Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[poochy]

Inversely, if common sense prevailed, and they purchased the F-35 to avoid embarrassment (both by buying an inferior aircraft for the same price or more and gutting Canada's aerospace industry) they can do a bs dog and pony show and say they held a "fair competition", "got the best deal" and "saved Canada's high tech and aerospace industries" etc etc.......and what would the Opposition say? The Tories wouldn't say much, I doubt the Bloc would make too much noise over Quebec aerospace jobs and who cares what the NDP or Greens say........

At this point, aside from it being the actual right selection, buying the F-35 is the right political choice and does little to Trudeau politically.......

Lets hope they come to the same conclusion, im really sick of the bare minimum approach to equipping the military, it's shameful when we could easily do better.

[Derek 2.0]

The problem is, military procurement is a long-term activity, and governments only run for ~4 years before another election. And, on average, we don't really use our military that much.

In the case of our current Hornets, we use it daily 24-7-365

The major problems with the Super Hornet (if we bought them) would not be apparent before the next election, or perhaps even for the next decade. (The F18 is not necessarily a bad plane, when compared to at least some of its competitors.)

There are problems with them now, aside from their unresolved oxygen issue and reduced lifespan (compared with the other 4 proposed aircraft), the Super Hornet (and other 4th generation aircraft) would be hard pressed to survive (presently) in a conflict with modern Russian air defenses and fighters........The Trudeau Liberals have suggested we have a defined contribution to NATO (despite no such evidence) to provide modern fighters, ergo, Canada contributing aircraft that couldn't operate in an environment with S400s and Su-35s isn't going to allow us to meet our contribution.

The problems with the Super Hornet would start showing up in 10-20 years, when spare parts start become hard to find and the military technology of other countries has started to improve. So Trudeau will look like a hero ("Hey I saved all this money buying planes!") but future governments will be screwed.

That is very true, made evident by the USN/USMC struggles to keep their aging fleet of legacy Hornets in the air, 20 years after their production ended.....unlike the legacy Hornet, the Super Hornet won't be near as plentiful in terms of parts (scrounged from the Arizona desert)........as such, Canada will be forced to purchase far more spares parts (twice as many engines then an F-35 purchase) and likely an additional ~10-15 attrition aircraft from the onset.

Unless they dick around with the accounting, I don't see how a Super Hornet purchase would be cheaper then the F-35 if the same through life costs are applied (as was applied to the F-35) for ~40 years service.

[Derek 2.0]

Lets hope they come to the same conclusion, im really sick of the bare minimum approach to equipping the military, it's shameful when we could easily do better.

Oh I don't know that they will, it would just be the smart political move presently and would allow him to close the file............I honestly don't know how many of his moonbeamed supporters would stopping drinking the Kool-Aid if he reneged on his promise to not by the F-35.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[segnosaur]

The problem is, military procurement is a long-term activity, and governments only run for ~4 years before another election. And, on average, we don't really use our military that much.

In the case of our current Hornets, we use it daily 24-7-365

Sorry, I guess I should have been precise...

We don't use them in military conflicts that often. (I do recognize that they are flown daily, on training exercises, on patrols, etc.)

My point was not to suggest that the F18 was "just fine"... my point was to show how the Liberal government could buy the wrong plane, but not really suffer backlash because the time when the advantages of the F35 are most needed (e.g. a combat situation) doesn't occur very often.

as such, Canada will be forced to purchase far more spares parts (twice as many engines then an F-35 purchase) and likely an additional ~10-15 attrition aircraft from the onset.

Unless they dick around with the accounting, I don't see how a Super Hornet purchase would be cheaper then the F-35 if the same through life costs are applied (as was applied to the F-35) for ~40 years service.

Well, they could always ignore the long term, buy Super Hornets, just stick to the original 65 plane order, buy the minimum of spare parts, claim "big cost savings", and leave the mess for other governments to clean up. Short term gain for long term pain.

Trudeau and the current Liberal government wouldn't care... they probably would have been retired long before the true cost of the planes becomes an issue. If they're lucky, there will be a conservative government some where in their to blame their mistakes on.

[eyeball]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you consider to be "justification" for buying the plane?

Exactly nothing at all.

No enemies, no threats, no conflicts...nothing...at all

[segnosaur]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you consider to be "justification" for buying the plane?

Exactly nothing at all.

No enemies, no threats, no conflicts...nothing...at all

I see... the sort of "stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing bad will ever happen" argument. Brilliant!

So tell me, how would you propose Canada handle a situation similar to the Payne Stewart incident (plane has a malfunction resulting in the death of everyone on board. Plane is on autopilot. The possibility of shooting it down should it possibly crash in a populated area is discussed. How would you handle such a situation with no military planes at all?

How would you handle a situation like Matthias Rust, who flew a small plane and crashed it in red square as a "stunt"?

How would you handle a possible hijacking (similar to 9/11) over Canadian territories, or on a trans-atlantic flight with a flight path that passed over Canadian territories? After all, even if Canada itself "has no enemies", we share a border with perhaps the biggest target in the world.

What if Canada should host another G8/G20 summit? Generally those things are expected to have decent security, including regular air patrols. How would you handle air patrols without an airforce?

And does that mean you're completely content with genocide and other abuses happening? Although military intervention doesn't always work, NATOs air campaign is generally seen as being beneficial in eastern Europe. How do you feel about innocent people being killed there? Feel good?

[cybercoma]

I see... the sort of "stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing bad will ever happen" argument. Brilliant!

Strawman. Nobody here or anywhere else ever suggested we should have no military or even no new jets for that matter.

[segnosaur]

Strawman. Nobody here or anywhere else ever suggested we should have no military or even no new jets for that matter.

Well, when I asked what he'd consider convincing for the F35, Eyeball said "Exactly nothing at all. No enemies, no threats, no conflicts...nothing...at all".

If he's pointing to "no threats", it certainly suggests that he doesn't believe in the need for an air force.

[cybercoma]

Maybe not, but that would an extremely fringe position.

[segnosaur]

Maybe not, but that would an extremely fringe position.

Perhaps, but certainly not unheard of. I've seen the same sort of "no military" arguments elsewhere (and I think one or 2 posters had made the same argument in this very thread, although it was a while ago, and I hadn't really bee keeping up with things.)

Perhaps he thinks we do need an airforce, but just not one with the F35... in that case, he 1) didn't make his point very clearly, and 2) made a very questionable statement about how "nothing" would convince him, which shows a remarkable lack of inflexibility, even if he just paid lip service to the possibility of accepting the F35.

[Derek 2.0]

Sorry, I guess I should have been precise...

We don't use them in military conflicts that often. (I do recognize that they are flown daily, on training exercises, on patrols, etc.)

The daily NORAD mission, flown with real life war shots, is in every sense of the word, treated as a military conflict with the daily tempo only dictated by the given threat level deemed in that instance of time.

My point was not to suggest that the F18 was "just fine"... my point was to show how the Liberal government could buy the wrong plane, but not really suffer backlash because the time when the advantages of the F35 are most needed (e.g. a combat situation) doesn't occur very often.

I understand your point and agree that the RCAF's daily routine isn't on the minds of the public's day to day lives, with that said, look at the response, both by media and the public when it was leaked that the Liberals were looking to purchase the Super Hornet through a sole source contract.........the Trudeau Liberals, of all the major Federal parties, are the most sensitive to public response..........The sole sourced Super Hornet plan popped like a balloon just as fast as it became known and there was a reaction......

I think, politically, the backlash with not selecting the F-35 would be felt right away for the Trudeau Liberals, across Canada, but more so in those Liberal ridings in which there are high tech and aerospace industries directly involved in the development and production of the F-35........be they in Quebec, Ontario, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia or on the East Coast.......and that says nothing about any lawsuits or International trade challenges....etc

At the this point the Trudeau Liberals aren't deciding what aircraft is best for Canada, that is obvious, they are buying time and gauging the political backlash of going back on Trudeau's promise not to buy it versus following his stated promise and the fallout to follow it.

Well, they could always ignore the long term, buy Super Hornets, just stick to the original 65 plane order, buy the minimum of spare parts, claim "big cost savings", and leave the mess for other governments to clean up. Short term gain for long term pain.

And that is the point, there are no savings to be had, right now the F-35 is cheaper then all others absent the F-16 and Super Hornet, and even then, once the FMS tariff is applied, they are at parity........that's just the initial purchase, forget lifetime sustainment costs and economies of scale........and the Canadian aerospace and high tech industries.

The Liberals are in a mess of their own creation, and right now, two of the very aircraft Trudeau said wouldn't be "ready and working for a long time", are on the apron at the airport in Abbotsford BC, adorned with the tail code of an operational USAF squadron.....

[eyeball]

I see... the sort of "stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing bad will ever happen" argument. Brilliant!

So tell me, how would you propose Canada handle a situation similar to the Payne Stewart incident (plane has a malfunction resulting in the death of everyone on board. Plane is on autopilot. The possibility of shooting it down should it possibly crash in a populated area is discussed. How would you handle such a situation with no military planes at all?

How would you handle a situation like Matthias Rust, who flew a small plane and crashed it in red square as a "stunt"?

How would you handle a possible hijacking (similar to 9/11) over Canadian territories, or on a trans-atlantic flight with a flight path that passed over Canadian territories? After all, even if Canada itself "has no enemies", we share a border with perhaps the biggest target in the world.

What if Canada should host another G8/G20 summit? Generally those things are expected to have decent security, including regular air patrols. How would you handle air patrols without an airforce?

We have an air force now like we did when these one off things you mentioned occurred, where were they then when we needed them? Why am I supposed to believe having a gazillion dollars worth of new air force will prevent or deter more such one offs in the future?

And does that mean you're completely content with genocide and other abuses happening? Although military intervention doesn't always work, NATOs air campaign is generally seen as being beneficial in eastern Europe. How do you feel about innocent people being killed there? Feel good?

Sure, genocide always makes my day, but it's like like I said above, no air force will ever prevent what happened on the ground in Eastern Europe. The odd miracle of success after the fact is even more one off than the disasters you cited enough so that I just can't see the justification for the expense. You'd have an easier time justifying a national defence shield against lightening strikes.

Most importantly however I simply don't want these sorts of advanced war-craft in the possession of our political leaders because if we have them we'll be tempted to use them in the debacles our allies have started and will probably continue to start in the future.

[poochy]

We have an air force now like we did when these one off things you mentioned occurred, where were they then when we needed them? Why am I supposed to believe having a gazillion dollars worth of new air force will prevent or deter more such one offs in the future?

Sure, genocide always makes my day, but it's like like I said above, no air force will ever prevent what happened on the ground in Eastern Europe. The odd miracle of success after the fact is even more one off than the disasters you cited enough so that I just can't see the justification for the expense. You'd have an easier time justifying a national defence shield against lightening strikes.

Most importantly however I simply don't want these sorts of advanced war-craft in the possession of our political leaders because if we have them we'll be tempted to use them in the debacles our allies have started and will probably continue to start in the future.

So an air force is useless except to cause problems, and the existence of military power can in no way prevent even worse things from occuring? Anyway, as silly as that is it's irrelevant, as we will hve an air force and it should be well equipped.

[eyeball]

So an air force is useless except to cause problems, and the existence of military power can in no way prevent even worse things from occuring?

That appears to have been the case for pretty much the last 60 years.

Anyway, as silly as that is it's irrelevant, as we will hve an air force and it should be well equipped.

We don't need a new air force as much as we need a good reason for using the one we have.

[bush_cheney2004]

Update:   Now Canada's ruling government has decided to acquire eighteen F-18 Super Hornets for and "interim" basis, without any competition.

I wonder how that conversation goes with Boeing and the U.S. government:   "So, like hey...can we borrow 18 Super Hornets ?"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210

[?Impact]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada's ruling government has decided to acquire eighteen F-18 Super Hornets for and "interim" basis, without any competition.

10 years of mismanagement of this file created a crisis.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

10 years of mismanagement of this file created a crisis.

 

Many Canadian military procurements end in crisis, regardless of ruling government.

Hello America...Canada is back for more procurement fun and games.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Hello America...Canada is back for more procurement fun and games.

 

Thank you John Diefenbaker.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

 

Thank you John Diefenbaker.

 

Look at the bright side...Canada's replacement "jets" zombie file that never dies is back in the news. 

[overthere]

I am embarrassed at the rank and utter stupidity of our leadership.

[Wilber]

Actually, I think it is good. We clearly don't have the aircraft to do the job we need, they have admitted it and are doing something. By going with the Super Hornet as an interim, we are doing the same as Australia which is also a F-18A operator. They are committed to the F-35 long term but it won't start to become operational until 2021. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I wonder how that conversation goes with Boeing and the U.S. government:   "So, like hey...can we borrow 18 Super Hornets ?"

No, it's probably something more like can we lease them.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Actually, I think it is good. We clearly don't have the aircraft to do the job we need, they have admitted it and are doing something. By going with the Super Hornet as an interim, we are doing the same as Australia which is also a F-18A operator. They are committed to the F-35 long term but it won't start to become operational until 2021. 

 

Already debunked....Australia needed to replace retired F-111s.    Not the same scenario as a decade of dithering in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, it's probably something more like can we lease them.

 

OK...so if this were a Bob Newhart telephone routine:

"Hello...America....this is Canada again...can we lease some F-18 Super Hornets ?

We have always been a bit challenged for military procurements, so we need to lease something

until we get our act together. 

What's that....no extra Super Hornets just laying around for lease ?   How about some helicopters ?

Nothing ?   

How about the used lot...we got some great submarines from the Brits and saved a bundle !

Can't we just take some other country's allotment like we did for those C-17s ?

What's that ?   Bad contracts reputation ?   You must mean some other Canada ! "

 

 

 

[eyeball]

As much as politics is a joke this is more like how the discussion will unfold.

Quote

Law360, New York (April 14, 2016, 12:55 PM ET) --Government contractors interested in
pursuing international sales should also consider the potential availability of foreign military
funding (FMF) to their foreign government customers for the lease of defense equipment.

Source

The real joke is that we might be able to convince your taxpayers to pay for the stupid jets.