F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[waldo]

Who would have partaken in said “open bid”?

I guess that might depend on how the requirements might have been, uhhh.... "managed", hey?

[stopstaaron]

again, there is no conspiracy... I mean, really... are you disputing the Wikileak cables? Really? In any case, nothing like formal UK SFO fraud charges, fines and forced divestiture to burst your BAE bubble, hey?

is he disputing the fact that the U.S is bullying other countries to buy their planes? because the U.S does that with everything and every country lol

[waldo]

Those planes aren't built for the arctic rofl

what's that about the loss of stealth capabilities to support the required increase in on-board fuel to fly distances associated with Arctic patrols... stealth? What stealth? Notwithstanding that single engine thingee? Hey now, I read the Super Hornet has two engines - go figure!

[dre]

You and the others similar to you cannot understand one simple thing. The war is about to kill AND to avoid to be killed. There is an enemy with his sophisticated killing machines too. "A modern Multi-purpose fighter" gives you 50/50 chances of survival. The 5th generation is about to shift the ratio towards something 90/10. There are only two planes that can do that: F-22 and F-35. F-35 is not simply a new aircraft. It's new quality.

Thats only one factor to consider. And the reality is that Canadas side in any forseeable war is going to have absolutely unchallenged air superiority no matter what anyways. You want to buy a plane for a job we MIGHT do instead of the job we KNOW we do EVERY DAY. Its like buying a Ferrari F40 to drive the store and get bread... bread is going to get pretty expensive.

But maybe you guys are right, and the F-35 IS the best balance of cost and performance, and the best plane for us. Make them compete and make them prove it. The very worst thing you can ever do is tell a company you are considering buying something from that you arent considering any other options.

We should have published our requirements and held a contest and reviewed presentations from various vendors. Even if you guys are right and very survival of our nation depends on buying this specific plane, then they would prevailed in the bidding process! But at least there would have been some transparency and accountability.

The government shouldnt even be ALLOWED to buy stuff without opening up the contracts to competition. Even if you are already pretty sure up front that you know what your best choice is, its STILL the right thing to do.

[dre]

Who would have partaken in said “open bid”?

Whoever could put together a presentation on how their product could meet all of our basic requirements and as many of our advanced requirements, at a good price.

You find out who placed bids AFTER the bidding process... not before...

[dre]

what's that about the loss of stealth capabilities to support the required increase in on-board fuel to fly distances associated with Arctic patrols... stealth? What stealth? Notwithstanding that single engine thingee? Hey now, I read the Super Hornet has two engines - go figure!

Stealth should not be a core requirement anyways.

Edited March 28, 2012 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

On and on it goes...they argue about aircraft with capabilities they cannot build and don't want to pay for. Situation normal!

[Guest Derek L]

again, there is no conspiracy... I mean, really... are you disputing the Wikileak cables? Really? In any case, nothing like formal UK SFO fraud charges, fines and forced divestiture to burst your BAE bubble, hey?

So what was it them there American’s owe the Swedes?

[Guest Derek L]

I guess that might depend on how the requirements might have been, uhhh.... "managed", hey?

Who defined the technical requirements again?

[Guest Derek L]

what's that about the loss of stealth capabilities to support the required increase in on-board fuel to fly distances associated with Arctic patrols... stealth? What stealth? Notwithstanding that single engine thingee? Hey now, I read the Super Hornet has two engines - go figure!

And how many internal weapons bays do the other aircraft have?

As for the twin engine straw man, I suppose you should inform the Americans and Norwegians about the “inherent danger “ of them basing and operating their F-16s within the Arctic circle…

Edited March 28, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

So what was it them there American’s owe the Swedes?

Ask Tiger Woods!

[Guest Derek L]

Whoever could put together a presentation on how their product could meet all of our basic requirements and as many of our advanced requirements, at a good price.

You find out who placed bids AFTER the bidding process... not before...

No one else could met the requirements for 5th generation Stealth….Full stop.

[Guest Derek L]

Stealth should not be a core requirement anyways.

Why?

[Guest Derek L]

Ask Tiger Woods!

[Guest Derek L]

On and on it goes...they argue about aircraft with capabilities they cannot build and don't want to pay for. Situation normal!

You probably don’t remember the program that ultimately saw us select our current Hornets…….It was actually worse than the JSF smears……..Same with the Maritime Helicopter project……..We could have avoided the penalties that we paid for cancelling the EH-101, after the manufactures offered to renegotiate the contract in such a way that they would have provided us with “green airframes” then helped us integrate the Sea Things (ancient) sensors…………It would have nearly halved the contract cost, but the political costs were too great……

[bush_cheney2004]

You probably don’t remember the program that ultimately saw us select our current Hornets…….It was actually worse than the JSF smears……..Same with the Maritime Helicopter project…….

Oh, I remember quite well, because Canada nearly ended up with Iran's F-14's. Most of the competing contractors dropped out after experiencing just some of the low cost/ must do everything nonsense we see on display here. The buy isn't that big and frankly not worth the hassle in most cases. Canada is special!

.We could have avoided the penalties that we paid for cancelling the EH-101, after the manufactures offered to renegotiate the contract in such a way that they would have provided us with “green airframes” then helped us integrate the Sea Things (ancient) sensors…………It would have nearly halved the contract cost, but the political costs were too great……

So it is about the money!

[DogOnPorch]

Why?

He's not flying them.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh, I remember quite well, because Canada nearly ended up with Iran's F-14's. Most of the competing contractors dropped out after experiencing just some of the low cost/ must do everything nonsense we see on display here. The buy isn't that big and frankly not worth the hassle in most cases. Canada is special!

It all started with the Arrow……and money….The RCAF wanted the Thud for nuclear strike in Europe….We got the Starfighter………Then the RCAF wanted A-4s or F-4Es for our Northern Flank commitment……We got more F-5s then needed under PET, they just happened to be made in Montreal……As for the Shah’s Tomcats, never would have happened, no regional offsets on (slightly) used aircraft…….Our main requirement in the late 70s was for a Sparrow flinger for NORAD…….That left us with the F-15, F-14 and F/A-18.…..guess which one was cheapest?

So it is about the money!

Not necessarily….regional Pork is always important…..if it was just about the money, they’d have taken the USN offer of used Bravo Seahawks……..Tactics, doctrine and integration with the CPF be damned……Again see my OODA loop relating to used aircraft pork potential.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

Why?

Because theres no remotely likely scenario where we need it... regardless of whether youre talking about the patrols the airforces uses these jets for most of the time, or our support for the occasional nato missions.

To understand our role you have to look at what we actually do, and are likely to need. As far as I can remember bombs have only dropped onto a foreign country out of Canadian planes once since world war 2. We dont need to be all things to Nato, we just have to contribute. A shitload of the missions in these wars happen after air superiority has been absolutely established. This just isnt what we do... Weve been Afghanistand for 10 years and I dont even think we have deployed out planes there.

How many CF18's have been shot down in combat by enemy planes or anti aircraft fire? I cant remember any so I assume its very few or none. This is simply the reality of modern warfare in our context. We fight other peoples wars, that other people started as a favor for our friends. They have to provide the heavy lifting and by the time Canadian planes are involved the enemies airforce and AA capability have been been mostly wiped out already. Often with sea launched missiles etc.

And stealth is useless for most of what the air force does because the whole point is to maintain a PRESENSE in our airspace. We want people to know we are there.

Can you provide any scenario thats even remotely likely where stealth would be necessary for our national defense?

And we dont even have the money for gigantic military purchases, and policing the world. Our government is broke and cannot even pay its employees and its bills without borrowing money.

[bush_cheney2004]

.That left us with the F-15, F-14 and F/A-18.…..guess which one was cheapest?

Sparrow flinging killed the F-16? Too bad, because despite the two engine nonsense, it was a very capable and affordable choice.

Not necessarily….regional Pork is always important…..if it was just about the money, they’d have taken the USN offer of used Bravo Seahawks……..Tactics, doctrine and integration with the CPF be damned……Again see my OODA loop relating to used aircraft pork potential.

See that's the rub...there is no way Canada gets to build F-35's under license, just parts. So economically, it's really about the pork as you say. The rest of this is just a smoke screen to force some solution with in-house offsets. Other nations did this for F-16 Block production, which is why over 4,000 have been built.

[Guest Derek L]

Because theres no remotely likely scenario where we need it... regardless of whether youre talking about the patrols the airforces uses these jets for most of the time, or our support for the occasional nato missions.

To understand our role you have to look at what we actually do, and are likely to need. As far as I can remember bombs have only dropped onto a foreign country out of Canadian planes once since world war 2. We dont need to be all things to Nato, we just have to contribute. A shitload of the missions in these wars happen after air superiority has been absolutely established. This just isnt what we do... Weve been Afghanistand for 10 years and I dont even think we have deployed out planes there.

How many CF18's have been shot down in combat by enemy planes or anti aircraft fire? I cant remember any so I assume its very few or none. This is simply the reality of modern warfare in our context. We fight other peoples wars, that other people started as a favor for our friends. They have to provide the heavy lifting and by the time Canadian planes are involved the enemies airforce and AA capability have been been mostly wiped out already. Often with sea launched missiles etc.

And stealth is useless for most of what the air force does because the whole point is to maintain a PRESENSE in our airspace. We want people to know we are there.

Can you provide any scenario thats even remotely likely where stealth would be necessary for our national defense?

And we dont even have the money for gigantic military purchases, and policing the world. Our government is broke and cannot even pay its employees and its bills without borrowing money.

{see} Operations Friction, Deliberate Force, Echo and Mobile....

[bush_cheney2004]

To understand our role you have to look at what we actually do, and are likely to need. As far as I can remember bombs have only dropped onto a foreign country out of Canadian planes once since world war 2.

Well that certainly isn't true....Canada has bombed Iraq, Serbia, and Libya since WW2.

[Guest Derek L]

Sparrow flinging killed the F-16? Too bad, because despite the two engine nonsense, it was a very capable and affordable choice.

Not the initial blocks (The Falcon didn’t get Sparrow until the “C” ) The two engines in the arctic was nonsense……..The Norwegian’s have been basing and operating 2/3rds their F-16 fleet inside the Arctic circle for over 30 years……

See that's the rub...there is no way Canada gets to build F-35's under license, just parts. So economically, it's really about the pork as you say. The rest of this is just a smoke screen to force some solution with in-house offsets. Other nations did this for F-16 Block production, which is why over 4,000 have been built.

That’s just it, many don’t see the benefits in terms of Canadian bacon garnered by building the majority of the engine components and wing tips for the entire production run, for all partners orders, versus some mythical deal in which Boeing or the French will shift production to Canada or any offsets we’d garner for the equivalent of 65 tails.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, Canada needs something. Airframes wear out. If not the F-35, then what? We're kind of screwed here for waiting so long to replace the ones we have. Telling Bombardier to 'build one' won't cut it, I'm afraid. Since whatever we choose will be with us until goodness knows when, we'd better look at the top shelf by default. No more F-5 Tigers.

Here's a lesson from aviation history that is still valid today...

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

Edited March 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

{see} Operations Friction, Deliberate Force, Echo and Mobile....

Those fall under the scenarios I already went over with you. These are wars in which Canada was a bit player in a dominant coalition doing a favor for other countries. Stealth is not required of us for those operations. Go and read about each of those operations and exactly what we did, and who we did it with, and what had already done first.