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

[Wilber]

I stand corrected. Assume the fetal position until the Americans chase them away.

[segnosaur]

I guess I do not share your "pride that we feel in being able to maintain basic defense capabilities".

So why is what you think "enhances the lives of Canadians" more important than what others think "enhances the lives of Canadians"?

I have no difficulty in having the USA pay for our security and give up their young for our security because our security is vital to their security.

Actually, no its not.

They may be willing to (for example) intercept airliners that are off course, or deal with Russian incurrsans into our airspace, because such things could potentially impact them. They would be less interested in dealing with things like: Small planes gone off course inside Canadian airspace (example: Mattias Rust) or incidents like the Turbot War. In both those cases, the ability to provide a military response is valuable, but because neither of those would impact the U.S., it is unlikely they would be willing to provide military assistance (at least not without some sort of payment).

Since it is American foreign policy international interventions that causes challenges to our security I have no problems letting them pay for it.

Your world view is overly simplistic and frankly, quite wrong.

While there is a certain amount of anti-american sentiment, in many cases conflicts go much deeper than "boo his Americans".

The cost of settling 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada has been approximated at about $1.2 billion.

I think we get more for our money with refugees.

So? They're still Syrian refugees. Not Canadian. And your argument was "Don't spend money on the Military; spend it on things that enhances Canadian lives."

Since you didn't answer it before, I will ask again:

Given the fact that you think the Military should be eliminated so money can be spent on things that "Enhances the lives of Canadians", do you think we should similarly eliminate all foreign aid, and remove our membership from the U.N. general assembly, since both of those costs millions if not billions of dollars, money that could be spent more directly in Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

Just to add to the earlier suggestion (by Bill Sweetman) that the USAF was seeking to purchase additional legacy aircraft:

Asked to categorically confirm or deny any new fighter purchase, a spokesman for the service’s acquisition office says: “At this time the air force has no plans to acquire 72 new F-15s or F-16s, although the air force is always looking at options to be prepared for a dynamic global security environment.”

Furthermore:

The opportunity to purchase more legacy jets, which have been kept in production through foreign military sales, is closing fast, with the Lockheed F-16 and Boeing F-15 and F/A-18 assembly lines potentially closing before the turn of the decade if no more domestic or foreign orders materialise.

[Big Guy]

...

Your world view is overly simplistic and frankly, quite wrong.

While there is a certain amount of anti-american sentiment, in many cases conflicts go much deeper than "boo his Americans".

....

I disagree. I believe that my world view is far more objective and realistic than most which I read on this board. I have no problem with the USA and what it does for Americans. The American administration and government does what it thinks is best for America. Good for them. I think we should be doing what is best for Canada.

If you feel that it will make Canada a better place or more "involved" if we pour $billions into military that the USA wants us to have and to use that military to help the USA fight wars which America has started and have Canadian body bags coming home along with the Americans than good for you. I do not.

I am saddened by some of the "macho" rhetoric which I see here. It reminds me of the large number of Canadians who wanted Canada involved in Iraq. It reminds me of the "Taliban Jack" jokes to demean those who warned against involvement in Afghanistan and the "scumbags and murderers" excuse from general Hillier as he asked for more and more money for the military. Remember "stand behind your soldiers or stand in front" statements from the armchair generals who held the key to our success in Somalia, Iraq, Vietnam and now ISIS.

The American culture prides itself in being a warrior nation. They celebrate their military cemeteries that stretch on for miles. They are proud that at any given time there are about 3 million people in their military. Good for them.

I celebrate the fact that Canada is back as a recipient of refugees, that some of our leaders were able to keep us out of useless American created wars, our diverse nation and a tendency for this new Canadian government to closely review and question spending on the military.

Do you really need suggestions from me as how we could spend more $billions and $billions (that I believe we are wasting on our military) on enhancing the quality of life for Canadians?

[bush_cheney2004]

...I celebrate the fact that Canada is back as a recipient of refugees, that some of our leaders were able to keep us out of useless American created wars, our diverse nation and a tendency for this new Canadian government to closely review and question spending on the military.

Welcome back Canada....the United States can do both....big military and far more refugees and immigrants historically than Canada.

When you want to buy some more "jets", just come a knockin' as usual.

Edited November 27, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

....big military and far more refugees and immigrants historically than Canada.

Yes they do seem to go hand in hand.

[Wilber]

Britain will also take all 138 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighters initially ordered and triple the pace of deliveries to 2023, allowing deployment of two new aircraft carriers with a full roster of planes. BAE is an F-35 partner and Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC helps make the engines, as it does on Eurofighter.

[Army Guy]

Wilber:

Can you give us a source, i mean this would mean a major shift in UK Naval and air policies.

[bush_cheney2004]

UK wants to accelerate F-35 deliveries...no more messing around while Canada dithers:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/uk-britain-defence-idUKKBN0TB0AF20151123

[ReeferMadness]

I guess the UK has a turkey shortage. No point letting a perfectly good terrorism panic go to waste - time to ramp up the military spending.

[Derek 2.0]

Wilber:

Can you give us a source, i mean this would mean a major shift in UK Naval and air policies.

From the horses mouth:

We will establish an additional F35 Lightning squadron and two additional Typhoon squadrons. We will invest further in Typhoon’s capabilities, including ground attack and a new Active Electronically Scanned Array radar to ensure that we can continue to operate it until at least 2040. We will maintain our plan to buy 138 F35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme.

In addition:

We will invest in the next generation of combat aircraft technology, in partnership with our defence aerospace industry and our closest allies. We are working with the US to build and support the F35 Lightning. We will work with France to develop our Unmanned Combat Air System programme, and collaborate on complex weapons.

With a joining of the French (nEUROn) and British (Taranis) led programs, with partners in the Swedish, German, Italian, Spanish and Swiss aerospace industries, there will be a Pan-European replacement for the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen, starting in the 2030s.

[ReeferMadness]

With a joining of the French (nEUROn) and British (Taranis) led programs, with partners in the Swedish, German, Italian, Spanish and Swiss aerospace industries, there will be a Pan-European replacement for the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen, starting in the 2030s.

Maybe we should get in on that and leave the butterballs for someone else.

[Derek 2.0]

I guess the UK has a turkey shortage. No point letting a perfectly good terrorism panic go to waste - time to ramp up the military spending.

The United Kingdom has had said requirement since the 90s....incidentally, the bulk of the fleet will be utilized by the Royal Navy, in a role similar to our NORAD role, defending their fleet..........and of course, they looked at (early) both the Super Hornet and Rafale (and making a carrier version of both the Eurofighter and Gripen NG) and passed, and even when it looked like the version they were going to purchase (the F-35B STOVL) could be cancelled, they opted for the version the USN was going to use off their carriers (F-35C).......as the F-35B matured and its initial issues addressed (its the first F-35 version to enter service as of this Summer), they reverted back to the F-35B..........

Committing to their full order is now a clear signal that the F-35B will replace the Tornado fleet and not the Eurofighter.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe we should get in on that and leave the butterballs for someone else.

This is a good plan for Canada....anything that delays the procurement yet again is best. Then, just cancel and delay again !

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe we should get in on that and leave the butterballs for someone else.

That would leave a decade+ gap from the retirement of our Hornets and the entry into service of a new joint European program........and of course, based on the current prices of the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen NG, there is no reason to expect a joint European program will be any cheaper than the F-35.

[Army Guy]

thanks guys, i had no idea....

[ReeferMadness]

This is a good plan for Canada....anything that delays the procurement yet again is best. Then, just cancel and delay again !

Great thinking.

[ReeferMadness]

That would leave a decade+ gap from the retirement of our Hornets and the entry into service of a new joint European program........and of course, based on the current prices of the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen NG, there is no reason to expect a joint European program will be any cheaper than the F-35.

Yes but maybe we would get a fighter that could defend our air space instead of becoming a cog in the big NATO war machine. No bomb trucks for us.

And as for the gap, we could buy Gripens. Even if we only kept them for 20 years, the much lower operating costs would result in net savings compared to the butterballs.

Edited November 27, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[Army Guy]

Yes but maybe we would get a fighter that could defend our air space instead of becoming a cog in the big NATO war machine. No bomb trucks for us.

And as for the gap, we could buy Gripens. Even if we only kept them for 20 years, the much lower operating costs would result in net savings compared to the butterballs.

You seem to have an opinion , what do you base it on, what are your choices for Canada's new fighter replacement program....

[Derek 2.0]

Yes but maybe we would get a fighter that could defend our air space instead of becoming a cog in the big NATO war machine. No bomb trucks for us.

The Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet etc are all as much of a "bomb truck" as our current Hornets and the F-35.........for example, outside the Gripen NG and F-35 (as of yet), all of said aircraft have been used as "bomb trucks" over Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet etc are all as much of a "bomb truck" as our current Hornets and the F-35....

Yep....even CF-18s are "bomb trucks"....who knew ?

[ReeferMadness]

You seem to have an opinion , what do you base it on, what are your choices for Canada's new fighter replacement program....

The Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet etc are all as much of a "bomb truck" as our current Hornets and the F-35.........for example, outside the Gripen NG and F-35 (as of yet), all of said aircraft have been used as "bomb trucks" over Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS.

You can use the F35 as an air-to-air combat fighter and use the Gripen as a ground attack bomber but that doesn't mean the 2 are equally good at both tasks. I can use a rock as a hammer - that doesn't mean it's as good as an actual hammer.

The Gripen is faster, has better thrust-weight ratio, lower wing loading (implying better maneuverability), much lower operating costs and can operate off of short, snowy runways. Unlike the butterball, the Gripen will definitely be able to use the new meteor missile (which will be much superior to the American AIM-120) The only advantages of the butterball are stealth ability (which could always be nullified by future technical improvements) and inter operability (which is a mixed blessing in my view because it inevitably means we get dragged into stupid wars).

[ReeferMadness]

Yep....even CF-18s are "bomb trucks"....who knew ?

So, we agree. They were a mistake and it would be another mistake to buy the butterballs.

[Wilber]

Wilber:

Can you give us a source, i mean this would mean a major shift in UK Naval and air policies.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-purchase-138-f-35s/

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151122/1030552225/uk-f35-18bln-defense-spending.html

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/britain-to-buy-p-8s-reaffirms-full-f-35-buy-doubling-special-forces-spending/

[Derek 2.0]

You can use the F35 as an air-to-air combat fighter and use the Gripen as a ground attack bomber but that doesn't mean the 2 are equally good at both tasks. I can use a rock as a hammer - that doesn't mean it's as good as an actual hammer.

The Gripen was designed as a attack bomber........

The Gripen is faster, has better thrust-weight ratio, lower wing loading (implying better maneuverability), much lower operating costs and can operate off of short, snowy runways.

The Gripen might be impressive with nothing under its wings...........

Unlike the butterball, the Gripen will definitely be able to use the new meteor missile (which will be much superior to the American AIM-120)

The AIM-120D is superior to the meteor, none the less, the Meteor will be used on British (and Italian) F-35s.......carried internally, unlike the Gripen, hence not inducing a drag penalty, thus, not decreasing the aircraft's speed, range and maneuverability

The only advantages of the butterball are stealth ability (which could always be nullified by future technical improvements) and inter operability (which is a mixed blessing in my view because it inevitably means we get dragged into stupid wars).

And of course being a generation newer than the Gripen, with modern data and sensor fusion, making the F-35 the Iphone 6 to the Gripen's (or other legacy types) analog flip phone.........