News   Apr 24, 2024
That's Some Arm
 319     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Madison Resubmits Midtown Proposals with Viñoly-Designed Towers
 2.6K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 640     0 

F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

Circling back, this is a "you win some, you lose some" scenario with politicians and defence issues. For the utter malice and incompetence on the fighter replacement file, the Liberals have suddenly shown unfounded common sense on other defence issues:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-joining-us-missile-defense-program/83233952/

Coming over a decade and a half late, but just in time I guess:

http://www.space.com/37033-us-missile-defense-test-shoots-down-icbm.html

So who knows. Maybe in 15 years time, we'll be buying F-35s when the Liberals two governments from now discover "new information"!

To put this in a broader context, read the recent Senate report. They are freaking out about the state of the military (most likely, they have far more info on what I elucidated above) and their shopping list is even bigger than most of us in uniform would even dream of:

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/DEFENCE_DPR_FINAL_e.pdf
 
TOareaFan said:
from the little I read and understand and (full respect to kEiThZ)
Click to expand...

Just ask questions. I'd love to answer them (within limits of the expertise I have and what is release open source). You, as a taxpayer, should know where your money is being spent, and why it is being spent a certain way. And it's far easier to have a discussion than try and understand those points from Wiki.

The problem with a lot of these online sources, is that they are largely focused on single issues, without addressing context at all.

So, for example, you'll get those that trash the F-35s aerodynamic performance, which of course ignores the facts that the modern air force fights as a system of systems, with the F-35 as one node often operating in the beyond-visual-range (BVR) regime. Or it ignores the fact that in a real fight (which only last 1-2 minutes max), positioning and the first shot is a real advantage. You can't shoot what you can't lock on to or see in the place, even if your airplane has better aero:

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

f-35-pilot-explains-how-he-dominated-dogfights-against-multiple-a-4-aggressors-every-time

That context is important. It's like complaining that a smartphone weighs more than a flip phone. Well, yeah, that's true. But kinda misses the point.

Or the other one always talked about is cost. Again, a total red herring. Anybody complaining about the price of the airframe alone is utterly clueless. The Air Force does not buy airplanes. We buy a capability. That means the plane, missiles, fuel tanks, sensors, spares, etc. We buy the ability to achieve a desired mission effect with all that kit. So to have a fair comparison you have to look at apples to apples across the capability spectrum. Not just the airplanes. The F-35 for example has a longer airframe life compared to its competitors. The Super Hornet was designed for 10 000 flying hours. The F-35A was designed to last 20% longer last I heard. The F-35 has a built-in sensor suite included with the airplane that is actually better than the podded systems. Meanwhile, if you buy anything else, you have to spend an extra $2 million (not including maintenance for the sytesms) each to put this on each airplane:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_Advanced_Targeting_Pod

To go back to my phone analogy, it's like complaining that the smartphone costs more than the flip phone. Again, that is true. But the fact that the flip phone does more and doesn't need attachments or other purchases (like a camera) matters.

So I get why the information can be confusing out there. If you don't have experience, and the context is lacking, the numbers can seem contradictory. It's important to seek out credible sources. Note. "Defense analyst" is rarely credible. Most of them haven't served. And if they have, few have served in the air force. Even fewer on frontline fighter squadrons. They are about as knowledgeable as your own Google search in my experience. They just get paid more and have more time to do it. The closest analogy I can make is that it's like asking a science reporter about combatting climate change for their opinion, instead of the actual scientist who studies climate change for a living. At best you're getting a second hand opinion. At worst, you're getting a third rate second hand opinion from someone who has no clue how to interpret what the scientist just told them, or has their own agenda to run on.
 
Last edited:
People get hung up on the F-35, where the alternatives are best $1 billion cheaper (and even those savings are debatable). Meanwhile the Navy's shipbuilding program is now $25 billion over budget:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...mbatant-put-at-more-than-61-billion-pbo-study

From $26 to $62 billion. And that's after they cut one ship and went from 16 to 15, a number which is pathetic itself.

To put that $62 billion number in perspective, for the same cost, we could replace the entire Navy with American or European ships at twice the capability, add aircraft carriers (one on each coast), double our F-35 purchase, and add half a dozen subs, with billions left over, if the ships were built abroad.

Of course, people are still squabbling over the F-35. And the government just blames the last one for lowballing. None of the three major parties support cutting even part of this program. Because votes on the coast.
 
Last edited:
While it sounds like the F35 is an extremely capable, cutting edge fighter, I wonder what use it is to Canada. If we want to tag along to America's continual and various wars by deploying first strike capacity in environments with sophisticated anti-aircraft defences, it sounds like the right plane. But given the more or less complete failure of America's war on much of the Islamic world, and the increasing unreliability of the US in general, it's not clear we should be spending tens of billions of dollars for the privilege of token participation in their military adventures. If we define the mission as the ability to shoot down hijacked airliners and Russian bombers over our own airspace, perhaps we can buy something less ruinously expensive. Maybe even something not manufactured by a US company for once.
 
pman said:
While it sounds like the F35 is an extremely capable, cutting edge fighter, I wonder what use it is to Canada. If we want to tag along to America's continual and various wars by deploying first strike capacity in environments with sophisticated anti-aircraft defences, it sounds like the right plane. But given the more or less complete failure of America's war on much of the Islamic world, and the increasing unreliability of the US in general, it's not clear we should be spending tens of billions of dollars for the privilege of token participation in their military adventures. If we define the mission as the ability to shoot down hijacked airliners and Russian bombers over our own airspace, perhaps we can buy something less ruinously expensive. Maybe even something not manufactured by a US company for once.
Click to expand...

Correct. Now have the government commit to a defence policy that says we will restrict military force solely to Canadian territory. Will probably have to leave NATO as well if that's our viewpoint.

I am actually okay with scaling back military procurement, if it's back up with firm policy commitments severely restricting employment of the military as well. But if the government insists that we should have an expeditionary military with full spectrum capabilities, how about the tools to do our jobs?

Not much has changed:

 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
Correct. Now have the government commit to a defence policy that says we will restrict military force solely to Canadian territory. Will probably have to leave NATO as well if that's our viewpoint.

I am actually okay with scaling back military procurement, if it's back up with firm policy commitments severely restricting employment of the military as well. But if the government insists that we should have an expeditionary military with full spectrum capabilities, how about the tools to do our jobs?

Not much has changed:

Click to expand...
It seems rather unlikely that we would be forced to leave NATO for buying a European fighter, particularly since our alliance commitments also include land and sea components. Pretty much all of the US' wars are outside NATO's self-defence mandate anyway. I do agree it would not be ok to put the Canadian Forces into situations where their equipment was inadequate for the mission. I just think most of the missions the US has fought in the Middle East have been catastrophic for the region and detrimental to western security. And given America's bullying approach to its traditional allies, we really need to distance ourselves from them. Anyway, if Trump has his way on trade, we'll likely be able to hit the magic 2% of GDP target simply by holding defence spending at its current level.
 
pman said:
It seems rather unlikely that we would be forced to leave NATO for buying a European fighter, particularly since our alliance commitments also include land and sea components.
Click to expand...

That is not what @kEiThZ said at all...he said that if we are going to buy planes (or any equipment) with limited capability then we should balance that with

kEiThZ said:
Correct. Now have the government commit to a defence policy that says we will restrict military force solely to Canadian territory. Will probably have to leave NATO as well if that's our viewpoint.
Click to expand...

So it is not who we buy planes from that would force us to leave NATO it would be a policy that said we were going to restrict our military to acting on/in Canadian territory.

I do agree with the sentiment....if we are going to be a full participant in NATO and the UN and, as a result, run the risk of having to send men and women overseas to be involved....we have to match that with equipment that allows them to do those jobs and have a decent chance of coming home.
 
@TOareaFan

Correct. Resources should match policy. We are now in the situation where people who support @pman's point of view shortchange the military with crap equipment. But then still insist on sending us to war when something happens because the public is panicking and the Americans are insisting that Allies pony up.

I actually want to see Canada have a more independent foreign policy. But that comes with having a strong military and not relying on the US for everything. It's our dependence on the US that has us feeling obligated. Even the UK has a more independent foreign policy than Canada. And yet somehow, still has a closer relationship to the Americans.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
But that comes with having a strong military and not relying on the US for everything. Even the UK is more independent on foreign policy than Canada. And still has a closer relationship to the Americans.
Click to expand...
Fascinating...
Four former leaders of the Armed Forces have warned that Britain’s inaction towards crises in Iraq, Syria and Russia is akin to the appeasement of the Nazis in the Second World War.

Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh, writing in The Telegraph on behalf of Admiral Lord Boyce, Field Marshal Lord Walker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire, said that defence budget cuts have led to “feeble” responses to events in the Middle East and that further cuts will make the UK seem weak to potential enemies.

Sir Nigel, a former First Sea Lord, said that the current lack of public appetite for military intervention abroad has acted as a “cover for our recent, feeble responses to events in the Middle East such as in Libya, Syria and once again in Iraq, as well as in the face of the exponential threat posed by Islamic State.”

There are “uncomfortable similarities” between Britain’s unwillingness to arm itself today and in the build-up to the Second World War when its “blind faith in collective security” led to an “unwillingness to grasp the nettle of rearmament, at least until it was nearly too late”, the former commanders said. Now the UK “rightly” relies on collective security through the UN and Nato, “but, as then, does so while steadily weakening its own defence posture.”

The former leaders said that military cuts from the last five years have seriously harmed Britain alliance with the US, damaged its credibility of nuclear deterrence and put it in a weak position to face the possible threat of “a resurgent Russia”. [...]
Click to expand...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ial-enemies-former-leaders-warn-10318916.html
 
kEiThZ said:
@TOareaFan

Correct. Resources should match policy. We are now in the situation where people who support @pman 's point of view shortchange the military with crap equipment. But then still insist on sending us to war when something happens because the public is panicking and the Americans are insisting that Allies pony up.

I actually want to see Canada has a more independent foreign policy. But that comes with having a strong military and not relying on the US for everything. Even the UK is more independent on foreign policy than Canada. And still has a closer relationship to the Americans.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd prefer it if we didn't participate in America's numerous Middle East wars, however hysterical and panicked their domestic politics. Given their recent turn to protectionism and xenophobia, I'd also prefer it if we developed enough of a spine to just say no to them. Our contribution to their mission to bring democracy to the Middle East was always nominal tokenism, the absence of which would hardly be missed or noticed.
 
pman said:
Actually, I'd prefer it if we didn't participate in America's numerous Middle East wars, however hysterical and panicked their domestic politics. Given their recent turn to protectionism and xenophobia, I'd also prefer it if we developed enough of a spine to just say no to them. Our contribution to their mission to bring democracy to the Middle East was always nominal tokenism, the absence of which would hardly be missed or noticed.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about their hysterical and panicked politics. I'm talking about ours. In the wake of 9/11, was there any doubt Canada would participate in Afghanistan? Incidentally, it was our hesitation that actually landed us in Kandahar. Home of the Taliban insurgency. And the government sent us over without adequate equipment, training or even enough skilled personnel to support the operation. Over time, we ended up crafting a strategy that worked somewhat with the 3D strategy (Defence, diplomacy and development). But Kandahar was a massive area for our relatively small contribution (even though it might seem big to Canadians, 3000 personnel is just not much for an area that size, especially given that only 800 of those were on the pointy end). And that 3D strategy requiring integration of the CAF, CIDA and Foreign Affairs, should have been thought of, funded and exercised before. You shouldn't be doing stuff like that on the fly in the middle of a war.

Now, if Canada wants to accept a weaker posture, I am suggesting that should include firm policies even in instances like 9/11. Basically, Canadian politicians have to be willing to accept an American backlash that comes with such a policy. I have yet to see a political leader articulate that. In fact, I see the opposite. They all want to make mutltilateralism a thing. NATO, UN, Paris, etc. And in every case, as is classically Canadian, they don't want to do any heavy lifting or actually commit resources. Just want credit. Nobody gets hurt in the short term when government skips out on actually meeting Kyoto quotas. But there are consequences when you try to act like you're contributing to a multilateral military effort on the cheap.
 
Last edited:
On the fighter replacement, I am happy to see Boeing save the day with their Bombardier complaint. They are both right and and wrong on this. But it's work out well for the air force. Boeing is absolutely right that Bombardier could be the next airbus. The CSeries wing is sized to take on the Boeing 737, bread and butter of Boeing. Unfortunately for them, they don't sell a plane in the same size class as the CS100. So they don't have merits for their case at the moment. But they will absolutely not drop the complaint. Because $6 billion in fighter sales lost is peanuts to what they could lose if the CSeries gains traction in the US. It's entertaining to watch the government get turned into a pretzel on this one, a situation of their own making.
 
kEiThZ said:
And they all favour an open competition. As do I. Let's put them all up there. And let the best plane win. I would bet a paycheque on the outcome.
Click to expand...
Was there not a competition of some sorts when the entire F-35 project was started a decade ago?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top