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

[kward]

That is a deeply flawed logic and I do not subscribe to that just like the majority of Canadians do not subscribe to the theory that we can't stop all bad guys so we will give up altogether. We can't stop crime so why keep the cops around, they are just a waste of money right?

It's not giving up, it's called listening to reason, and stopping the endless spending on something that cannot ever be achieved.

Cops? Are they a reactive force or just the opposite? Be honest. Are they a deterrent? Does crime exist?

If we go broke chasing some arbitrary feeling of security we'll have nothing left to protect.

[Smallc]

the Australia just purchased 24 the US navy bought 124 more in 2010, so are you claiming the US navy buys obsolete crap?

No, but neither the Australians nor the Americans are planning to operate the F/A - 18 E/F past 2030 or thereabouts. At that point, they will be replaced by 6th generation fighters. We are planning to operate the jets we buy beyond 2050.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Smallc

[Signals.Cpl]

It's not giving up, it's called listening to reason, and stopping the endless spending on something that cannot ever be achieved.

Cops? Are they a reactive force or just the opposite? Be honest. Are they a deterrent? Does crime exist?

If we go broke chasing some arbitrary feeling of security we'll have nothing left to protect.

We will always have something to protect as long as there is someone out there to want it, I may be friendly with my neighbours but I still lock my door even though I know someone motivated enough will get in.

[kward]

So what about the terrorists who don't care about your desires to stay out of anyone else's business? The once who see western nation and put it on a hit list? Or what about those nations who want to take resources right from under our noses do we just give it to them or run and cry to the US to protect us because we chose not to defend ourselves? This is one of the most idiotic ideas I have seen in some time, the nation that essentially hands over its defence to another nation is not independent at all.

1. There is no deterrent strong enough to stop someone so hell bent and determined. And you'll drive yourself nuts, and go broke trying to make yourself terrorist-proof. Not to mention you'll make everyone in the country miserable with constant suspicion, and wiretapping, and warantless searches, and check stops. There's no end.

2. Take whose resources out from under whose noses? Talk about an over-simplified world view. And run to the US? The US is going broke trying to chase the very idea I've mentioned in number 1.

3. You don't "hand over" your defense, there are more ways to defend a nation than just wasting money on war machines. Buying these expensive toys make us poor - so then what are we protecting if we've hollowed out the country to pay for "securing" it?

[kward]

We will always have something to protect as long as there is someone out there to want it, I may be friendly with my neighbours but I still lock my door even though I know someone motivated enough will get in.

How much money are you willing to spend on a lock for your door?

You've just basically admitted that you lock your door even though you know if someone wanted to get in badly enough, they would. You've just made my point for me.

[bush_cheney2004]

...3. You don't "hand over" your defense, there are more ways to defend a nation than just wasting money on war machines. Buying these expensive toys make us poor - so then what are we protecting if we've hollowed out the country to pay for "securing" it?

But Canada has long "handed over" such things to a collective defense with treaty obligations. Moreover, it has projected force in the lofty goal of protecting "human rights" with a "Responsibility to Protect". This is code for protecting Canadian economic interests abroad.

[Signals.Cpl]

1. There is no deterrent strong enough to stop someone so hell bent and determined. And you'll drive yourself nuts, and go broke trying to make yourself terrorist-proof. Not to mention you'll make everyone in the country miserable with constant suspicion, and wiretapping, and warantless searches, and check stops. There's no end.

And the opposite is worse, knowing that no one is there to stop even the dumbest and least motivated bad guy. We have resources people want, we have enemies that would want to harm us and pretending that we don't all the while making ourselves defenceless is not a sound strategy.

2. Take whose resources out from under whose noses? Talk about an over-simplified world view. And run to the US? The US is going broke trying to chase the very idea I've mentioned in number 1.

Well for example in the north, we have half a dozen nations contesting our ownership, if we completely disarm they could choose to do as they please and we have no discourse in the matter. And your view that they won't hurt me if I don't fight back or even have the means to fight back is so out of touch with reality that it is scary.

3. You don't "hand over" your defense, there are more ways to defend a nation than just wasting money on war machines. Buying these expensive toys make us poor - so then what are we protecting if we've hollowed out the country to pay for "securing" it?

What about the calls that were received a few months back that required fighter escort for passenger planes because of a threat? Do we ignore them and hope to god that its a hoax?

[Signals.Cpl]

How much money are you willing to spend on a lock for your door?

You've just basically admitted that you lock your door even though you know if someone wanted to get in badly enough, they would. You've just made my point for me.

No I lock my door so that someone doesn't come in to my house and steal my property, I know I can't prevent all thefts but I will also not make it easy so that anyone can take my stuff.

Just because we cannot make infant mortality rate 0% should we just stop trying and instead have more babies?

[kward]

But Canada has long "handed over" such things to a collective defense with treaty obligations. Moreover, it has projected force in the lofty goal of protecting "human rights" with a "Responsibility to Protect". This is code for protecting Canadian economic interests abroad.

1. Correct, and should they?

2. Projection of force is offense, not defense.

[Wilber]

the Australia just purchased 24 the US navy bought 124 more in 2010, so are you claiming the US navy buys obsolete crap?....the customers of the russians and chinese that would most likely encounter rarely buy planes that are top rate, they buy planes to protect themselves against their neighbors not nato...and this orphan line is crap, there are a number of planes that are only flow by one country it just doesn't matter, as long as we fly anything orphan or not, manufacturers will supply parts for it...

Australia ordered them as a replacement for their F-111's which left service in 2010, not their first gen F-18's. That is still scheduled to be replaced by the F-35. The US Navy has ordered more as a stop gap due to delays in the F-35 program, not as a substitute for the F-35.

The F-35 may turn out not be the aircraft for us but neither is the F-18E/F. I think a competition is a good thing but I also think the F-35 will still be very much in the hunt.

[bush_cheney2004]

1. Correct, and should they?

Given the possible options, Canada has chosen collective defense (offense). Voters have agreed.

2. Projection of force is offense, not defense.

The best defense is a strong offense.

Edited December 9, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

The only thing that I'm thinking could possibly beat the F-35 is the Rafale. It has all the capabilities that we need. I'm not saying it's better than the F-35, I'm just saying that under the circumstances, and depending on the weighting of the criteria, it could be the winner. The outside chance is the Gripen, but it lacks air to ground abilities that the other two have.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't know what the Criteria will be, but I don't see the F/A-18E/F as a valid option because of the fact that it won't be un use in 40 years by anyone else. The Typhoon may be, but it is expensive. That leaves the F-35, the Rafale, and the Gripen.

Right now, today, with the recent purchase of block 5 F-35 LRIP aircraft, the flyaway cost of the Lightning II is equal to or slightly lower than the flyaway cost of both the Rafale and Eurofighter……..and there is no way that a 65 twin engine Rafales or Eurofighters will be cheaper to operate than a single engine F-35 used by various countries over 40+ years………

To add, any purchase of a 4th generation aircraft, all of which will likely see their production lines close within the next ten years, will necessitate purchasing additional airframes for attrition and spares since it is unlikely any of the 4th generation manufactures will be producing aircraft/parts after the bulk of the users start retiring their aircraft in the early 2030s…………Remember, we’ll require keeping a bastard fleet going 20-30 years after the out of service date of the vast majority of aircraft used by other countries……….

It’s reasonable to expect a requirement for a 10-15% larger purchase of 4th generation aircraft for a attrition reserve (My estimate is based on losing approx 13% of our Hornet fleet through attrition)

It’s also worth noting, that unlike the F-35 program which garners important synergy’s in terms of support and training, with a 4th generation aircraft, we’ll also require our own training establishment ………..

[kward]

And the opposite is worse, knowing that no one is there to stop even the dumbest and least motivated bad guy. We have resources people want, we have enemies that would want to harm us and pretending that we don't all the while making ourselves defenceless is not a sound strategy.

Well for example in the north, we have half a dozen nations contesting our ownership, if we completely disarm they could choose to do as they please and we have no discourse in the matter. And your view that they won't hurt me if I don't fight back or even have the means to fight back is so out of touch with reality that it is scary.

What about the calls that were received a few months back that required fighter escort for passenger planes because of a threat? Do we ignore them and hope to god that its a hoax?

1. The dumbest and least motivated don't pull off terrorist acts that do widespread harm - just the opposite in fact.

2. I'm pretending that there are not people out there who want to attack Canada? Since when? Not wanting to throw money down the drain chasing some arbitrary idea of "security" is not the same thing as pretending a threat doesn't exist. It means recognizing the threat will always exist forever and ever, no matter how much you spend.

3. Protected land is owned land. The cheapest way for Canada to protect the north is to sell of its "Crown" land. Let the land owners incur the expense of protecting their property. They want to buy jets, go right ahead. But don't increase everyone's taxes trying to hold onto every iceberg within Canada's political boundaries.

4. You know what's scary? Reality. In reality, any place can be attacked at any time. It's just a fact. The likelihood is what counts. And you lessen the likelihood of being attacked when you do business, befriend, talk, and trade with others. Putting up walls, and buying ammo makes you seem paranoid, and people are less likely to trust you. When there's a lack of trust there's a greater likelihood for conflict. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

5. Of course, let's spend millions or even billions on fighter jets on the off chance that a passenger plane somewhere at some time may have to be "escorted" because of a "threat". Brilliant idea.

[kward]

Given the possible options, Canada has chosen collective defense (offense). Voters have agreed.

The best defense is a strong offense.

1. Not this voter.

2. "The best defense is a strong offense." A herd phrase if ever there was one.

[bush_cheney2004]

1. Not this voter.

2. "The best defense is a strong offense." A herd phrase if ever there was one.

One vote to a customer. Good luck.....

[Smallc]

Right now, today, with the recent purchase of block 5 F-35 LRIP aircraft, the flyaway cost of the Lightning II is equal to or slightly lower than the flyaway cost of both the Rafale and Eurofighter.

Good, then this is an exercise to shut everyone up.

[Guest Derek L]

the Australia just purchased 24 the US navy bought 124 more in 2010, so are you claiming the US navy buys obsolete crap?....the customers of the russians and chinese that would most likely encounter rarely buy planes that are top rate, they buy planes to protect themselves against their neighbors not nato...and this orphan line is crap, there are a number of planes that are only flow by one country it just doesn't matter, as long as we fly anything orphan or not, manufacturers will supply parts for it...

The RAAF and USN will be retiring their Super Hornets in the early 2030s..........Hence why the RAAF only has 20 years support on their contract.

[Signals.Cpl]

1. The dumbest and least motivated don't pull off terrorist acts that do widespread harm - just the opposite in fact.

Because they get caught or it becomes too hard for them to do anything so they sit and talk but no action, if we disarmed ourselves the dynamic changes.

2. I'm pretending that there are not people out there who want to attack Canada? Since when? Not wanting to throw money down the drain chasing some arbitrary idea of "security" is not the same thing as pretending a threat doesn't exist. It means recognizing the threat will always exist forever and ever, no matter how much you spend.

Do you lock the door of your car when you park it? Take your keys with you? do you do the same with your house? How about the women in your life, if one were to face rape would you do something to prevent it or see it as inevitable and let it happen?

3. Protected land is owned land. The cheapest way for Canada to protect the north is to sell of its "Crown" land. Let the land owners incur the expense of protecting their property. They want to buy jets, go right ahead. But don't increase everyone's taxes trying to hold onto every iceberg within Canada's political boundaries.

Yeah, and when that hits close to home what happens then? What happens when someone hits the oil fields in Alberta? Are we going to go with login's idea of militia's now? Let anyone arm themselves to their hearts content?

4. You know what's scary? Reality. In reality, any place can be attacked at any time.

Just because it can't does not mean we should stick our heads in the sand and let anyone do as they please.

It's just a fact. The likelihood is what counts.

You can defend yourself and have 1 out of 100 attacks get through, or you can disarm yourself because you cannot stop that one attack and let 100 out of 100 attacks get through its that simple 1 life lost or 10 or 20, vs 10,000 or 100,000 lost.

And you lessen the likelihood of being attacked when you do business, befriend, talk, and trade with others.

Care to explain how that worked for the Dutch and Belgians in WW2? Or Luxembourg? Or Denmark? Or Norway?

Putting up walls, and buying ammo makes you seem paranoid, and people are less likely to trust you.

And refusing to defend yourself means that people will trust you even less mainly because you will be unreliable, you cannot ensure the security in your airspace or waters no one will invest.

When there's a lack of trust there's a greater likelihood for conflict. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And where there is lack of defence or deterrent there is a greater likelihood of exploitation, if you don't defend it, someone will take it from you whatever "it" is.

5. Of course, let's spend millions or even billions on fighter jets on the off chance that a passenger plane somewhere at some time may have to be "escorted" because of a "threat". Brilliant idea.

Or we can spend billions more when it does happen and we can't do anything about it. I would rather have it and not need it rather then need it and not have it. It is an insurance policy, you can pay in to an insurance policy and never need it once or you can save the money and get an insurance policy after you need it.

[kward]

One vote to a customer. Good luck.....

Good luck, indeed. I'm in a country full of control freaks.

[Guest Derek L]

The only thing that I'm thinking could possibly beat the F-35 is the Rafale. It has all the capabilities that we need. I'm not saying it's better than the F-35, I'm just saying that under the circumstances, and depending on the weighting of the criteria, it could be the winner. The outside chance is the Gripen, but it lacks air to ground abilities that the other two have.

The Rafale not a chance……….French aircraft, will require mostly French weapons………Unlike as planned with the F-35 recycling our Hornets stores, the Rafale would also require a near complete replacement of all our sidewinders, AMRAAMs, Mavericks and JDAMs, not to mention new seeker heads for our Paveways………Plus a purchase of targeting and reconnaissance pods (Which are integral; to the Lightning)……..Not to mention, precluding us from purchasing JSOW and the SDB.

As to the Gripen…….It wouldn’t even be in the running due to it’s short legs.

[Smallc]

So the F-35 will win the competition....

[Guest Derek L]

So the F-35 will win the competition....

It already has:

http://fullcomment.n...-in-new-report/

The report validates much of the costing done by National Defence. The acquisition costs are identical at $8.9-billion. DND calculates sustainment costs will be $7.3-billion, while KPMG says $15.2-billion. On operating costs, DND estimates $9-billion, whereas the accountancy firm calculates $19.9-billion.

But the vast majority of those cost differences can be explained by the different time-scales used – DND’s costs are for a 20-year period, while KPMG fulfilled the mandate given it by the Auditor-General to give Canadians a full costing over the 42-year lifespan of the F-35s.

The conclusion that Canadians should draw is that it will cost them a little over $1-billion a year to operate a fleet of F-35s, according to both National Defence and KPMG.

Or better put:

http://www.mapleleaf...pic=22051&st=60

Derek L Posted Yesterday, 07:42 PM

And one more thing to note for both a F-35/Super Hornet................~40 billion over 40 years equals 1 billion a year.........or to contrast, 5% of DND's budget.....small potatoes for a modern air force.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Derek L

[kward]

Because they get caught or it becomes too hard for them to do anything so they sit and talk but no action, if we disarmed ourselves the dynamic changes.

Do you lock the door of your car when you park it? Take your keys with you? do you do the same with your house? How about the women in your life, if one were to face rape would you do something to prevent it or see it as inevitable and let it happen?

Yeah, and when that hits close to home what happens then? What happens when someone hits the oil fields in Alberta? Are we going to go with login's idea of militia's now? Let anyone arm themselves to their hearts content?

Just because it can't does not mean we should stick our heads in the sand and let anyone do as they please.

You can defend yourself and have 1 out of 100 attacks get through, or you can disarm yourself because you cannot stop that one attack and let 100 out of 100 attacks get through its that simple 1 life lost or 10 or 20, vs 10,000 or 100,000 lost.

Care to explain how that worked for the Dutch and Belgians in WW2? Or Luxembourg? Or Denmark? Or Norway?

And refusing to defend yourself means that people will trust you even less mainly because you will be unreliable, you cannot ensure the security in your airspace or waters no one will invest.

And where there is lack of defence or deterrent there is a greater likelihood of exploitation, if you don't defend it, someone will take it from you whatever "it" is.

Or we can spend billions more when it does happen and we can't do anything about it. I would rather have it and not need it rather then need it and not have it. It is an insurance policy, you can pay in to an insurance policy and never need it once or you can save the money and get an insurance policy after you need it.

The long point by point quote posts are silly. I've made my point already which is you will never, ever stop someone from attacking Canada no matter how many jets, boats, guns, or bombs you buy. In fact, the more we spend, the less secure we become, and the more unstable we appear. Everything else is just fantastical thinking fed by Hollywood action movies and fantasy plots.

[Signals.Cpl]

The long point by point quote posts are silly. I've made my point already which is you will never, ever stop someone from attacking Canada no matter how many jets, boats, guns, or bombs you buy. In fact, the more we spend, the less secure we become, and the more unstable we appear. Everything else is just fantastical thinking fed by Hollywood action movies and fantasy plots.

And just because we can't stop all of them does not mean we have to let all of them through. There are a lot of situations where we cannot prevent or stop 100% of incidents but that has never stopped people from trying.