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

[waldo]

This isn't empty rhetoric I'd like an answer.

I wouldn't necessarily interpret the 'crickets noise' as a sign no answer is/will be forthcoming... I trust its being worked on and an answer will be provided asap!

[GostHacked]

Until we have this plane in operation in our air force, all the talk about it's capabilities mean nothing.

When to we get it? How much more is this going to cost? Both of those questions remain unanswered.

[Army Guy]

Until we have this plane in operation in our air force, all the talk about it's capabilities mean nothing.

When to we get it? How much more is this going to cost? Both of those questions remain unanswered.

Why has the public grown so interested in military purchases, why has the government given the public a voice, that seems to influence such decisions....Why is this voice not interested in any other purchases made by the government.....it seems to concentrate only military purchases....what experience does the public bring to these talks....

One of the main stumbling blocks of these purchases is that they are far to policticalized, instead of concentrating on purchasing what would be the best for our military, we concentrate on what is the cheapest, it needs to have a majority of Canadian componets, or the Nation must have something in return....it needs to be acceptable to Canadians, not to offensive in nature, not to war like, it needs to be just right .....

Canadians only concern is HOW MUCH DOES IT COST.....everything else well that is not taken into account by the public....and i get it it is tax payers dollars that are used.....But DND already has a cap on their budget, which includes new purchases.....So that control is already set by government

The F-35 is a prime example....the Airforce experts have already chosen this aircraft because it is the best on the market....they have already sold their argument to the government, ......and yet the public would seem to know more about this process and what is best for our countries defense have made their voice heard they don't like the price.....and to screw that up....they changed the rules to inflate it so more of the public would get sticker shock and add their voice to the debate....

So why is it that we are just interested in military spending , and not the spending of other depts....and why is it that the lifes of our military members don't even factor in any of the public debates...

[Guest Derek L]

Viva Italiano:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE95P13K20130626

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's ruling coalition averted a split over a motion to scrap its purchase of 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets on Wednesday by agreeing to seek parliament's approval before going ahead with further spending on the program.

And of course:

http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/articles/2013/06/f-35c-to-navy.html

FORT WORTH, Texas, 26 June 2013. CF-6, the first Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) F-35C Lightning II Navy carrier variant (CV) aircraft and the Navy's first 5^th-generation F-35 production aircraft, has arrived at Strike Fighter Squadron 101 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

CF-6 joins a fleet of 12 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jets and 13 F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) jets already assigned to Eglin. Later this year, four additional CVs will join the fleet. Strike Fighter Squadron 101, which serves as the F-35C Fleet Replacement Squadron, employs the F-35 aircraft to train pilots and maintainers.

Didn’t a certain poster here suggest such an event would take place this year?

Anyhoo……….FLY NAVY

Edited June 27, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

Viva Italiano:

only a real cheerleader would read a positive end to this latest update... coalition governments arrive at interesting compromises to stay afloat. There's no firm commitment and what I read is that the program will be reviewed for 6 months... nothing will happen during that review period.

two definitive statements were made:

- 1. an emphasis on Parliamentary approval to actually spend any more money. Considering the country has... no money... even if the program continues, it's being called "a given" that the already reduced procurement number (from the original intended 131 to the current 90), will be further reduced, significantly. Again, the country has no money.

- 2. a motion calling on the government to push for further integration of European Union defense projects to reduce costs. Uhhh, since Italy has already received 60+ of the 90 ordered Eurofighter, I'm reading all kinds of speculation on what this motion is intended to emphasize.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's not let our guard down. I reckoned the F35 deal was dead in the water. And so I heaved a sigh of relief. According to the news I see of late, I may have jumped the gun, so to speak. Once again I feel my pockets are about to be drained. For those of you who like the F 35, I have a 72 Gremlin for sale....cheap!

[DogOnPorch]

Let's not let our guard down. I reckoned the F35 deal was dead in the water. And so I heaved a sigh of relief. According to the news I see of late, I may have jumped the gun, so to speak. Once again I feel my pockets are about to be drained. For those of you who like the F 35, I have a 72 Gremlin for sale....cheap!

Nobody wants a '72 gremlin...lol. What would be your choice of aircraft for Canada?

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's go with the Super Hornet. Pilots are already familiar with the aircraft, as are ther maintenance people. Of course some upgrade training would be needed, but at least we know the damn thing worked in it's previous incarnation.

[DogOnPorch]

Let's go with the Super Hornet. Pilots are already familiar with the aircraft, as are ther maintenance people. Of course some upgrade training would be needed, but at least we know the damn thing worked in it's previous incarnation.

The Super Hornet is somewhat of a stop-gap design, though. The airframe is still from the 1980s. You don't view that as an issue? Or say, not an issue as long as Russia and China don't build better aircraft?

[On Guard for Thee]

;m not sure who we are planning to attack...or who we fear is about to attack us, but keeping those fears alive, once again we get out pockets drained. don't get me wrong, I like airplanes...been a pilot all my working life, but maybe we should try working away from exhausting our resources on killing machines.

[waldo]

The Super Hornet is somewhat of a stop-gap design, though. The airframe is still from the 1980s. You don't view that as an issue? Or say, not an issue as long as Russia and China don't build better aircraft?

don't waver! Stay strong... go/stick with your earlier suggestions:

My choice of the Super Tucano for overseas dedicated organic air support was ignored by you and others pages and months ago. Build 'em here on license. Drawbacks are that they'd likely take more casualties than any comparable group of F-35s. But, if it's savings you want while filling that NATO strike requirement...here's your plane. Comparable to the T-28 Trojan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

Another choice might be this machine for the same type of work. I've heard rumors they're going back into production with updated everything. Like with the Super Tucano, you'd need to be operating from forward bases which, luckily could be primitive and work...or even a good stretch of highway...Fulda Gap style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco

[Wilber]

ok so what is the return on this 350 million subsidy.. to american companies. How much income do workers get, how much of that is taxable..

The federal government subsidizing american controlled corporations is counter productive to the Canadian economy.

how much is actually going to be returned to the federal government?

Its a bit like saying I'll invest $100,000 in stock and get $30,000 back in dividends and the stock resale... math does not compute.

making a grand minus seventy thousand in the exchange.

people who invest that way end up bankrupt.

Is that what you suggest for the federal government?

I hate to point out the obvious but the primary object of this excercise is to provide our military with the best equipment available, not turn a profit for the federal government.

[GostHacked]

Why has the public grown so interested in military purchases, why has the government given the public a voice, that seems to influence such decisions....Why is this voice not interested in any other purchases made by the government.....it seems to concentrate only military purchases....what experience does the public bring to these talks....

This thread is about the F-35 and the costs associated with that program. We have other threads related to other government scandals and how money is wasted. The thing that makes this a big deal is hundreds of millions are already spent and we do not have a single one in our fleet as of this time.

Big military contracts come with big risks and big money problems. We can revisit those awesome diesel submarines we purchased from the UK. A lot of money to buy , and a lot more money to get them into service.

One of the main stumbling blocks of these purchases is that they are far to policticalized,

I think the technical issues of the plane are more relevant, but yes a lot of politics has been in play here, and should stop.

Canadians only concern is HOW MUCH DOES IT COST.....everything else well that is not taken into account by the public....and i get it it is tax payers dollars that are used.....But DND already has a cap on their budget, which includes new purchases.....So that control is already set by government

The budget for this craft has already gone way up than the original cost/agreement.

The F-35 is a prime example....the Airforce experts have already chosen this aircraft because it is the best on the market....they have already sold their argument to the government, ......and yet the public would seem to know more about this process and what is best for our countries defense have made their voice heard they don't like the price.....and to screw that up....they changed the rules to inflate it so more of the public would get sticker shock and add their voice to the debate....

Technical abilities also mean nothing when you cannot afford the aircraft to begin with. Also when you are potentially spending billions of taxpayer money on a project that has yet to deliver, it's not hard to see how Canadians are quite steamed about this issue.

So why is it that we are just interested in military spending , and not the spending of other depts....and why is it that the lifes of our military members don't even factor in any of the public debates...

What good is a pilot if you don't have a plane? I still do not know when we take delivery of the aircraft. Has that been determined yet?

And there have been many threads on other public spending. The focus here is a huge purchase which will end up costing a lot more down the road (always the case) in a time when we may not be able to afford to replace the current fleet.

So , when do we take delivery of this aircraft? Can anyone answer me that?

[PIK]

This is about the future, we have a abundance of resourses that others are running out of. And in time with over population and CC those countries will be getting desparate and will be looking our way. And with the chinese building thier own 5th gen fighter and if the shit did hit the fan, those super hornets won't last a day. I just hope people are not naive enough to think that there won't be a resourse war sometime in the future.

[DogOnPorch]

;m not sure who we are planning to attack...or who we fear is about to attack us, but keeping those fears alive, once again we get out pockets drained. don't get me wrong, I like airplanes...been a pilot all my working life, but maybe we should try working away from exhausting our resources on killing machines.

Unless we quit NATO, we have commitments to make. Nobody knows what the next 10 years will bring in terms of conflict. If we do get caught in a major conflict, we'd want our pilots flying the best aircraft available. At least that's my opinion. In the air combat biz, the reward for second place is a crater in the ground. However, if both Russia and China stop developing new aircraft, then I suppose we can take a chance on EOL designs like the Super Hornet. Now, what that 'best aircraft' will be is yet to be determined. The F-35 is much like the old (and excellent) F-4 Phantom was...unproven. Expensive and unproven. Expensive, unproven and riddled with teething problems. Will the F-35 be the next F-4? Hard to say. If it's too expensive and there are no other choices, perhaps Canada should quit NATO and take our chances that nobody wants what we have.

As for waldo's comments...for conflicts such as Afghanistan...dedicated organic air support from such aircraft makes sense. They're cheap and good for going-up against a relatively low-tech enemy. Even the US has checked the Super Tucano out...and they MAKE the Bronco and the Mohawk. Why do you have an issue with that? No jet engines going 'whoooshhhh!'?

Edited June 27, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

So , when do we take delivery of this aircraft? Can anyone answer me that?

asked and answered - you received 2 responses. The realistic one from me; the propaganda line from another guy. Even accepting to the existing schedule... that no further delays will occur... that reduced procurement purchases will not affect production/cost, etc., etc., etc., the latest understanding I have is that operational testing is not scheduled to complete until 2019. Which of course doesn't say anything about retrofitting all the existing LRIP planes into the "final" production equivalent. The optimistic speculation... supposedly independent... suggests Canada could receive the beginnings of a true production plane between 2020-2022... and these would just be a 'first wave/phase' of planes received. As I said, this projected delay has already fueled the flames around another huge cash outlay required to keep the CF-18 flying until then. I encourage challenge on those dates... from something other than a pure propaganda outlet - there has been some interesting "LockMart schedule tweaking" of late, one that, in itself, has brought on significant criticism of its validity.

[waldo]

As for waldo's comments...for conflicts such as Afghanistan...dedicated organic air support from such aircraft makes sense. They're cheap and good for going-up against a relatively low-tech enemy. Even the US has checked the Super Tucano out...and they MAKE the Bronco and the Mohawk. Why do you have an issue with that? No jet engines going 'whoooshhhh!'?

ok, ok... I honestly looked at those planes and thought they could have a place, although they somewhat counter your latest reference against "80's vintage" - yes? It seems the only actual engagement Canada has ever had (of relatively recent vintage), is using planes as a part of bombing, with the majority of those circumstances involving a somewhat 'smallish' deployment of planes. Since we can never get anyone around here to actually state what requirements the F-35 meets for Canada, one can surmise the technically challenged F-35 will make a very fine strategic stealth bomber!!! (caveat: of course, there is actually one requirement being met regularly trotted out... that the F-35 meets Canada's NATO commitment. Equally, of course, suggesting Canada could similarly meet that commitment by championing a transport role, is met with derision by those who seek the shiny bauble).

[Wild Bill]

;m not sure who we are planning to attack...or who we fear is about to attack us, but keeping those fears alive, once again we get out pockets drained. don't get me wrong, I like airplanes...been a pilot all my working life, but maybe we should try working away from exhausting our resources on killing machines.

How do we know now who may be a threat in the future? We can be reasonably confident we will not be aggressors. It's not really in the Canadian character. Still, we have allies and peoples we champion in other parts or the world. If we have commitments to defend our allies or a wish to defend helpless people in countries like Syria or Rwanda, don't we need to have something that is actually effective?

I am having a great deal of difficulty with the argument from posters such as yourself and of course, Waldo. I can understand the argument that we don't have a lot of money. However, why waste money on suggested alternatives that are a waste of time?

So far I have yet to see an alternative that could compete with an F-35 or a possible Russian or Chinese equivalent. Certainly, an F-35 equal would likely just blow a Super Hornet out of the sky, barely pausing as it flies on to complete its own mission.

If we have no will to be competitive, why bother spending any money at all? We would only be fooling ourselves with a false sense of security. Worse yet, we would be making sacrificial lambs out of our pilots!

No, it seems obvious that either we are prepared to "do it for real" or we should just not bother at all! We should accept the fact that we don't want to be an effective partner in such things.

Perhaps we could keep a couple of "canteen ships" in case the real warriors get hungry and need snacks.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Wild Bill

[bush_cheney2004]

... Equally, of course, suggesting Canada could similarly meet that commitment by championing a transport role, is met with derision by those who seek the shiny bauble).

Then they would just bitch about the cost of more/modern transport aircraft, and tankers ("fuelers"), and.....

Edited June 27, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Wild Bill]

Then they would just bitch about the cost of more/modern transport aircraft, and tankers ("fuelers"), and.....

You would seem to be right, BC. It seems the new Joint Support Ship Project for 2-3 "canteen ships" is facing pressure to downsize or at least drastically delay any construction.

The goal of some would seem clear. They wish Canada to have either a very cheap and thus almost totally useless military consisting of perhaps a dozen or two snipers with unlimited passes for commercial air travel or better yet, no military at all!

Again, I can understand how some could have such a view, even if I don't agree with it. What I can't understand is why they don't simply be open and honest about it.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Wild Bill

[DogOnPorch]

ok, ok... I honestly looked at those planes and thought they could have a place, although they somewhat counter your latest reference against "80's vintage" - yes? It seems the only actual engagement Canada has ever had (of relatively recent vintage), is using planes as a part of bombing, with the majority of those circumstances involving a somewhat 'smallish' deployment of planes. Since we can never get anyone around here to actually state what requirements the F-35 meets for Canada, one can surmise the technically challenged F-35 will make a very fine strategic stealth bomber!!! (caveat: of course, there is actually one requirement being met regularly trotted out... that the F-35 meets Canada's NATO commitment. Equally, of course, suggesting Canada could similarly meet that commitment by championing a transport role, is met with derision by those who seek the shiny bauble).

Super Tucanos, Broncos, Mohawks and their ilk are not expected to fulfill the air superiority role. Their role is simply light ground attack and observation. There's Ahmed and his AK-47...get 'im. Age of design is much less an issue. Heck, IL-2 Sturmoviks would give the Taliban headaches. As for transports...have you seen what a C-5 or C-17 goes for? You'd complain about that, too.

[waldo]

Super Tucanos, Broncos, Mohawks and their ilk are not expected to fulfill the air superiority role. Their role is simply light ground attack and observation. There's Ahmed and his AK-47...get 'im. Age of design is much less an issue. Heck, IL-2 Sturmoviks would give the Taliban headaches. As for transports...have you seen what a C-5 or C-17 goes for? You'd complain about that, too.

light ground attack and observation? Drone baby, drone! I see you didn't bite at my only meeting the "stealthy strategic bomber" slag.

transports pricey? Sure. But I don't think Canada would need to buy... 65. Notwithstanding that '65' number is a false-front, since it doesn't account for attribution requirements... I can't be bothered to look now, but I recall that could be as high as another dozen required. Of course, all we ever heard was 65 wouldn't meet the need anyway; that it would barely fill minimum requirements. Which, of course, brings up the spidey senses so as to imply Harper Conservatives were low-balling the actual 65 number, and the real requirement number would get "phased in" later, including attrition needs!

more importantly, from the post preceding yours: Wild Bill is (back) in the House!

Edited June 28, 2013 by waldo

[DogOnPorch]

light ground attack and observation? Drone baby, drone! I see you didn't bite at my only meeting the "stealthy strategic bomber" slag.

transports pricey? Sure. But I don't think Canada would need to buy... 65. Notwithstanding that '65' number is a false-front, since it doesn't account for attribution requirements... I can't be bothered to look now, but I recall that could be as high as another dozen required. Of course, all we ever heard was 65 wouldn't meet the need anyway; that it would barely fill minimum requirements. Which, of course, brings up the spidey senses so as to imply Harper Conservatives were low-balling the actual 65 number, and the real requirement number would get "phased in" later, including attribution needs!

more importantly, from the post preceding yours: Wild Bill is (back) in the House!

Transports, while very useful to Canada, do not provide any form of national defense/offense. Perhaps we could ram our targets... Also, you might take a look at the US...they are already the transport king.

The F-35 is, without a doubt, top-shelf material. Perhaps too much for Canada's blood. Yet, you do not have an alternative to the F-35 for us to mull over.

[AlienB]

Transports, while very useful to Canada, do not provide any form of national defense/offense. Perhaps we could ram our targets... Also, you might take a look at the US...they are already the transport king.

The F-35 is, without a doubt, top-shelf material. Perhaps too much for Canada's blood. Yet, you do not have an alternative to the F-35 for us to mull over.

not true transports can be converted to bombers.

747's and other airliners can be converted to bombers.

of course today everything has to be packaged, insanely expensive, rights owned and finished product to be used in war unless it is part of a rebellion in the middle east.. to effect regime change.

none the less Canada shouldn't have countries to bomb. however it seems other countries want constant war in the world over things like foreign domestic policy of all things.

it is insane, women don't have the vote, lets kill 100,000 people maim 100 thousands of others, enable countless rapes and destroy many billions in infrastructure so women still don't have the vote. We'll starve them into thinking that choping off hands isn't sound judicial policy, now where is my lethal injection syringe?

these nutters need to learn to stay the hell out of domestic policy of other countries. ffs

the f35 is just another way of saying we want to attack people.

the idea is that this aircraft is designed to defeat russian anti air systems such as s300. this isn't built to fight the next generation of fighters because frankly it isn't the best fighter it is used for strike missions. both the russian and chinese jets appear to be better suited for the fighter interceptor role perhaps with reason.

this jet is not an equipment purchase it is a foreign policy choice as it applies to military response options, defence won't be one of them.

one must question though, what third world and second world countries will these things be ferried off too?

and why is Canada going to bomb them?\

it is startling they are talking about fixing component problems more than 15 years into the program still...

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQqQIoADAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ainonline.com%2Faviation-news%2Fsingapore-air-show%2F2012-02-15%2Fbae-drives-dual-approach-fixing-f-35-helmet-display-issues&ei=1Y3MUeH-IYnlyQG7pIHIDw&usg=AFQjCNGdL1qGXBviYQmO5qwAMYMoZ3fAMQ&sig2=mWQqGnXaPgfa8aDmluXmgw&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc

especially with the amount of cash that has been dished out, it is insane.

This basically says you can buy into the f35 name but you won't know whats in the box until you open it.

This is not a turd but Canada serious needs to consider exactly how much money they are throwing into a jet designed for stealth strike at low to medium range.

While I do still advocate for a few of these, I still think the answer lays in not committing to a 30 year program due to the rapid pace of technological development.

Also if the enemy is allowed the classified information why isn't Canada?

http://news.yahoo.com/theft-f-35-design-data-helping-u-adversaries-184154837.html

Edited June 27, 2013 by AlienB

[waldo]

Transports, while very useful to Canada, do not provide any form of national defense/offense. Perhaps we could ram our targets... Also, you might take a look at the US...they are already the transport king.

The F-35 is, without a doubt, top-shelf material. Perhaps too much for Canada's blood. Yet, you do not have an alternative to the F-35 for us to mull over.

the theme was a transport role would meet Canada's NATO obligations... as a part of the imaginary enemies attacking Canada and the 'one enemy attacks one country, they attack all NATO countries' creed, no worries - NATO to the rescue!!!

you keep forgetting I advocate drones for surveillance and to allow Peter McKay an occasional chasing back the Russian bear photo-op! I believe I prefaced any advocating for the SuperHornet with a 'if you must spend the damn money... then', type sentiment.