F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[segnosaur]

Maybe you think you know but I don't believe you do. There is all kinds of guessing about the capabilities of the Russians and the Chinese. Even if there are people in the know, I don't trust any information they release. They will overstate the other guys capabilities to get the population to support higher military spending or understate them to avoid panic.

Remember, the Russians want to sell military hardware. That would actually give them an incentive to do exactly the opposite of what you mentioned... understate the capabilities of the F35 and overhype their own hardware.

And we do actually have a good window into how the Russians and Chinese are doing. Russia is (sort of) a democracy, and since they were developing their stealth plane in tandem with the Indians we can tell from India how the work was going (hint: it sucked).

China is not exactly a democracy, but even then we know about their problems developing their own stealth technology.

I have to say that I think the main factor to consider is that we have a credible deterrent so that we don't wind up fighting the Russians.

I doubt that any military force that Canada can field would be a proper deterrent to the Russians in the event of an all-out war. The best we can do is patrol our territory, and watch out for stray airliners and the occasional incursion into our air space.

My main concern with buying these planes is that they wind up fighting all kinds of wars where the argument that they are making me safer is really iffy. And the argument that they are actually making me less safe is more convincing.

You are assuming that those people we are engaging in Syria, Afghanistan, etc. have at least some rational for deciding who the "enemy" is.

They're idiots.

I suspect they would target Canada even if we decided to never venture outside our borders.

That's why I would be much more comfortable with a plane that is designed for air defence and not so much for attacking another country.

Not sure what type of plane you would think is for 'defense only', since in this day and age, pretty much every fighter would be considered multi-role.

[ReeferMadness]

The Chinese are still incapable of designing their own military engines, relying still on Russian produced engines. Their latest domestic fighter uses Russian engines from the 70s/80s, engines that the West knows inside and out (Many of the Soviet’s former allies are now in NATO), as such are able to determine the aircraft’s performance based on its size and aerodynamic shape, coupled with the engines…….

The Russians aren’t much better, but in fairness, their latest developments can be expected to be a least on par with current Western 4^th and 4.5 generation aircraft.

This is bringing me back to the intent of my original question - what is the F35 intended to do?

I think there are two roles. The first is to provide a deterrent to Russians/Chinese/whoever else for our own airspace. Based on what you've just said, It sounds like there might be less expensive alternatives to the F-35 that would do that.

The second is to fight in wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. I'm not convinced it makes us safer to fight in these wars and I'm not sure why we need stealth fighters to do it.

What am I missing?

Edited September 22, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[bush_cheney2004]

The number of combat kills for the F-35 is zero. Want me to count again?

Then it is doing just as well as the Russian and Chinese "stealth fighters".

Edited September 22, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[ReeferMadness]

I doubt that any military force that Canada can field would be a proper deterrent to the Russians in the event of an all-out war. The best we can do is patrol our territory, and watch out for stray airliners and the occasional incursion into our air space.

I agree that we're not going to win an all-out war with Russia or China. That's not the point. The point is we can raise the stakes sufficiently that they don't just set up camp on Baffin Island and thumb their noses at us. Also, we contribute to the air defence of North America.

You are assuming that those people we are engaging in Syria, Afghanistan, etc. have at least some rational for deciding who the "enemy" is.

They're idiots.

I suspect they would target Canada even if we decided to never venture outside our borders.

I think you are falling into the trap of caricaturing Muslims. They have religious fanatics, to be sure. We also have Christian fundamentalists who are also fanatics. So, let's not go overboard.

I agree with Gwynne Dyer who believes that when we attack Muslim countries, we help recruit more fanatics. If you think that spending billions fighting wars and killing people in 3rd world countries makes us safer, I think the onus should be on you to present some evidence that it does. It seems like there is a huge tendency to send soldiers into every situation. And I think history shows that external interference has caused a lot of the problems to start with.

I think that the "war on terror" has been an abysmal failure if the aim was to make the world safer. I find it odd that the same people who would moan about the burden to taxpayers when it comes to spending millions on foreign aid are suddenly all in when it comes to spending billions on conducting wars in other countries.

[Derek 2.0]

This is bringing me back to my original question - what is the F35 intended to do?

I think there are two roles. The first is to provide a deterrent to Russians/Chinese/whoever else for our own airspace. Based on what you've just said, It sounds like there might be less expensive alternatives to the F-35 that would do that.

Well no, there isn't, as we can expect our Hornet replacement to be in service until the 2050-2060 time frame. Though the West currently has a generation+ on the Russians/Chineses, they won't remain stagnant. Purchasing a slightly cheaper F-16 or Super Hornet today won't offer any form of deterrence in the later 2020s and beyond......anymore than an aircraft from the Korean War era would today.

The second is to fight in wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. I'm not convinced it makes us safer to fight in these wars and I'm not sure why we need stealth fighters to do it.

What am I missing?

That is a matter of foreign policy, inversely, we could very much so end-up in a war in the decades ahead that we won’t have a choice on. When we purchased our current Hornets in the early 80s we expected their intended use to be defending Canada from Soviet bombers and fighting on a nuclear battlefield amongst the ruins of once what was Western Europe…….no one then would have expected their usage as historic.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[ReeferMadness]

Then it is doing just as well as the Russian and Chinese "stealth fighters".

Agreed. It looks like we have parity.

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed. It looks like we have parity.

Parity is for losers when the shooting starts.

[ReeferMadness]

Well no, there isn't, as we can expect our Hornet replacement to be in service until the 2050-2060 time frame. Though the West currently has a generation+ on the Russians/Chineses, they won't remain stagnant. Purchasing a slightly cheaper F-16 or Super Hornet today won't offer any form of deterrence in the later 2020s and beyond......anymore than an aircraft from the Korean War era would today.

Maybe now isn't the best time to be making this decision. It sounds like the Americans have twisted arms to get everyone to commit to one choice, eliminating the competition. Is that why the F-35 is so expensive?

Any way to extend the lives of the current birds while the smoke clears?

[Smallc]

Any way to extend the lives of the current birds while the smoke clears?

The F-18s are being life extended until 2025, which means we need a choice made by about 2020.

[Army Guy]

I agree with Gwynne Dyer who believes that when we attack Muslim countries, we help recruit more fanatics. If you think that spending billions fighting wars and killing people in 3rd world countries makes us safer, I think the onus should be on you to present some evidence that it does. It seems like there is a huge tendency to send soldiers into every situation. And I think history shows that external interference has caused a lot of the problems to start with.

I think that the "war on terror" has been an abysmal failure if the aim was to make the world safer. I find it odd that the same people who would moan about the burden to taxpayers when it comes to spending millions on foreign aid are suddenly all in when it comes to spending billions on conducting wars in other countries.

I think Gwynne Dyer is a good military historian, but his opinion here has some flaws. it does not take into account that the average Afghan citizen was more than happy to see the taliban get pushed out....more than happy to see NATO troops on the ground, providing a much safer quality of life....

While according to Dyer it is what the terrorist want western interference to boost recruiting numbers......let me ask this, the Taliban controlled 3/4 of afghan they had established control over most of the 32 million Afghan citizens, and were living out their own twisted version of Islam....they could do what ever they wanted with no fear of outside interference......SO how would the benefit from kicking the hornets nest , It was'nt for more recruits, they already had as many as they wanted....it wasn't because they want the US attention.....they had nothing to gain and everything to lose.....

You mention NATO attacks and actions creating more terrorist, it is true, i 100 % agree that those actions did cause some to convert sides....but your way of thinking is a double edge sword.....you see 80 % of Afghans killed were done by terrorist forces....And NATO had plenty of Afghans lined up will to assist us in our endeavours, Afghan army had more recruits than it could train....and still does....but that fact gets swept under the table....

And while i respect Mr Dyer, i'm pretty sure he did not wonder the streets of Afghan and talk to actual people, who would pull you off the street and offer up the last of their bread and Kai.....and thank you over and over again for getting rid of the taliban, for making their streets safer....

How does this make us safer ? ....How does having a group like the taliban in the world make us better human beings, how does turning your head when they were killing thousands how does that make us better human beings....it is not our problem....your right it is not, here we had a chance to help the people of Afghan live a normal life....a safer world to rise their children in.....we took that chance, instead of burying your heads up our own asses because we don't want to have blood on our hands.....and yet we are happy just not thinking about afghan, we know whats going on i don't want to think of it....Hockey is on tonight.........until a picture shows up in the media....then.... then we can wake up, and make it an issue....we have to do something.....they cry....but that is all they see, the killing continues....and all we can do is send them parkas, and boxes with teddy bears in them....

[Big Guy]

To segnosaur - You stated "Like I said, I'm not saying Afghanistan is a wonderful place to live now. Its just better than it was."

Big Guy stated - "Do you really think the average citizen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya et al are safer to-day than they were before Western intervention?

segnosaur - Yup.

I will not argue with that point - BUT - 4 million refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya et al - might!

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe now isn't the best time to be making this decision. It sounds like the Americans have twisted arms to get everyone to commit to one choice, eliminating the competition. Is that why the F-35 is so expensive?

No, I wouldn’t consider it American arm twisting, quite the opposite. The JSF program, started under Clinton, was a realization that not only the Americans, but many of their allies, could no longer afford to go it alone. Hence why the JSF is comprised of international partners (US, UK, the Dutch, Italians, Turks, Australians, Norwegians, Danes and Canada) all contributing varying levels in the aircraft’s design and development, in return, each nations aerospace industry receives a workshare based on initial investment.

Canadian industry has already received (in terms of dollars) more than we invested in terms of work, with various Canadian companies already contracted to make portions of the aircraft for the entire production run, from engine parts produced in Quebec, to the drogue chute in Ontario, and portions of the wings and the flight training simulator made in British Columbia. Likewise, Canada will also likely house one of the international training centers for all the partner nations, similar to how we do flight training today and have in the past, hosted low level flight training for our NATO partners (the Geography of Canada shares a resemblance to that of Russia)

The aircraft itself aside, the benefits to the Canadian aerospace and hi-tech industries couldn’t be matched by any other selection, as no other program has the possibility of growth as the F-35, based on production alone.

Any way to extend the lives of the current birds while the smoke clears?

Not really, as we’ve done it already and are looking to do it again to push the aircraft out to the mid-2020s (when the replacement is expected to be fully in service). It comes down to airframe fatigue on each individual aircraft, we’ve already retired some aircraft that are no longer fit for service, some will go in the next few years, and some could potentially still be air worthy once the new aircraft is in service….

Some of this is a reflection on luck, and some on how our air force uses aircraft. As an internal rule, some aircraft were used hard and put away wet (those typically used for training), some have been used moderately and some with little relative use, ensuring a portion of the fleet is always mission ready. For comparison sake, we purchased our Hornets the same time as the USN, USMC, Australians and Spanish. The USN has already retired their Hornets of similar vintage (The airframes don’t last as long in a maritime environment and landing on aircraft carriers), the Marines are retiring their oldest Hornets as we speak, replacing them with the F-35B. The RAAF will have replaced their Hornets, with the F-35A, by about the end of this decade and the Spanish (which have the newest of the oldest vintage Hornets) had bought additional Hornets in the later 90s and are slowly replacing their fleet with the Eurofighter.

To answer your question, no, the Hornets won’t last much longer and our current fleet’s numbers will gradually be reduced in the coming years as aircraft are no longer air worthy…….this is but a reflection on high performance aircraft, the fly in a very stressful nature (to the aircraft), that only have a finite lifespan.

[Big Guy]

To segnosaur - You stated "Like I said, I'm not saying Afghanistan is a wonderful place to live now. Its just better than it was."

How do you explain these 3 million?:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/09/afghanistan-refugee-crisis-150915073827019.html

[Army Guy]

Could it be that NATO has left afghan, along with it , it's funding, and aid......or could it be this is a result in our cut and run tactics......Canadians grew tired of the war, even when the job was not finished......

With the US-led NATO invasion, the unseating of the Taliban, and the establishment of a democratic system at the end of 2001, many Afghans returned to their homeland, bringing back their education acquired in exile, and their global experience.

The international involvement has produced a new generation of educated, skilled and socially aware Afghans. It has also created aspirations for a better life, desire for economic prosperity, and expectations for the basic necessities of life.

A generation that was allowed to sample the sweet taste of possibilities, freedom, rights and relative stability, is now dodging explosions and suicide attacks.

In the first half of 2015, the United Nations reported that almost 5,000 civilian casualties were due to Taliban attacks and improvised explosives.

Psychological repercussions

Intensified violence also affects access to education, healthcare, justice, and economic activity, not to mention profound psychological repercussions.

Unemployment has reached record heights. Domestic and foreign investments have halted, and the flight of capital is becoming a critical issue. Projects attached to international aid - one of the largest sources of employment in the past decade - have, for the most part, shut down or been placed in hibernation.

The world is also pushing Afghanistan to reach a peace deal with its foes. The recent Taliban splits, increased ISIL presence, and other regional terrorist group activities, along with Pakistan's continued disingenuity have all further complicated the peace process.

The nascent Afghan National Security Forces have performed remarkably well, but without international military assistance, Afghanistan’s war against terrorism and peace efforts will be futile.

Germany and other Western states may show generosity in accepting refugees, but unless the world revamps the Afghan economy and seriously engages in the restoration of security, the brain drain will gravely reverse the trillion-dollar global effort in rehabilitating and stabilising Afghanistan.

[Wilber]

1. It seems like the big feature for the F35 is the stealth feature. Is stealth critical for home air defence? Or is this really more for invading someone else's airspace?

   Ever since air combat started during WWI, the guy who sees the other guy first almost always wins. Stealth is just the next step in gaining an advantage when it comes to seeing the other guy first.

Despite its issues the F-35 is the fighter of the future. The Super Hornet is a good aircraft but it is previous generation technology. The F-35 will continue to be developed over the next 30 or 40 years and if the F-18 is a guide, we will be using the F-35 for 40 years . The Super Hornet will not. My concern is that if the Liberals do get off their asses and actually replace the F-18 (questionable) with Super Hornets, we will end up replacing them in 20 years with guess what? The F-35 because that is what everyone else will be using.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Wilber

[ReeferMadness]

I think Gwynne Dyer is

---SNIP---

....and all we can do is send them parkas, and boxes with teddy bears in them....

I don't have time to respond to all of this point by point. I will say this:

It's been almost 15 years since the attack on Afghanistan. The Taliban is still there. Al Qaeda is still there. Islam extremists don't seem to be diminished a bit. We've been fighting this almost 3 times as long as WWII. Sooner or later, you need to admit that what you're doing isn't working and it's making things worse.

And history didn't begin September 11, 2001. The countries that are in the worst shape are not surprisingly in regions that have been batted around like pawns by the the US, the USSR, Britain and other powers. International politics is a cesspool of hypocrisy.

The situation in Syria is now truly bizarre. We have a situation where we want both major combatants (Assad and ISIS) to lose. And it seems most people want the resulting refugees just to go away.

The solutions will need to come from the local people. If we really want to help, we need to find a way to make that happen.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[Argus]

The F-18s are being life extended until 2025, which means we need a choice made by about 2020.

Well then, you better hope Trudeau doesn't get in. Because it sounds like he's following Chretien's playbook. I seem to recall Chretien said they'd restart the competition, and guess what happened? The same helicopter won. No way was Chretien going to buy the helicopter he'd dismissed as an unnecessary Cadillac, though, so the military got nothing.

The European planes appear to be more expensive, and the super hornet is just about the same, if not more, and they are all using 1980s and 1990s technology. How does anyone think these choices make sense?

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper attempted to react to Trudeau's announcement he would cancel the F 35 by trying to spread fear about losing $630 million worth of contracts related to production (none of which are signed he neglected to mention) and the associated jobs. Turns out he was a little premature (I'm being kind)and got caught out again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/23/pentagon-official-casts-more-doubt-on-harper-s-dire-f-35-industry-warning_n_8184638.html

[Derek 2.0]

Harper attempted to react to Trudeau's announcement he would cancel the F 35 by trying to spread fear about losing $630 million worth of contracts related to production (none of which are signed he neglected to mention) and the associated jobs. Turns out he was a little premature (I'm being kind)and got caught out again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/23/pentagon-official-casts-more-doubt-on-harper-s-dire-f-35-industry-warning_n_8184638.html

Reread your link and the quote of Kendall:

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence for acquisition, told reporters in Fort Worth, Tex., on Tuesday that he can't see why the existing $637 million in contracts wouldn't remain with Canadian firms.

"I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don't see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada buys jets or not," Kendall was quoted as saying by the web site DefenceNews.

"We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program."

Existing programs, that are already producing parts for current LRIP orders wouldn't be halted, he speaks nothing though of the far larger future production orders for the next ~25 years. As noted by Canadian industry itself:

In a statement released today, the Canadian Joint Industry Group says existing "opportunities and future technological advancements will be in jeopardy" if the plan to buy 65 F-35 fighters is scrubbed.

The federal government estimated earlier this year that 33 Canadian companies were working on the program, bringing in an estimated $637 million per year in revenue, but the industry group says the figure is now $750 million.

The group also says state-of-the-art manufacturing expertise would be lost to wider Canadian industry because the stealth fighter is full of advanced technology that could eventually have civilian applications.

[On Guard for Thee]

Reread your link and the quote of Kendall:

Existing programs, that are already producing parts for current LRIP orders wouldn't be halted, he speaks nothing though of the far larger future production orders for the next ~25 years. As noted by Canadian industry itself:

Seems pretty clear to me.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence for acquisition, told reporters in Fort Worth, Tex., on Tuesday that he can't see why the existing $637 million in contracts wouldn't remain with Canadian firms.

"I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don't see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada buys jets or not," Kendall was quoted as saying by the web site DefenceNews.

"We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program."

[Derek 2.0]

Seems pretty clear to me.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence for acquisition, told reporters in Fort Worth, Tex., on Tuesday that he can't see why the existing $637 million in contracts wouldn't remain with Canadian firms.

"I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don't see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada buys jets or not," Kendall was quoted as saying by the web site DefenceNews.

"We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program."

Existing contracts, he speaks nothing of far larger future contracts, as addressed by the Canadian joint industry group.

[On Guard for Thee]

Existing contracts, he speaks nothing of far larger future contracts, as addressed by the Canadian joint industry group.

As per my original, It was the 637 million Harper misspoke about.

[Derek 2.0]

As per my original, It was the 637 million Harper misspoke about.

He only misspoke by under estimating the current benefit the F-35 has brought to the Canadian economy.

[On Guard for Thee]

He only misspoke by under estimating the current benefit the F-35 has brought to the Canadian economy.

He misspoke in direct contradiction of Frank Kendall.

[Derek 2.0]

He misspoke in direct contradiction of Frank Kendall.

No he didn't, and is supported in his statement by Canadian industry........

In a statement released today, the Canadian Joint Industry Group says existing "opportunities and future technological advancements will be in jeopardy" if the plan to buy 65 F-35 fighters is scrubbed.

Are you suggesting the Canadian aerospace industries fears over far larger future contracts are not valid? As noted in your link, Kendall is only speaking to present existing contracts.