Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[DogOnPorch]

The Harrier can take off at its gross weight which includes an 18,000 payload in 400 ft with a ski jump. It needs 750 feet without one. it is also a much smaller aircraft than the F-35.

I think it was at Abbotsford when I seen the Harrier perform. Noisy beast.

[Wilber]

I think it was at Abbotsford when I seen the Harrier perform. Noisy beast.

In 67 I visited my grandfather in England and we managed to get tickets to Farnborough on one of the industry days. We saw the P1127 prototype fly. In 67 that was mind boggling and an interesting thing is the final production Harriers could carry more than the P1127 weighed.

[Army Guy]

The Russians are practically bankrupt even at this slightly higher oil price. Most of their military equipment makes Canada's look new. Their outlook going forward isn't that great, I'd say.

I would say look again , If Russia was not a threat why is NATO an option...Russia is busy re vamping it's military, even with oil at it's lowest....try looking at the new equipment they are fielding ...and even their old equipment is light years ahead of what we have in inventory....

[Smallc]

I would say look again , If Russia was not a threat why is NATO an option...Russia is busy re vamping it's military, even with oil at it's lowest....try looking at the new equipment they are fielding ...and even their old equipment is light years ahead of what we have in inventory....

Russia has some impressive capability. Impressive in that they have some while being nearly bankrupt. Most of what they have is old and from their previous glory days. Their credit rating goes further and further into junk status every time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Russia has some impressive capability. Impressive in that they have some while being nearly bankrupt. Most of what they have is old and from their previous glory days.

This is not true for some offensive and defensive weapons systems, and is hardly different from Canada's updated but "old" aircraft, ships, and problematic submarines, the very reason for this constipated F-35 procurement debate.

[Smallc]

This is not true for some offensive and defensive weapons systems

Russia has capability matched by few. If current trends hold, they'll have fewer people, a smaller economy, and no ability to borrow. Their fleet, about 2/3 of which is old, will suffer rust out (it already is). Their future, military or otherwise is currently very uncertain.

and is hardly different from Canada's updated but "old" aircraft, ships, and problematic submarines, the very reason for this constipated F-35 procurement debate.

The very reason that I compared them to Canada. Thank you for making my point.

[bush_cheney2004]

The very reason that I compared them to Canada. Thank you for making my point.

No, the point is that such comparisons to Canada are tenuous at best. The Russian Federation has far more modern military capabilities than does Canada, not just old "kit". Canada cannot project such force without allied support, except maybe in Haiti !

Edited March 13, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

No, the point is that such comparisons to Canada are tenuous at best.

And yet you did just that.

The Russian Federation has far more modern military capabilities than does Canada, not just old "kit".

I don't think anyone said otherwise. You have a tendency to argue against points that were never made. Russia is running on empty in terms of money, which has put a real wrench into military renewal an expansion efforts. With so much old tech, Russia's capability going forward is questionable if the current economic climate persists. No one said Canada was any better, or even as good.

Canada cannot project such force without allied support, except maybe in Haiti !

Canada projected force into the White House just this week.

[kimmy]

Not crazy, but the actual Canadian procurement decision really has nothing to do with the aircraft model. Replacement aircraft have been required for many years but upgrading existing CF-18s was chosen because of lower cost and political expediency, which will remain the primary determinants going forward. Other, even smaller nations have managed to procure such aircraft without nearly as much drama and indecision, and will continue to do so.

This is kind of what I was thinking.

Other countries use military procurement to procure equipment for their militaries. We in Canada seem to want to use military procurement as some kind of nation-building exercise to create jobs and goodies for communities around the country.

What if, instead of trying to chisel some Canadian action out of the massive F35 project, what if we just went to Eurofighter and Saab and Dassault and said "we just want to buy fighters. Show us what you've got." Ultimately, we're buying fighter planes because we want to meet our military commitments, not because we want to create jobs, right?

Oh and there this is little company called SAAB, in a country which is no bigger than Southern Ontario and has a population almost the same as Southern Ontario, and they make some amazing military aircraft.

Well, yeah, but it would make more sense to go buy a Saab product than to cite Saab as an example of how easy it is to build airplanes. Their Gripen plane took 10 years and $13 billion to develop.

For $13 billion we could order enough Gripens to replace our CF18s, have them sooner, and still have billions left over to spend on something more useful.

-k

[Wilber]

That was 13 billion and 10 years for a company that was already in the business of building jet fighters. We would be starting from scratch. You could probably double that.

[Army Guy]

This is kind of what I was thinking.

Other countries use military procurement to procure equipment for their militaries. We in Canada seem to want to use military procurement as some kind of nation-building exercise to create jobs and goodies for communities around the country.

What if, instead of trying to chisel some Canadian action out of the massive F35 project, what if we just went to Eurofighter and Saab and Dassault and said "we just want to buy fighters. Show us what you've got." Ultimately, we're buying fighter planes because we want to meet our military commitments, not because we want to create jobs, right?

-k

That is a major problem with any military purchase, it is not just the fact we want to buy a piece of equipment, but it must also provide a whole slew of of other conditions as well, It must provide jobs in Canada , it has to have a percentage of Canadian content, it needs to provide a large percentage of off shoots for Canada in other industry areas, such as if the contract is worth x bil , the contractor must also spend x amount in Canada....There is a lot more conditions each contractor must live up to...all of it must be met or no sale...

I wish it was as simple as you suggested, but it is not often the equipment we want is not available because of the above conditions and we settle for something DND really don't want..

A good example of that would be the LSVW veh build by western star BC, the government told DND that was the veh of choice, even after it had failed all the testing by DND In Canada..was forced to take it to a desert environment US to test, and some how it passed with flying colors...Today most of these vehs lay in compounds rusted out, broken down, and still no replacement vehs forth coming....

[Wilber]

A good example of that would be the LSVW veh build by western star BC, the government told DND that was the veh of choice, even after it had failed all the testing by DND In Canada..was forced to take it to a desert environment US to test, and some how it passed with flying colors...Today most of these vehs lay in compounds rusted out, broken down, and still no replacement vehs forth coming....

And now Western Star is long gone from Canada.

[dre]

This is kind of what I was thinking.

Other countries use military procurement to procure equipment for their militaries. We in Canada seem to want to use military procurement as some kind of nation-building exercise to create jobs and goodies for communities around the country.

Is that true? Other countries do the same thing as well. Military industrial complexes are an important part of quite a few economies.

[Smallc]

Is that true? Other countries do the same thing as well.

That's right, or you wouldn't have had a split of the Type 45 from the Horizon, the NH90, the Rafale spilt from the Typhoon, etc. Canadians are really a grass is greener on the other side bunch.

[Army Guy]

Is that true? Other countries do the same thing as well. Military industrial complexes are an important part of quite a few economies.

Canada's shipbuilding program is another excellent example. Building ships in Canada is way more expensive than having them built in other countries, Even with the higher costs, quality or speed of the build is not always there. Most of the time this costs come at the expense of Capabilities' of the end product. yes we get Canadian built ships but some of the bells and whistle's the navy was looking for are left out....

Britain had they're AOR's built else where for a fraction of the price...

While there is some benefits in building them here, the real question maybe is it worth re building our ship building capacities, lessons learned from the last time we did this don't seem to have been a factor in deciding to do it all other once again....What ever did happen to the ship yard in ST john NB, it was closed down and moved to Halifax NS, to a smaller facility because Irving Decided it was more cost effective.....

[Smallc]

Canada's shipbuilding program is another excellent example. Building ships in Canada is way more expensive than having them built in other countries, Even with the higher costs, quality or speed of the build is not always there. Most of the time this costs come at the expense of Capabilities' of the end product. yes we get Canadian built ships but some of the bells and whistle's the navy was looking for are left out

Sure, but then most of the money is reinvested in the economy and is available to government. I'm in favour of building off shore, but there are definite positives to keeping our industry.

Britain had they're AOR's built else where for a fraction of the price

But not their warships.

lessons learned from the last time we did this don't seem to have been a factor in deciding to do it all other once again.

The whole program that the Conservatives started is based on lessons learned last time.

[dre]

Canada's shipbuilding program is another excellent example. Building ships in Canada is way more expensive than having them built in other countries, Even with the higher costs, quality or speed of the build is not always there. Most of the time this costs come at the expense of Capabilities' of the end product. yes we get Canadian built ships but some of the bells and whistle's the navy was looking for are left out....

Britain had they're AOR's built else where for a fraction of the price...

While there is some benefits in building them here, the real question maybe is it worth re building our ship building capacities, lessons learned from the last time we did this don't seem to have been a factor in deciding to do it all other once again....What ever did happen to the ship yard in ST john NB, it was closed down and moved to Halifax NS, to a smaller facility because Irving Decided it was more cost effective.....

As SC alluded to, you would have to do a much more in-depth economic analysis than just looking at the sticker price. Money that stays in our economy will swirl around the system and be spent thousands of times. Capital flight on the other hand builds the current account deficit.

Even if our own ships cost twice as much and are of slightly lower quality it might be a wise macro-economic decision to build VS buy. I'm nothing saying it IS... just saying it COULD be.

Same goes for the F35. We probably cant build a GEN5 fighter that's comparable. But 95% of what our air force does is fly routine patrols, and we could build a plane that does THAT... and keep tens of billions in our economy plus spin-off industries, etc.

Edited March 13, 2016 by dre

[Wilber]

10 years was the time between the Gripen's first flight and in service date, not it's development time, same for the Typhoon and incidentally the same amount of time since the F-35 first flew and it is a much more ambitious project. The Rafale took 15 years between first flight and introduction.

The time frame for the F-35 isn't unusual, it's the development costs that are.

The most modern of them, the Typhoon first flew 22 years ago, the other two back in the eighties, only a few years after we got our F-18's

Edited March 13, 2016 by Wilber

[Smallc]

The most modern of the 4.5 generation fighters by first flight date is the Super Hornet.

[Wilber]

The most modern of the 4.5 generation fighters by first flight date is the Super Hornet.

A redesign of an older concept like we see in airliners, not a new type of its own.

[bush_cheney2004]

The most modern of the 4.5 generation fighters by first flight date is the Super Hornet.

Unclear...the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet was not generation "4.5" at first flight date in 1995 (e.g. no AESA radar).

[Smallc]

Unclear...the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet was not generation "4.5" at first flight date in 1995 (e.g. no AESA radar).

It's currently a 4.5 generation fighter. It had the most recent first flight of all 4.5 generation fighters. Whether it was counted as such at the beginning, I'm as unclear as you.

[Smallc]

A redesign of an older concept like we see in airliners, not a new type of its own.

Despite the similar look, it's an almost completely new aircraft.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's currently a 4.5 generation fighter. It had the most recent first flight of all 4.5 generation fighters. Whether it was counted as such at the beginning, I'm as unclear as you.

I am pretty certain that original F/A-18 E/F production was not "gen 4.5" because it retained many F/A-18 legacy subsystems to keep costs down compared to upgraded F-14 Tomcats and naval variant of F-22 Raptor.

Super Hornets Block II received some of the required upgrades for "gen 4.5" starting about 11 years ago.

The Super Hornet platform is already past mid-life cycle and is primarily a "value buy" hedge for customers unwilling to buy the latest technology and capabilities.

Edited March 13, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Despite the similar look, it's an almost completely new aircraft.

It's a redo of a concept from the early seventies like the B737 900 owes its origins to the B737 100 of the sixties, not a completely new type like the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 or Bombardier's C series.