Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Wilber]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

When we had our last carrier our support ships were brand new our about to enter service. 

That was then and this is now. Even Australia is no longer interested in carriers for fixed wing operations. Their two new ships are both helicopter carriers. Fixed wing carriers may be sexy but only realistic for the big boys, Our allies operate the majority of the worlds carriers and we aren't about to go up against any of the others on our own. Nations such as ours can spend their money much more effectively.

[Wilber]

7 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Then why would you suggest more escorts instead of a carrier......a Skyhawk and latter a Sea Harrier is more than capable of splashing a Soviet Bear.....and is why American and British anti-submarine task forces carried them.....

A Skyhawk is only about 50 mph faster than a Bear and by the time it climbed to the Bear's altitude, it would be long gone. Also, without good air to air radar, it couldn't even find the thing in bad weather, let alone target it. As I said before, the Bonney would have been at least 35 years old before we could have got Sea Harriers and it would be over 70 years old by now.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, Wilber said:

That was then and this is now. 

Yes.......I know, its not much of a reach to assume if we have operated a carrier(s) for the last 50+ years we could have replaced the current tankers

 

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Even Australia is no longer interested in carriers for fixed wing operations. Their two new ships are both helicopter carriers.

 

I'm not sure of your sources......The Australians have put off such a proposal until the early 2020s, after their legacy Hornets have been replaced and the program to replace their Super Hornets begin......of course the Aussies aren't under the notion that the Canberra class are strike carriers.

 

14 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Our allies operate the majority of the worlds carriers and we aren't about to go up against any of the others on our own. Nations such as ours can spend their money much more effectively.

 

That is but a cop-out.....I've never suggested a force that is parity with the Americans (or even the British, Indians, French or Chinese), but organic maritime (fixed-wing) aviation is very plausible for Canada, and is but a manner of political will...........Which clearly this Government does not have one iota of, based on the punt of the replacements for our Hornet fleet

[Derek 2.0]

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

A Skyhawk is only about 50 mph faster than a Bear and by the time it climbed to the Bear's altitude, it would be long gone. Also, without good air to air radar, it couldn't even find the thing in bad weather, let alone target it. As I said before, the Bonney would have been at least 35 years old before we could have got Sea Harriers and it would be over 70 years old by now.

 

A Bear isn't faster then several sidewinders, likewise, a Bear that flees is a Bear that is no longer tailing said task group or convoy......Mission Accomplished

 

(The USN carried Skyhawks in their anti-submarine Essex air groups for this very reason......I'm not making it up) 

[Wilber]

26 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

That is but a cop-out.....I've never suggested a force that is parity with the Americans (or even the British, Indians, French or Chinese), but organic maritime (fixed-wing) aviation is very plausible for Canada, and is but a manner of political will...........Which clearly this Government does not have one iota of, based on the punt of the replacements for our Hornet fleet

But why? What's the point of spending billions on systems that are redundant? Better to have ships that can support our allies that do operate carriers rather than them having to divert their resources to protect ours.

 

Quote

 

A Bear isn't faster then several sidewinders, likewise, a Bear that flees is a Bear that is no longer tailing said task group or convoy......Mission Accomplished

 

As far as the Bear goes, if it means harm, it will be well on its way home as it's anti ship missiles are headed your way. 

Quote

 

(The USN carried Skyhawks in their anti-submarine Essex air groups for this very reason......I'm not making it up) 

 

I think the operative word here is "carried".

[Derek 2.0]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

What's the point of spending billions on systems that are redundant?

 

With that logic, our entire military is "redundant"

11 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Better to have ships that can support our allies that do operate carriers rather than them having to divert their resources to protect ours.

 

So you want to protect our Allies resources.......but don't want them using their resources to protect ours....makes sense.

 

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

As far as the Bear goes, if it means harm, it will be well on its way home as it's anti ship missiles are headed your way. 

The Bear's on patrol weren't armed (sans their cannons in the tail and blisters)......likewise, upon finding a target, would contact the Soviet naval bomber force (on the Kola Peninsula), who would then launch a strike, well receiving course plots from the Bear (or its relief) and finally targeting information from the Bear........so yes, if all the dots connected, you'd have missiles from the regiments of Badgers, Blinders and Backfires heading your way in hours or the next day even.......and thats forgetting any subs in the area. 

[Derek 2.0]

22 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I think the operative word here is "carried".

 

Why? You think the USN "carried" them among their anti-sub groups for???? 

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like the F-18 Super Band-Aid fix was in all along:

 

Quote

"They stalled for a year and it looks like they intend to sole-source jets, just like the Conservatives did," he said. "The Liberals are behaving like the Conservatives. The Conservatives had a favourite jet. Now the Liberals have a favourite jet."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-meetings-1.3866445

 

[?Impact]

23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Looks like the F-18 Super Band-Aid fix was in all along:

So what is your suggestion on an alternative. This file was left to languish for years, and now something needs to be done. Initiating a proper competition is the right thing to do, although I agree they seem to be moving very slow there although there were prerequisites. It looks like by the time that process is competed, and actual jets are delivered, it will be in the mid to late 20's. Can Canada meet it's obligations in the interim, and if not then what do you suggest?

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

.... Can Canada meet it's obligations in the interim, and if not then what do you suggest?

 

Not for me to decide...my job as a U.S. taxpayer is to fund the design, development, and production of military aircraft that Canadians get to fight over while delaying many years and spending the minimum required for a watered down force structure.   Canada wants it both ways....F-35 JSF partner contracts/jobs and options to procure competing aircraft, perceived to be "cheaper" and less risky. 

An interim purchase/lease of F-18 Super Hornets continues the political indecision from successive governments, repeats "stop-gap" policy games caused by poor planning, relies/impacts existing American/ally contract allotments (again), and will mean reduced capabilities for joint NATO/NORAD operations (as was previously experienced with outdated CF-18 comms, IFF, sensors, etc.).  

My irrelevant opinion is that Canada should do what it said it would do regardless of ruling party:   define requirements, hold a competition, and select a replacement strike fighter......many years ago.   My irrelevant wish is that Canada pays a very stiff premium for the luxury of always waiting the longest to make a decision.

[DogOnPorch]

10 hours ago, Wilber said:

 

. If you can't protect your carrier from other aircraft and subs, it won't survive very long against a real enemy. Ask Argentina.

 

Yah figure?

What you're displaying to me is more of Canada's 'Can't-Do' attitude. If we operate carriers DUH we have to have the ability to protect them.

We didn't bother with such considerations when buying junk submarines...I note. But, I suppose that's because in Canada we view the military as a liability rather than as a career choice for our younger people.

[DogOnPorch]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not for me to decide...my job as a U.S. taxpayer is to fund the design, development, and production of military aircraft that Canadians get to fight over while delaying many years and spending the minimum required for a watered down force structure.   Canada wants it both ways....F-35 JSF partner contracts/jobs and options to procure competing aircraft, perceived to be "cheaper" and less risky. 

An interim purchase/lease of F-18 Super Hornets continues the political indecision from successive governments, repeats "stop-gap" policy games caused by poor planning, relies/impacts existing American/ally contract allotments (again), and will mean reduced capabilities for joint NATO/NORAD operations (as was previously experienced with outdated CF-18 comms, IFF, sensors, etc.).  

My irrelevant opinion is that Canada should do what it said it would do regardless of ruling party:   define requirements, hold a competition, and select a replacement strike fighter......many years ago.   My irrelevant wish is that Canada pays a very stiff premium for the luxury of always waiting the longest to make a decision.

Dear Leader actually thinks he can cancel the F-35...buy F-18s from a competitor...then enjoy F-35 development contracts in the billions for whatever millions he forks over.

In other words: insane.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Omni said:

Overheated SINGLE engines suffering from turbine rub blowing up on the runway when T/O power is applied is scary no matter where you read about it.

Again, these are the people who will be flying these aircraft and maintaining them. I trust their opinion over yours.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, when the government wants to sell us on something they lowball the cost by hiding as much as they can. While I have no idea if this is the first time lifecycle costs have been used to evaluate a program, but they certainly should be.

They weren't hiding anything. The purchase costs were never firmly established, and in fact, the purchase cost is coming down. The lifecycle cost is an idiotic assessment really, since most of it would have to be spent regardless of what aircraft is purchased.

[Argus]

All this crap about aircraft carriers from the sixties is off topic. 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

All this crap about aircraft carriers from the sixties is off topic. 

 

Then why the f--- are we buying US Navy carrier based aircraft?

Off topic...feh.

[Argus]

Looks like the Liberals are clamping lifetime gag order on all public servants and military involved in the aircraft assessment. Apparently this has never been done before, but our uhm, 'free and open' government seems to have something to hide.

The Liberal government has brought in a gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program, now underway, to replace the country’s fighter jets.  The permanent non-disclosure agreements were uncovered by Conservative defence critic James Bezan after he requested information through Commons “inquiry of ministry” process.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/liberals-order-235-military-public-servants-to-take-fighter-jet-secrets-to-the-grave

[Argus]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Then why the f--- are we buying US Navy carrier based aircraft?

Off topic...feh.

We're not buying aircraft to land on carriers we junked before I was born. 

[Argus]

9 hours ago, ?Impact said:

So what is your suggestion on an alternative. 

Buy the aircraft the Air Force wants.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

We're not buying aircraft to land on carriers we junked before I was born. 

No...apparently not.

Will we remove the arresting gear?

Or will we dream of landing on that pitching deck?

 

Canada Can't Do!

 

[?Impact]

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

My irrelevant opinion is that Canada should do what it said it would do regardless of ruling party.

Yes, but even then it would be politicized. There is an independent agency that approves bank charters, and the last superintendent to that agency has absolutely nothing to do with the present government (appointed by the previous government, and that appointment lasts past the mandate of the current government). That didn't stop the leader of the former government (Roan Ambrose) from making a jackass of herself and blaming the actions of that independent agency on the present government. You can't get away from partisan low life scum like Rona Ambrose no matter how hard you try. How would it be any different here?

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

I suppose that's because in Canada we view the military as a liability rather than as a career choice for our younger people.

It certainly feels that way for any public service job, we have the right wing continually calling them a liability and not contributing.

Edited November 25, 2016 by ?Impact

[?Impact]

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

The lifecycle cost is an idiotic assessment really, since most of it would have to be spent regardless of what aircraft is purchased.

There are huge lifecycle cost differences between the various options.

32 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Then why the f--- are we buying US Navy carrier based aircraft?

Other countries have purchased these aircraft for non carrier based operation as well. One of the major differences is the landing gear, and our rough far northern airstrips would make that a benefit.

[Wilber]

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Yah figure?

What you're displaying to me is more of Canada's 'Can't-Do' attitude. If we operate carriers DUH we have to have the ability to protect them.

We didn't bother with such considerations when buying junk submarines...I note. But, I suppose that's because in Canada we view the military as a liability rather than as a career choice for our younger people.

There are a lot of things I can do but don't because they are a bad idea. 

So we spend a couple of billion on a light carrier plus another couple of billion or so for a few F-35B's (10 million a copy more than F-35A's) and helicopters to operate from it. You need AEW helicopters to provide early warning of incoming  aircraft. Lack of AEW capability is what cost the British so dearly in the Falklands. Then you need surface ships with anti aircraft and anti missile capability to protect if from aircraft and surface launched missiles, plus effective attack subs to protect it from other subs. To that, add supply ships so all those ships can operate away from home for long periods. All so you can feel like one of the big boys.

Even at the end of WW2 when we had the third largest navy in the world,  it was a small ship navy. Our largest ships were two light cruisers. We had two escort carriers but only one saw service and it had British aircrews. It was damaged beyond repair and scrapped, the other just ferried aircraft and was returned to merchant service at the end of the war.

 

Not having an aircraft carrier doesn't mean we are neglecting our military, that is another issue.

If we want a navy with a world presence, we would be better off having multi purpose ships that can operate helicopters and land troops and equipment. Leave air superiority to those best equipped to provide it.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Wilber

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Then you need surface ships with anti aircraft and anti missile capability to protect if from aircraft and surface launched missiles, plus effective attack subs to protect it from other subs. To that, add supply ships so all those ships can operate away from home for long periods.

Good point. Aircraft carriers do not operate independently, they have a fleet surrounding them. In the World War II era there would be several carriers in these carrier battle groups, with dozens or more of escort ships. The cold war era carriers were much larger, and generally had a single carrier with many support ships. The US today calls these carrier strike groups, composed of the aircraft carrier itself and a guided missile cruiser, 2 or more light airborne multi-purpose system (LAMP) warships, and several destroyers and/or frigates. I believe the submarines operate independently, but obviously they will on occasion meet up with these carrier strike groups to coordinate actions. 

[Rue]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Then why the f--- are we buying US Navy carrier based aircraft?

Off topic...feh.

Because technically the F18 we have or the Super Hornet which is an upgraded F18 and is actually heavier and sucks up more fuel  and is more costly to fly  is not not designed for aircraft carriers although another version could be. Somebody feels they are a safe choice since they are just the same jet updated. It placates the Americans even though its purchased from a competitor American to the F35. Its an excuse to avoid buying the Gripen which suits exactly what Canada needs but the current government is too chcken sheeyit to pick because it fears offending American military lobbyists in Ottawa who have clout.

As I said the Hornet updated or not is not a bad aircraft. The point is it was chosen on the notion we needed a two engine craft. The Gripen makes the two engine assumption outmoded. It does not blow out as one poster suggested one engine craft might. It's not a widow maker. The technology is not the same. The one Gripen jet is safer actually from blow outs than both or either engine in an F18.

The Gripen only needs 5 people to maintain it flight worthy. Its cheaper to keep in the air, stays in the air far longer than any other aircraft and can land on ice and on very short runways which makes it the craft for Canada's north and more likely to survive an emergency landing unlike the F18 or F35.

It does everything we need a fighter craft to do at the cheapest amount of money but with superior technology and it leaves us money for a navy. This crap they need 5 years to choose is a lie, an out and out lie. There was  fixed selection process. The Gripen was never given proper consideration nor for that matter were the two European fighters.

The F35 was picked because of its political connections not because it was the best craft. Its consortium, the people behind it not the craft.... their connections got it chosen. They have the most clout. Now it can't get off the ground. For God's sake the RAF, RAAF, IAF and RN have all panned it as a joke. It's a disaster. Its no better than the French Rafale or the Eurofighter if it ever flies and even more expensive at this point but its overkill for Canada. We don't need a stealth craft, a tank buster or a bomber. We need a long range intercepter. Our mission is to show the flag and move our jets quickly over vast territory. The Gripen does that. The money saved is badly needed on helicopters and naval craft.

Regards, R

p.s. I do not and have never worked for Saab or any Swedish business and the only Swedish hockey player I liked is Borge Salming

p.s.s. the only jet I fly is the Raptor or F-14 or the Mosquito (out of respect to the men in he RCAF during WW2 who did the convoy runs) or the UFO craft that come and visit, I've flown them but crashed one in Roswell, New Mexico and people still talk about it-I pushed down when I meant up, anyone could have made that mistake

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Rue