Production F-35s start rolling off the line

[PIK]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/05/20110510-193833.html

All this talk about being behind and be a while yet before they could fly, well maybe the PM was right.

[Topaz]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/05/20110510-193833.html

All this talk about being behind and be a while yet before they could fly, well maybe the PM was right.

Yes, the Tories will go ahead and buying this jet and only time and money will show if the opposition parties and some US experts where right or wrong. If they are wrong no harm done, but if they where right, the Tories will pay down the road. This jet is not right for Canada, but the Tories will be using it with NATO and the US when they decide which Middle-Eastern country is to be attacked. Watch the cost of this jet sky-rocket with the maintenance.

[Dave_ON]

It was my hope that we'd focus more on our aging naval forces, but this is a good start I suppose. It seems to me however, given the vast amount of coastline in the country, we'd want to put more emphasis on that, then on air power. We need to be prepared to defend our arctic interests and F35's aren't going to be nearly as effective as some decent naval power would be.

[Smallc]

It was my hope that we'd focus more on our aging naval forces, but this is a good start I suppose. It seems to me however, given the vast amount of coastline in the country, we'd want to put more emphasis on that, then on air power. We need to be prepared to defend our arctic interests and F35's aren't going to be nearly as effective as some decent naval power would be.

We're waiting for an announcement on that. The National Ship Procurement Strategy should soon be signed, and after that, I'd expect quick action on both the Joint Support Ship (I expect we'll exercise the option for the third one now that the Conservatives have their majority) and the Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessel. The first three of the Single Hull Surface Combatant will follow soon after, as will new CCG ships (some of which will be armed, according to Conservative promises).

[Dave_ON]

We're waiting for an announcement on that. The National Ship Procurement Strategy should soon be signed, and after that, I'd expect quick action on both the Joint Support Ship (I expect we'll exercise the option for the third one now that the Conservatives have their majority) and the Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessel. The first three of the Single Hull Surface Combatant will follow soon after, as will new CCG ships (some of which will be armed, according to Conservative promises).

Oh really? That is good news, if there's one thing I completely agree with the Conservatives on is military spending and arctic interests. Now if they would just abandon the notion that they can do all this spending while simultaneously cutting taxes, we'd be in business.

[Smallc]

Oh really? That is good news, if there's one thing I completely agree with the Conservatives on is military spending and arctic interests. Now if they would just abandon the notion that they can do all this spending while simultaneously cutting taxes, we'd be in business.

That's right. I in fact support the Conservatives raising defense spending (although, due to a shortage of procurement officers, they can't spend the budget they have now - about 4% has to be returned to the government every year) and investing in things like more C-17s (they may just do that, as bureaucrats have apparently been preparing a proposal for 2 - 4 more), amphibious assault ships (another thing it's rumored they may do - it was in the French press last year) and dedicated interception fighters, like the Eurofighter Typhoon (which they won't do, but you know, I can dream).

Edit: Apparently, the NSPS has been pushed back a bit because of the election and the shortage that I talked about. Final bid submissions for the 5 shortlisted yards is July:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1242598.html

Edited May 11, 2011 by Smallc

[Bonam]

That's right. I in fact support the Conservatives raising defense spending (although, due to a shortage of procurement officers, they can't spend the budget they have now - about 4% has to be returned to the government every year) and investing in things like more C-17s (they may just do that, as bureaucrats have apparently been preparing a proposal for 2 - 4 more), amphibious assault ships (another thing it's rumored they may do - it was in the French press last year) and dedicated interception fighters, like the Eurofighter Typhoon (which they won't do, but you know, I can dream).

Got a link to the thing about amphibious assault ships? Any idea what kind they are? It'd be cool if we got something similar to the Wasp class and got a few of the carrier variant or STOVL F-35s to go with them.

[Guest Derek L]

That's right. I in fact support the Conservatives raising defense spending (although, due to a shortage of procurement officers, they can't spend the budget they have now - about 4% has to be returned to the government every year) and investing in things like more C-17s (they may just do that, as bureaucrats have apparently been preparing a proposal for 2 - 4 more), amphibious assault ships (another thing it's rumored they may do - it was in the French press last year) and dedicated interception fighters, like the Eurofighter Typhoon (which they won't do, but you know, I can dream).

Edit: Apparently, the NSPS has been pushed back a bit because of the election and the shortage that I talked about. Final bid submissions for the 5 shortlisted yards is July:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1242598.html

Adding to the Globemaster fleet would be a very good idea; Boeing is going to close the line in the coming years......funny that no one complained when the Tories sole sourced that contract.....or the new Chinooks.

As for retired Gen. Hiller's "Big Honking Ship", that has been put on the very back burner....they needed to replace the AORs and 280s about a decade ago.......add in the Halifax replacement, and be prepared for screaming over cost, it will make the JSF look like beer money.....add the Sub replacement and you're talking real money....

Got a link to the thing about amphibious assault ships? Any idea what kind they are? It'd be cool if we got something similar to the Wasp class and got a few of the carrier variant or STOVL F-35s to go with them.

They were looking at leasing a older American Austin Class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_class_amphibious_transport_dock

As for a Tarawa/Wasp/America class LHD, they’re too much ship for our needs.......What we should have done a few months back is buy the retired and now sold to the Australia, Royal Fleet Auxiliary Largs Bay.

If we want something newer and larger, something along the lines of the Spanish/Australian Juan Carlos/Canberra would be better suited (And still fit in current drydocks!!!)

http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class

If we wanted to get serious about arctic sovereignty, I'd scrap the AOPS project, build a second ice breaker for the coast guard, if needed cut the surface fleet from 15 down to 12, and then replace the four Victoria class subs with 6 nuke boats.

Then replace the CP-140 fleet one for one with the new P-8 Poseidon....throw in an increase for the Canadian Rangers and specialize some of the army reserve and there you go.

[Smallc]

Got a link to the thing about amphibious assault ships? Any idea what kind they are?

The Mistral class, which would mean helicopter only. It was rumoured in the French press back in January that Canada was very interested:

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2011/01/26/australia-and-the-uk-are-in-talks-on-the-possible-purchase-of-a-royal-navy-bay-class-dock-landing-ship.aspx

[ReeferMadness]

Is Harper gonna commit us to these white elephants just as the Americans are getting cold feet?

My link

The cost of building the F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, is "unaffordable" in its current version and must be reviewed, the Pentagon's top acquisition official said Thursday.

[RNG]

Is Harper gonna commit us to these white elephants just as the Americans are getting cold feet?

My link

Delete. Wrong thread.

Edited May 20, 2011 by RNG

[dre]

Oh really? That is good news, if there's one thing I completely agree with the Conservatives on is military spending and arctic interests. Now if they would just abandon the notion that they can do all this spending while simultaneously cutting taxes, we'd be in business.

If we want to strengthen our claim in the artic the money would be way better spent on actually developing some of the land and resources there.

[RNG]

If we want to strengthen our claim in the artic the money would be way better spent on actually developing some of the land and resources there.

Great military strategy there, wannabe.

Edited May 20, 2011 by RNG

[ReeferMadness]

Delete. Wrong thread.

Pardon me. Is this thread exclusively for war-toy lovin military-sychophants? Is there a different thread for people who can think critically?

[dre]

Great military strategy there, wannabe.

Wanna be what?

If we wanna keep that territory the best thing we can do is develop it... Build mines, towns, ports, oil wells, etc. Not too tough of a concept to understand.

[Guest Derek L]

Wanna be what?

If we wanna keep that territory the best thing we can do is develop it... Build mines, towns, ports, oil wells, etc. Not too tough of a concept to understand.

Let the mining and oil & gas companies build the infrastructure, when it becomes economically viable. To assert our sovereignty in the north, currently, the Coast Guard and the Canadian Rangers are the best suited, and with an increase in funding, I don’t see why this capability can’t be enhanced.

If we wanted to drastically expand this capability (on the cheap), I’d think building an additional (or two) large polar class ice breaker for the coast guard, the purchase of a few long range civilian (hello Bombardier Dash 8) aircraft configured with a maritime patrol mission suite, and a increase in funding for the army reserves to train & sustain ~120 personnel in the arctic year round would fit the bill and not drastically drain funds and personal from the armed forces.

Maybe giving the Coast Guard a law enforcement mandate (in corporation with the RCMP?) might be an effective idea also…….another thread perhaps?

[Tilter]

Wanna be what?

If we wanna keep that territory the best thing we can do is develop it... Build mines, towns, ports, oil wells, etc. Not too tough of a concept to understand.

There are mines & towns there now. Are you suggesting that we put towns there just to have more towns there or would there be another reason for their existence?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/05/20110510-193833.html

All this talk about being behind and be a while yet before they could fly, well maybe the PM was right.

Fiscal irresponsibility at it's finest.

[Moonbox]

Fiscal irresponsibility at it's finest.

I know it's a rallying point for any anti-Harper people out there and a really sexy thing to protest, but we'll be flying 40 year old designs by the time Canada takes their first F-35 delivery and there really aren't any other jets out there that can compete with the F-35.

I take exception to how much Harper has been lying about the cost of the program and whatnot, but we're going to need to replace our CF-18's sooner rather than later and we might as well do it with another plane that will last us 30-40 years.

Nice forum name btw...

[Topaz]

Two reasons Canada won`t get them at 75 million per jet. If any of the original nations drop out the price goes up and US can`t sell a jet lower than its has to pay and right now their price is somewhere 103-113 million. BUT don`t worry, I heard that Harper has appointed Fantino to take this on. Japan has said they are dropping this jet from its shortlist and buying F18`s and Spain is concerning dropping the jet.

[Guest Derek L]

Two reasons Canada won`t get them at 75 million per jet. If any of the original nations drop out the price goes up and US can`t sell a jet lower than its has to pay and right now their price is somewhere 103-113 million. BUT don`t worry, I heard that Harper has appointed Fantino to take this on. Japan has said they are dropping this jet from its shortlist and buying F18`s and Spain is concerning dropping the jet.

Boeing offered to set-up local production of the Hornet in Japan, last year.....The Japanese want F-22, the US offers F-35...

As for Spain, they already have the Eurofighter for their air force, they require the F-35B to replace their aging Harriers......if they don't purchase the JSF, like the Italians, when the Harriers are retired, they will be without naval air.........considering both countries have recently commissioned light carriers/LHDs designed around JSF, I doubt that’s an option.

[RNG]

Boeing offered to set-up local production of the Hornet in Japan, last year.....The Japanese want F-22, the US offers F-35...

As for Spain, they already have the Eurofighter for their air force, they require the F-35B to replace their aging Harriers......if they don't purchase the JSF, like the Italians, when the Harriers are retired, they will be without naval air.........considering both countries have recently commissioned light carriers/LHDs designed around JSF, I doubt that’s an option.

Why is the US refusing to export any F-22's, but are giving anyone with money (hyperbole, I know) the F-35? And two selfstyled military experts I know, one American and one Canadian who flew both CF-104's and CF-18's say that the F-22 is a piece of crap.

[Guest Derek L]

Why is the US refusing to export any F-22's, but are giving anyone with money (hyperbole, I know) the F-35? And two selfstyled military experts I know, one American and one Canadian who flew both CF-104's and CF-18's say that the F-22 is a piece of crap.

To your first question, some fear in the US government illegal technology transfer to a foreign “competitor” (see Russia & China) if the F-22 was to be exported (See Israel). Quite simply, currently the F-22 is the only game in town, and once the F-35, which shares a lot of the same technology as the F-22, is in full swing production and being exported overseas, US manufactures will already be working on the 6th generation fighter.

I personally see merit in this idea, but I wonder if they had of allowed exports, if the per unit price of the Raptor would have dropped significantly enough to have kept it in production for the USAF.

The cynic in me also thinks why flood the market? Now that Raptor production is set to end, the only 5th generation stealth fighter in production will be the JSF. The follow on effects might not hurt the USAF as much (I’m sure they would prefer a larger Raptor buy), but less orders of JSF will drive up unit price, which will hurt the USN & USMC (which wouldn’t have the Raptor option) and a few countries (Japan & Israel) would prefer the F-22 over the JSF, which will also effect the bottom line.

As for your second question, I’d guess it would depend on what they define as “crap”. The Raptor did have published problems initially with it’s onboard computers……..I’ve also heard that the early “Stealth Materials” (See paint) on the Raptor were “overwhelmed” by the extreme speed and temperatures associated with the F-22....another (unfair) complaint is that the F-22 is lacking in the air-ground role, but IMHO, that’s like buying a Corvette then bitching that it’s a lousy family car.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is the US refusing to export any F-22's, but are giving anyone with money (hyperbole, I know) the F-35?

Apart from technology concerns, setting up an FMS program for the F-22 would cost over $1 billion, and would scavenge F-35 international program sales that are already declining. The US still dominates the fighter market, providing cost effective solutions like F-16 Block 60's.

And two selfstyled military experts I know, one American and one Canadian who flew both CF-104's and CF-18's say that the F-22 is a piece of crap.

That "piece of crap" is still coveted by several nations, perhaps because they can't have it as of today. Last ones roll off the production line this year.

[RNG]

Apart from technology concerns, setting up an FMS program for the F-22 would cost over $1 billion, and would scavenge F-35 international program sales that are already declining. The US still dominates the fighter market, providing cost effective solutions like F-16 Block 60's.

That "piece of crap" is still coveted by several nations, perhaps because they can't have it as of today. Last ones roll off the production line this year.

I don't know what FMS is.

Aren't F-16's so yesterday?