Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[On Guard for Thee]

That's because the F 35 needs the Super Hornet to protect it in battle.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Super Hornet, of course, was supposed to be taking a back seat to the Lightning at this point.

This is false....USN F/A-18 E/F platforms were not giving up all missions to F-35C. See F/A -XX development program.

One should not compare a single Canadian fighter "jet" procurement objective with multiple programs in the United States.

Canada ended up buying a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter....and it has no carriers.

Edited February 25, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Why?

If we know why then we will know what kind and how many.

I was paraphrasing the USN in the article.

[Smallc]

What?

Name one USN frontline Super Hornet squadron to be replaced by the F-35C..........can't do it? That's because the F-35C isn't replacing the Super Hornet.

Until you start actually responding to the things I say...see yah.

[Smallc]

This is false....USN F/A-18 E/F platforms were not giving up all missions to F-35C.

Didn't say that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't say that.

Then be clear...don't run fast and loose with USN aircraft platforms and procurements (plural) to justify a very narrow Canadian procurement.

Edited February 25, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Then be clear...don't run fast and loose with USN aircraft platforms and procurements (plural) to justify a very narrow Canadian procurement.

I'm not really concerned about what the US does. The presented issue was the lack of another operator. There will be an operator of the Super Hornet in the form of the USN into the 2040s Edited February 25, 2016 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not really concerned about what the US does. The presented issue was the lack of another operator. There will be an operator of the Super Hornet in the form of the USN into the 2040s

No, apparently U.S. programs and procurements weigh heavily on whatever direction this never-ending Canadian replacement "jets" saga takes.

The U.S. scraps more aircraft each year than Canada will ever buy.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, apparently U.S. programs and procurements weigh heavily on whatever direction this never-ending Canadian replacement "jets" saga takes.

The U.S. scraps more aircraft each year than Canada will ever buy.

It seems to dovetail with the ongoing F 35 failure saga.

[ReeferMadness]

The U.S. scraps more aircraft each year than Canada will ever buy.

That's the best idea I've heard yet for the butterball. Scrap it.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's the best idea I've heard yet for the butterball. Scrap it.

The U.S. will probably scrap one or more F-35s before poor Canada figures out its latest circle-jerk aircraft procurement.

[On Guard for Thee]

The U.S. will probably scrap one or more F-35s before poor Canada figures out its latest circle-jerk aircraft procurement.

Poor is what we are avoiding by not getting involved in the F35 "circle jerk".

[Derek 2.0]

Until you start actually responding to the things I say...see yah.

Oh I do, and the majority of your points are either false, lacking in context or reliant upon dated information.......even then, offers little as a justification as to why Canada should procure a design that traces its roots back to the 1970s, and operate said aircraft out to the ~2060s........and in this case, an aircraft that will be compromised by near term Russian aircraft and air defense systems.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not really concerned about what the US does. The presented issue was the lack of another operator. There will be an operator of the Super Hornet in the form of the USN into the 2040s

No there won't, and there sure won't be an operator out to the 2050 and 2060s.

[Derek 2.0]

The U.S. scraps more aircraft each year than Canada will ever buy.

Exactly, there are already Super Hornets in the high desert.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh I do, and the majority of your points are either false, lacking in context or reliant upon dated information.......even then, offers little as a justification as to why Canada should procure a design that traces its roots back to the 1970s, and operate said aircraft out to the ~2060s........and in this case, an aircraft that will be compromised by near term Russian aircraft and air defense systems.

As is the F 35 by both Russian and Chinese products.

[Derek 2.0]

As is the F 35 by both Russian and Chinese products.

If/when, the Russians and Chinese (or anyone else) deploys said systems, what happens to the threat matrix encompassing current fourth generation aircraft like the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG etc? In other words, when current or near term stealth technology can be defeated, or even compromised, what does that mean for non-stealth aircraft.....in many cases, aircraft today that couldn't operate in the central Iraqi Air Defense grid 25 years ago.....

[On Guard for Thee]

If/when, the Russians and Chinese (or anyone else) deploys said systems, what happens to the threat matrix encompassing current fourth generation aircraft like the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG etc? In other words, when current or near term stealth technology can be defeated, or even compromised, what does that mean for non-stealth aircraft.....in many cases, aircraft today that couldn't operate in the central Iraqi Air Defense grid 25 years ago.....

Unfortunately the stealth issue, or the lack thereof, is only one of the F 35 ongoing problems. Not only can it be "seen" by others outside, the latest reports shows that it's own software can't "see" what is going on inside the a/c. Then there is maneuverability, acceleration, the deadly ejection seat, and on and on. How many more years and how many more billions will it take to fix all these things which seem to pop up faster than they can be remedied?

[Derek 2.0]

Unfortunately the stealth issue, or the lack thereof, is only one of the F 35 ongoing problems. Not only can it be "seen" by others outside, the latest reports shows that it's own software can't "see" what is going on inside the a/c. Then there is maneuverability, acceleration, the deadly ejection seat, and on and on. How many more years and how many more billions will it take to fix all these things which seem to pop up faster than they can be remedied?

You're not answering the question..........none the less, as to your posted "concerns", even an ardent socialist like Bernie Sanders is consigned to the reality that is the F-35, welcoming the news that its to be deployed by the Vermont Air National Guard, in its role to contribute to NORAD.

[Argus]

There are also those who understand how a military works and would like to see our government decide on where we are going with our military.

Uhm... because this government understands how a military works, huh? Yeah, I'm sure Justin Trudeau learned a lot about it in his brief high school career.

You can choose to let other countries (especially the USA who seems to enjoy wars) expend their blood and treasure for their wars (and Canadian protection)) - or - we can decide that Canada needs to have and facilitate our own foreign policy.

This has zero to do with the topic under discussion. Perhaps you have wandered in here accidentally.

If we allow the USA to protect themselves (and by necessity Canada) from the wars it initiates then we have no need to spend our money on expensive military technology. They start it, they own it, they pay for it.

So you are suggesting we NOT allow the Americans to protect themselves because, in your uhm, unique view, everything that happens is their fault anyway?

How do you suggest we not allow the Americans to protect themselves?

If we decide that we need Canadian autonomy and a unique Canadian foreign policy then we triple our yearly military budget to $60 billion a year and begin to create a nuclear capability. We can always increase taxes, deficits and other means to pay for our new nuclear military. We can always find a way.

How about we cut back on the golden pensions paid to ex public servants?

At the moment, we keep spending money on the kind of military hardware that allows the USA to pressure and/or blackmail us into using it to support them in their wars and expeditions based on American foreign policy. That is what we did in Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya and now in Iraq and Syria.

You would prefer we fund what kind of military hardware? Sailing ships and biplanes?

I prefer to allow the Americans the glory, patriotism and celebration of sending their men and women to die in all corners of the world into doing what the USA thinks they should be doing.

I much prefer to attend university graduation ceremonies then military burials.

Let others protect us, eh? Not your problem.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Oh there's plenty of blame for Harper: look at the hundreds of millions he wasted trying to sole source this turkey.

By following through on the previous government's involvement in the project, you mean? Which they'd already spent many millions on?

[Big Guy]

...

Let others protect us, eh? Not your problem.

Sorry. I do not respond to parsed comments.

[On Guard for Thee]

By following through on the previous government's involvement in the project, you mean? Which they'd already spent many millions on?

That's exactly what I mean. Although Harper's decision to sole source when the turkey was already showing it's serious faults leaves you scratching your head.

[Hoser360]

So you claim that the case against the F35 is so obvious to you but a new government which explicitly questioned the merits of the deal is unable to see your POV. Why? ideological blinders? bribes from Lockheed? Alien mind control? Perhaps the case against the F35 is not as strong as you wish to believe.

How and why governments create these contracts is so complex ,and, convoluted by the each side it is beyound me. I'm just speaking from a basic philosophy I have regarding technology and the procurement there of. It seems logical to me that when up grading the tech you already own, you take the following 'rules' (as I see them) into consideration.

1) has the current tech I own served it's purpose and performed it's function as advertised? (the CF-18 has)

2) when selecting a replacement technology it seems more prudent to go with a tried/proven tech other than the most latest and greatest..? (I do not as a a matter of principle, ever buy the first generation of anything, and, if it keeps having development problems (budget creep) post first addition, the alarm bells ring and other options are more closely looked into.

3) cost, how much actual bang do I get for my buck? (what do I need this things for? well, Canada is not an offensive army. We are traditionally a support roll army and in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians, would like it to stay that way. That said, we have to patrol large areas of our own boarders and be able to contribute to assisting in our contributions to NATO [which requires that we can operate from US aircraft carriers]. Do we need a 'first strike' air craft? Or, if I could two for one for the same cost and still meet the needs as defined, then I would the money for investment into other aspects of 'tool kit', like ships, helicopters, etc.

4) have I explored all the option available? (from what I understand, there was never a transparent bidding process and thus the issue was easily politicized going into the election. Granted I believe it would not be good to by an aircraft not manufactured by the US, but, the F-35 has not been a stable performing platform and has gone off the chart financially and in its schedule for delivery and as a proven technology, which I can say confidently because that is well documented.

5) in regards to one governments contracts and 'deals', requires an open book. That means if we have subsidized, given grants or may made cross boarder trades as a back ground to the actually procurement contract of a product, most of us will never know, which means I am suspicious of any canceled contracts which are created by one government and canceled by the next (i.e. gas plants, sea kings, etc...) which is to say the hole processes of letting government contracts to privet industry is a mine field of back room deals.

Unfortunately we, as the voting public, are left ignorant to the entire issues which are used to herd us to choose a side in/at the ballet box. Spend any time watching question period and if you have any brains, so can see how ridiculous the hole situation really is. It seems to me that we do not live in a democracy, that is if you you feel that a democracy is only true/valid if the electorate are comprised of people educated enough to make an informed decision.

We are a people that are sheep, herded by donkeys that we elect, and, the only reason it works is because the grass is abundant (pun intended).

Edited February 26, 2016 by Hoser360

[bush_cheney2004]

How and why governments create these contracts is so complex ,and, convoluted by the each side it is beyound me. I'm just speaking from a basic philosophy I have regarding technology and the procurement there of. It seems logical to me that when up grading the tech you already own, you take the following 'rules' (as I see them) into consideration.

There is nothing new here....topic has been debated for years (see link). Other nations have procured new aircraft while Canada does what it always does best for "jets", ships, or helicopters....dither.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22051-f-35-purchase-cancelled;-cf-18-replacement-process-begins/