orders to around 700 and double the total number of Rafales.......The politics behind the deal could be interesting, the Indians also want maritime nuclear power technology for their future submarines, something I don't doubt the Americans would tell them to pound sand over......

Now wait for the US offer of JSF to Pakistan.......

[RNG]

If Hitler’s objective was to invade England, it would have been easier for him when the BEF’s weapons were on the beaches of France. Again, nowhere did I say he would have won.

I will admit I haven't read many books about it, but have watched probably five or so documentaries on WWII. And in everyone I can remember, a military type, politician, historian or expert have all said that if Hitler had kept pressing on to England when the Germans hit Dunkirk he probably would have conquered the British. They were is such disarray. The blitz in fact both gave them time to regroup, re-arm and on top of that it really set the British mental tone.

Or so I have been told.

[Moonbox]

I do know what the Japanese air force consists of. About ~200, 30 year old Eagles, ~100 home grown F-16s (the F-2) and ~100 F-4s. Like I said, an older legacy fleet

~400/65 =?

The F-4's don't even count. They'd be nothing but missile shields in the air. Japan's running an effective airforce of about 200 Eagles and soon to be 100 Mitsubishi F-2's. Regardless, The prospect of them buying close to 400 F-35's, which would double the effective size of their airforce, is REMOTE.

Considering the state of their economy I'd go almost as far as to say IMPOSSIBLE.

As for the Korean air force, look at when they procured those aircraft, and then look at the USAF air force number stationed in Korea at that time, and the South’s economy. Contrast that today.

What the hell are we supposed to take from that? I know if I look at their history they've shown a tendency towards cheaper fighters. Even their newest fighters (F15-E) are cheaper today than the CF-18 was in 1977. Now all of the sudden we're expecting them, while they're currently in the process of replacing their old cheap fighters with new cheap fighters, to go out and buy several hundred F-35's at $100-130M a pop? How does that make sense???

[Guest Derek L]

The F-4's don't even count. They'd be nothing but missile shields in the air. Japan's running an effective airforce of about 200 Eagles and soon to be 100 Mitsubishi F-2's. Regardless, The prospect of them buying close to 400 F-35's, which would double the effective size of their airforce, is REMOTE.

Considering the state of their economy I'd go almost as far as to say IMPOSSIBLE.

Why don’t the F-4s count? Some of them are newer than our current CF-18s. Does that mean our CF-18s “don’t count”? Do the Japanese not plan to replace them?

What the hell are we supposed to take from that? I know if I look at their history they've shown a tendency towards cheaper fighters. Even their newest fighters (F15-E) are cheaper today than the CF-18 was in 1977. Now all of the sudden we're expecting them, while they're currently in the process of replacing their old cheap fighters with new cheap fighters, to go out and buy several hundred F-35's at $100-130M a pop? How does that make sense???

It means the United States is drawing down it’s presence in South Korea, at the same time the threat to South Koreans has not diminished. Also, over the last couple of decades, the Korean economy is expanding by leaps and bounds. This trend is evident, by the South Korean desire to modernize and expand their military.

As I’ve said, North Korea aside, Red China is starting an arms race with the other countries in it’s region………The Chinese are building aircraft carriers, the South Koreans and Japanese are building small helicopter carriers (Both JSF capable) to gain experience operating large fleet units. The Chinese are building 5th generation stealth fighters, the Japanese and Koreans interested in JSF. The Chinese are building new subs, the Japanese and Koreans doing likewise etc etc etc