Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Argus]

I think the F-35 will be great. I'm not arguing that. It's just not ready yet. Hopefully it will be ready in 2022.

Since we haven't even officially ordered them yet, there is no possibility we would get any before 2022 anyway.

[Argus]

I agreed with you until a short time ago. When you consider the economic opportunity cost, not so much.

The results for the navy is that they pay three times more for a warship than they would pay if they ordered it elsewhere.

[Argus]

The CEO of Davie is against a deal Davie lost (mostly because, at the time, they were bankrupt)? I can't believe that.

Seriously, the first ship will roll off the line in about 9 months according to Seaspan. The program was started about a decade too late, but it's the right program.

He is not the only one questioning the costs. He is echoing what the price waterhouse report said about the cost overruns, and that the shipyards have a strong incentive to let the costs skyrocket as much as they can since that will just increase their profits.

And he is offering to build an icebreaker for less than half what we're going to pay Irving, and to do it now, not in two years.

[Smallc]

Since we haven't even officially ordered them yet, there is no possibility we would get any before 2022 anyway.

We need them to start arriving by 2023ish, no matter what we get, unless we're planning a further extension in life of the CF-188.

[Smallc]

He is not the only one questioning the costs. He is echoing what the price waterhouse report said about the cost overruns, and that the shipyards have a strong incentive to let the costs skyrocket as much as they can since that will just increase their profits.

The AOPS contract with Irving is structured so that the more ships they deliver within the budget (6 instead of 5) the more profit they get. The people negotiating for the Harper government weren't idiots.

And he is offering to build an icebreaker for less than half what we're going to pay Irving, and to do it now, not in two years.

He's not offering to build a heavy icebreakers. He's offering to build two smaller icebreakers. The CCG doesn't yet need to replace the smaller icebreakers (though it'll be time within the decade)

Edited March 17, 2016 by Smallc

[Argus]

So it looks like the Canadian military is entering a new Decade of Darkness, courtesy of Trudeau. There will be no F-35s or any other new fighter planes in the current mandate, nor anything else. That money has been diverted to helping the 'middle class' or at least, that portion of it that votes Liberal, and to more federal welfare cheques for seniors, natives and maritimers.

[Smallc]

So it looks like the Canadian military is entering a new Decade of Darkness, courtesy of Trudeau. There will be no F-35s or any other new fighter planes in the current mandate, nor anything else. That money has been diverted to helping the 'middle class' or at least, that portion of it that votes Liberal, and to more federal welfare cheques for seniors, natives and maritimers.

Where was your outrage when in the last two budgets the Conservatives did the exact same thing?

The reality is this; the government is supposed to be buying F-35s and CSCs right NOW. That's according to the money and plans laid out in the Canada First Defence Strategy. We're not buying them now, and we won't be buying them for 5 - 10 years, even though contracts will probably be signed within this mandate. We can't buy them now because plans are behind schedule by a decade. We don't need the money now, we need it then. That's why the Conservatives moved the money, and that's why the Liberals moved the money now.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Smallc

[Argus]

Where was your outrage when in the last two budgets the Conservatives did the exact same thing?

You won't find it hard to find lots of posts of mine that were highly critical of Harper's military spending and procurement.

I wasn't a political partisan taking whatever damned position the politicians held and excusing stupid policy decisions.

This government is borrowing well over a hundred billion dollars, but even with all that they're screwing the military.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

The military can't buy anything. That's why the money had to be moved. Procurement is utterly broken.

What's important is they haven't touched operations, and they're providing funding to make sure we can buy the next tranche of ships. The estimates for this year show $400M less based on last years budget, but the government says that will be topped up.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

The military can't buy anything. That's why the money had to be moved. Procurement is utterly broken.

Well, look at the bright side...if military procurements are frozen, they can't screw it up like they usually do.

[Hoser360]

People please, just dumb down the issue from all the rhetoric. The only plane we need to satisfy our own national needs and our needs for our NATO treaty can be met by the Latest edition of the f-18. This platform has proven to meet our Canadian needs and has also demonstrated it's ability in actually application. The F-35 is a high tech first strike air craft. Canada doesn't need a first strike aircraft. Worse still the F-35 is very unlikely to hold it's own against the latest 5th generation aircraft that Russia has put on the battlefield, let alone what is to come from the other non US manufacturers, like the Chinese for example. So lets buy what we need without getting sucked into the future and maybe upgrade our see kings at the same time.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Hoser360

[Wilber]

People please, just dumb down the issue from all the rhetoric. The only plane we need to satisfy our own national needs and our needs for our NATO treaty can be met by the Latest edition of the f-18. This platform has proven to meet our Canadian needs and has also demonstrated it's ability in actually application. The F-35 is a high tech first strike air craft. Canada doesn't need a first strike aircraft. Worse still the F-35 is very unlikely to hold it's own against the latest 5th generation aircraft that Russia has put on the battlefield, let alone what is to come from the other non US manufacturers, like the Chinese for example. So lets buy what we need without getting sucked into the future and maybe upgrade our see kings at the same time.

What's this nonsense about "first strike"?

[rotary]

Well, look at the bright side...if military procurements are frozen, they can't screw it up like they usually do.

You mean like throwing good money after bad toward the F 35? I'd much rather go in the red to buy things that actually work.

[rotary]

What's this nonsense about "first strike"?

Correct. If it tried a "first strike" without an F 22 alongside, we'd see a multi million dollar smoking hole in the ground, and hopefully a surviving pilot drifting down in his ejection seat, that's if it didn't break his neck and kill him/her on deployment.

[Wilber]

Correct. If it tried a "first strike" without an F 22 alongside, we'd see a multi million dollar smoking hole in the ground, and hopefully a surviving pilot drifting down in his ejection seat, that's if it didn't break his neck and kill him/her on deployment.

Why does an F- 35 need an F-22 to deal with ground threats any more than an F-18 would need one to deal with airborne threats?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Wilber

[rotary]

Why does an F- 35 need an F-22 to deal with ground threats any more than an F-18 would need one to deal with airborne threats?

Because when it's loaded it can't maneuver, (turn, accelerate, etc.) very well, so it needs protection to get to target.

[Smallc]

Because when it's loaded it can't maneuver, (turn, accelerate, etc.) very well, so it needs protection to get to target.

Like...every other fighter jet, including the Super Hornet (which is, btw, probably the least maneuverable option currently available).

[Wilber]

Because when it's loaded it can't maneuver, (turn, accelerate, etc.) very well, so it needs protection to get to target.

So does every fighter when used as bomber. That is why stealth is important to survivability. A fully loaded Super Hornet would be even more vulnerable. If you want an aircraft that is the best at everything, it doesn't exist. The proof of the pudding will come when the fully operational F-35 is compared to existing types in different combat roles. Until then, it's just a bunch of opinions on the internet.

[Smallc]

So does every fighter when used as bomber. That is why stealth is important to survivability. A fully loaded Super Hornet would be even more vulnerable. If you want an aircraft that is the best at everything, it doesn't exist. The proof of the pudding will come when the fully operational F-35 is compared to existing types in different combat roles.

We only have to wait another 6 years for that... at least.

[rotary]

Which is why trying to flog the 35 as a "one size fits all" machine simply has proven to be too much for one airframe.

[Wilber]

Which is why trying to flog the 35 as a "one size fits all" machine simply has proven to be too much for one airframe.

Funny, that's why we bought F-18's back in the 80"s to replace the 104's and 101's. So how many different types do you think we should buy?

[rotary]

Funny, that's why we bought F-18's back in the 80"s to replace the 104's and 101's. So how many different types do you think we should buy?

Super Hornet is all we need. Who is it we are planning to attack with this, possibly, stealthy airplane?

[Wilber]

Super Hornet is all we need. Who is it we are planning to attack with this, possibly, stealthy airplane?

Nobody hopefully because if we are only buying 65, we can't afford to lose any.

It costs the US 6 million a year, per pilot to train and keep their fighter pilots trained. I doubt we can do it for much less if we want ours to be as good.

[rotary]

Nobody hopefully because if we are only buying 65, we can't afford to lose any.

It costs the US 6 million a year, per pilot to train and keep their fighter pilots trained. I doubt we can do it for much less if we want ours to be as good.

From a pilots point of view, I think I would happily trade off the sketchy stealth for a second stove.

[Wilber]

From a pilots point of view, I think I would happily trade off the sketchy stealth for a second stove.

These are fighters after all. A second engine will not keep you from being shot down in a combat situation. The USAF has been operating F-16's in Alaska for decades and there have been a lot of single engine carrier based aircraft.