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

[On Guard for Thee]

Hopefully Canada will walk away from the F 35 as "too big, and expensive, a headache" Maybe buy something that doesn't maybe blow up it's one engine on the runway.

[Derek 2.0]

Well, some contractors will just walk away from Canada as too big a headache. The original DND New Fighter Aircraft Project in the 1970's was an identical abortion to what they have now. Northrop wanted to logically build an F-18L "land based" variant with more capabilities and performance but Canada balked at being the sole customer for development costs.

Some will, but Lockheed by far does the most business with our military........ironically, the Sea King's replacement is now a LockMart joint

[On Guard for Thee]

Interesting how the right seem to have such one track minds.

[Wilber]

Interesting how the right seem to have such one track minds.

That's funny!

[On Guard for Thee]

A little humor never hurts I guess.

[segnosaur]

Interesting how the right seem to have such one track minds.

What, you mean kind of like the way you continually bring up its engine malfunction, ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that addressed the issue? And that pretty much every plane has had similar problems either during development or during its life cycle?

[WestCanMan]

Fair enough.

But to procure aircraft while considering Canada's defence needs makes one wonder, in light of Westcanman's question about wanting one's kid to be in the best aircraft available.

Well, that's all good and fine.

But what about our navy?

Should they have subpar navy vessels then? Would one send their kid out in a subpar vessel?

Etc etc the questions go on and it all comes back to how much money do we have and what gets the best bang for the buck.

Any military vehicle is basically a mobile platform for weapon systems. Ships don't change that much from year to year compared to aircraft, and civilian ships can be easily outfitted to carry troops or some types of anti-submarine equipment. You can drop sonobuoys off of anything. Civilian planes can't be outfitted to take on many roles of military planes. Ships are also easier to update year by year because there is always ample space to put the new stuff on. Switching from a mk__ torpedo to a mk___ torpedo is not as big a deal as changing weapon systems on a plane.

I was in the Navy and I think it's more important to keep the air force up to date. You obviously need some ships to form the backbone of the navy but support vessels of many types can be valuable and they could be made from existing civilian ships in a pinch.

There are also tons of ways to kill ships. You would really feel like a sitting duck sitting on a surface ship in this day and age. You are visible from light years away with your radar and sonar going, you are sloth-like compared to subs, torpedoes, missiles and planes. It's not a pretty picture.

Subs are a good investment, unmanned or very lightly-manned subs are probably the way of the future (present) but I know it sounds scary to think about. Drones are taking over a lot of jobs that manned flight used to handle.

[On Guard for Thee]

What, you mean kind of like the way you continually bring up its engine malfunction, ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that addressed the issue? And that pretty much every plane has had similar problems either during development or during its life cycle?

How many redesigns is that now?

[Big Guy]

Why are we messing aound with trying to find out how to best compliment what the USA has. If you folks want Canada to become a warrior nation then why mess around with half way. Get serious! Budget for an independent military. Get that money out of social programs and into that military where you guys want it.

The first thing we have to do is go nuclear. Then develop ways of delivering that internationally - through missiles, aircraft and ships.

Unless we are sitting at the nuclear table we will be ignored militarily. We will finally be independent of the USA. We should then be treated with respect like North Korea. Mind you, we may have to divert most of our economy towards armaments but hey - we want to be a player!!!!!

That is all we have to do - that is if the USA lets us. They won't.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Big Guy

[Smallc]

Why are we messing aound with trying to find out how to best compliment what the USA has.

NORAD....but we'd be fine with any of these aircraft, since they're all NATO standard.

[Derek 2.0]

NORAD....but we'd be fine with any of these aircraft, since they're all NATO standard.

Not once the F-22 and F-35 dominates the US contribution to NORAD in the next decade, as then the USAF will be utilizing the multifunction advanced data link.........older European and American aircraft, using Link 16, had might as well be using Morse code, and though the 5 generation (stealth) aircraft could communicate with older aircraft through Link 16, it would negate any advantage the modern aircraft have with secure (modern) communications.

[Smallc]

Not once the F-22 and F-35 dominates the US contribution to NORAD in the next decade, as then the USAF will be utilizing the multifunction advanced data link.........older European and American aircraft, using Link 16

Which of course we can't and won't upgrade, right?

[Derek 2.0]

Which of course we can't and won't upgrade, right?

No we won't, as current aircraft don't have the sufficient modern digital architecture and computing output, and its questionable if even the F-22 and E-3 will get the new data link.

[Smallc]

No we won't, as current aircraft don't have the sufficient modern digital architecture and computing output, and its questionable if even the F-22 and E-3 will get the new data link.

If the F-22 (the primary NORAD aircraft in Alaska) won't have it - who cares?

[Wilber]

Why are we messing aound with trying to find out how to best compliment what the USA has. If you folks want Canada to become a warrior nation then why mess around with half way. Get serious! Budget for an independent military. Get that money out of social programs and into that military where you guys want it.

The first thing we have to do is go nuclear. Then develop ways of delivering that internationally - through missiles, aircraft and ships.

Unless we are sitting at the nuclear table we will be ignored militarily. We will finally be independent of the USA. We should then be treated with respect like North Korea. Mind you, we may have to divert most of our economy towards armaments but hey - we want to be a player!!!!!

That is all we have to do - that is if the USA lets us. They won't.

Dumbest thing I have heard yet. Let's give ourselves no options other than do nothing or nuke someone.

[Derek 2.0]

If the F-22 (the primary NORAD aircraft in Alaska) won't have it - who cares?

First, the F-35A will be the primary NORAD aircraft in Alaska, second, there is already a replacement program to replace the F-22 and F-15 in the ~2030s. The USAF/NORAD isn't in stasis but constant flux, which makes your (and many others) baseless claims that "we will be fine" operating an aircraft designed in the 70s or 80s, out to the 2050s-60s so laughable.

[Big Guy]

Dumbest thing I have heard yet. Let's give ourselves no options other than do nothing or nuke someone.

You must not get around too much if that is the dumbest thing you have heard yet.

The alternative is to keep playing second fiddle to the USA, keep Canadian tax payer money going to purchase second class military hardware and Canadian foreign policy to the USA.

When was the last time Canada was involved in a conflict in which the USA was not?

And when we are involved in a conflict along side the USA, when was the last time Canada took the lead role and told the USA where and how to deploy their forces?

I think that to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome is one of the dumbest philosophies that I can remember.

[Wilber]

Gotcha, we don't need allies.

[Smallc]

First, the F-35A will be the primary NORAD aircraft in Alaska,

That's very unlikely. Why would the Americans put a multirole fighter and not their best air superiority fighter to protect their most important flank?

second, there is already a replacement program to replace the F-22 and F-15 in the ~2030s.

I like that you used the ~ since that's exactly what it will be. With the Pentagon's cratering budget we'll be unlikely to see the F-22 and even the F-15 replaced any time soon.

The USAF/NORAD isn't in stasis but constant flux, which makes your (and many others) baseless claims that "we will be fine" operating an aircraft designed in the 70s or 80s, out to the 2050s-60s so laughable.

We will be fine. It won't be a problem.

[Big Guy]

Gotcha, we don't need allies.

I have to apologize to Derek 2.0 and Smallc for temporarily interrupting their bi-yearly comparison of their knowledge of military hardware.

I assume that Wilber and I are both suggesting what each of us feels is better for Canada and Canadians. I feel that the money we spend on the military is wasted on supporting American foreign policy. No matter what we spend, short of completely bankrupting Canada, we will be dependent on the USA for defence and the USA will have to guarantee that Canada is not over run or defeated by another power. If that happened, then the USA would be history.

That being the case, since the USA prides itself as being the leader of the free world and a warrior nation proud of their military and their wars, let them pay for their philosophy. Why should Canadians pay for our security when the USA is happy to do it for us? There are wonderful things that we could do to the quality of life of Canadians by spending all that money on our needs and wants.

I am not sure of what Wilber's position to be. Do you feel that we should continue to pay to purchase military equipment that will only be used in conjunction and control of the USA? Or do you feel that we control some aspects of our own security. Do you accept the status Quo? I ask that you make your position clearer for Big Guy. He is getting a little old.

[Derek 2.0]

That's very unlikely. Why would the Americans put a multirole fighter and not their best air superiority fighter to protect their most important flank?

The same reason the majority of their NORAD contribution today is made up their F-16 fleet, operated by both the USAF and various ANG units, including both F-16s based in and forward deployed to Alaska since the 1970s.

I like that you used the ~ since that's exactly what it will be. With the Pentagon's cratering budget we'll be unlikely to see the F-22 and even the F-15 replaced any time soon.

Your opinion means little when countered with the DoD, DARPA, the USAF and USN, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman etc etc etc.....

We will be fine. It won't be a problem.

Your opinion means little when contrasted with the opinion of the RCAF.

[Wilber]

I am not sure of what Wilber's position to be. Do you feel that we should continue to pay to purchase military equipment that will only be used in conjunction and control of the USA? Or do you feel that we control some aspects of our own security. Do you accept the status Quo? I ask that you make your position clearer for Big Guy. He is getting a little old.

I think I live in one of, if not the best country in the world. As a result I think it is worth defending, by Canadians. Apparently you don't. That's my position.

[ReeferMadness]

Such needs, as determined by the RCAF nearly 20 years ago, in the decades ahead can only be met by the F-35. Altering said determination is purely a political exercise...........No Cadillac 'elicopters fighter aircraft.

Derek, I think the proponents of the F35 have been dishonest with the citizens of Canada. They're sold on the basis of "defence" but that is not their primary role. They are mostly bomb trucks, intended to be used in misadventures like Afghanistan and Iraq. These operations have not made Canada safer and it can be easily argued they've made Canada less safe.

When most people think of the fighter procurement, they think of North American air defence and let's face it, the F35's are a poor choice. For fighter planes, they are slow, not very agile and I understand that the requirement to carry weapons internally restricts the type of payload they can carry. They are also very expensive, both to procure and, more importantly, to operate.

Here is the unspoken bargain that you and other F35 proponents are getting us into. We buy these bomb trucks and participate in dumb missions like Iraq. In return, the US defends our airspace.

I would prefer that we, like Sweden, bought aircraft that would be capable of defending our own airspace. And if they didn't last past 2040, well, the operating costs are greater than the procurement costs anyway.

[Smallc]

I would prefer that we, like Sweden, bought aircraft that would be capable of defending our own airspace. And if they didn't last past 2040, well, the operating costs are greater than the procurement costs anyway.

The Gripen is not the best place for defence. The Typhoon is by far better, though about on par with the F-35 cost.

[ReeferMadness]

The Gripen is not the best place for defence. The Typhoon is by far better, though about on par with the F-35 cost.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. The Gripen was built for conditions that are more in line with Canada's situation. Northern conditions, without the best runways, lower maintenance requirements and low cost. I've not read anything that 65 typhoons would be better than, say, 100 Gripens.

Regardless, if the mission is defending our airspace, it seems like either option is preferable to the F35 butterball.

Edited November 16, 2015 by ReeferMadness