Canada plans to buy NEW Fighter Jets - F-35 reported chosen

[DemolitionCat]

We're not going to be in a shooting match with the Russians, the Americans all ready refute our claim to the Northwest Passage. That's where we lose in dollars and environmental risks, not because the Russians are maybe coming to bomb us in 150 years.

[T@T]

I don't get the love for the Super Hornet, why would we want to replace an aging fighter with an aging fighter? The Super Hornet will be 20 years old by the time our current CF-18 Hornets are phased out, they were designed for aircraft carriers with long mission range in mind and to replace the F-14 not the F-18.

The Super Hornet was just a quick fix when they cancelled a navalized variant of the F-22 Raptor and itself is to be replaced by the F-35 Lightning.

[FlameOn]

What environmental risks? The F-35 isn't going to consume any more fuel than the F-18. As for dollars, looking at the stop gap measure that is the super-hornet may end up costing more than the F-35 contract. Say for example we order the super hornet and we save $2 billion, its probably only going to serve us for another 10-12 years before its made obsolete and we have to spend more money on an upgrade package. If the F-35 can serve us for that additonal 10 years we're already break even. On top of that you'd probably save all the administrative and contract costs that come with starting another process to do upgrades. After the upgrades you'd still end up with a plane that's still inferior to the F-35 since the airframes aren't going to change. The RCS (radar cross section) on the F-35 is only about 0.0014m^2 compared to 0.5m^2 on the F-18. That's going to improve pilot survivability by a lot because surprise is victory in aerial warfare.

As for the NW passage, just because the Americans say the passage isn't ours doesn't mean with have to roll over and accept that. Say we got rid of our air force and just let the Americans deal with it and they're busy with a threat in their own airspace, we're SOL then. We also have have separate ideals from the Americans and we can not reasonably expect them defend us or guard our borders while respecting our soverignty and some of our rights to self-determination no?

[DemolitionCat]

The environmental risk is not from the jets using more fuel, but from unregulated shipping through the Arctic. Investing resources on stealth fighters at the expense of a real ice capable navy / coast guard leaves more gaps in our national security than the number of square centimeters of radar exposure on an F35 vs a take your pick of other jets.

Again, if you believe that our greatest threat is other nations carrying out air superiority campaigns against the RCAF, then the F35 is probably the best plane out there. I believe we should have updated fighters and we should actually be able to sail around our own coastline at the same time. I'm not saying don't have an air force any more than you're saying we should buy 19,000 F35s.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

The environmental risk is not from the jets using more fuel, but from unregulated shipping through the Arctic. Investing resources on stealth fighters at the expense of a real ice capable navy / coast guard leaves more gaps in our national security than the number of square centimeters of radar exposure on an F35 vs a take your pick of other jets.

Again, if you believe that our greatest threat is other nations carrying out air superiority campaigns against the RCAF, then the F35 is probably the best plane out there. I believe we should have updated fighters and we should actually be able to sail around our own coastline at the same time. I'm not saying don't have an air force any more than you're saying we should buy 19,000 F35s.

Operating ships in a hostile environment without air cover or air superiority isn't a particularly safe thing to do.

If we think the Arctic is important then our reasons probably revolve around economics (oil,gas, minerals), etc and, if that's the case, the expense of $1 billion per year for a 30 year lifespan is probably easy to make . . . . . and the fighters aren't just for Arctic defence either.

Any high-tech war in the modern era will be a "come as you are" event and it's difficult to gauge what the next, important threat or political event calling for their use might be.

Cowperson

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

The environmental risk is not from the jets using more fuel, but from unregulated shipping through the Arctic. Investing resources on stealth fighters at the expense of a real ice capable navy / coast guard leaves more gaps in our national security than the number of square centimeters of radar exposure on an F35 vs a take your pick of other jets.

Again, if you believe that our greatest threat is other nations carrying out air superiority campaigns against the RCAF, then the F35 is probably the best plane out there. I believe we should have updated fighters and we should actually be able to sail around our own coastline at the same time. I'm not saying don't have an air force any more than you're saying we should buy 19,000 F35s.

I don't think the government is sacrificing ice breaker support at all... We just had a new Polar class ice breaker announced in 2008 and another Arctic Patrol Ship project with 8 ships in 2007. Mind you 9 ice breakers isn't going to be enough, but its proportional to what we can afford along with the fighters.

What I'm saying here is the economics of re-opening tender on the fighter contract probably do not make sense at this point given the change in technology going forward given the additional hidden costs with a new process, tender, lost jobs pulling out of the F-35 and cancellation penalties while still ending up with an inferior product.

Stealth is not only useful in air superiority, its also with missile sites and ground troop support. If our ground troops are somewhere, need fire support and there's a SAM site nearby, lot better chances of taking out the SAM if you have stealth. Say detection ranges are 200km for a F-18, you'd only be looking at 20-ishkm for an F-35... That could be the difference between getting help for the troops vs get shot down.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I don't think the government is sacrificing ice breaker support at all... We just had a new Polar class ice breaker announced in 2008 and another Arctic Patrol Ship project with 8 ships in 2007. Mind you 9 ice breakers isn't going to be enough, but its proportional to what we can afford along with the fighters.

What I'm saying here is the economics of re-opening tender on the fighter contract probably do not make sense at this point given the change in technology going forward given the additional hidden costs with a new process, tender, lost jobs pulling out of the F-35 and cancellation penalties while still ending up with an inferior product.

Stealth is not only useful in air superiority, its also with missile sites and ground troop support. If our ground troops are somewhere, need fire support and there's a SAM site nearby, lot better chances of taking out the SAM if you have stealth. Say detection ranges are 200km for a F-18, you'd only be looking at 20-ishkm for an F-35... That could be the difference between getting help for the troops vs get shot down.

Based on your example, a drone would be cheaper and just as effective.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Based on your example, a drone would be cheaper and just as effective.

While Drones might work well for air to ground campaigns, I don't buy that they're effective as a multirole solution which Canada requires because of the size of our airforce.

I'm also un easy about Drones that use external communications to pilot.

In terms of Naval precence versus planes. I think we need strong elements in both.

However in the arctic a ship, or even an ice breaker is probably travelling at 5 knots to a maximum of 20 knots. A Plane can be on site 100 times faster and can project power on coast line defenses better.

As for the acertation of the russians not being a threat because of the perception of them flying old school Bear and Badger bombers when they approach our coast line. we certainly haven't seen their varsity which consists of Supersonic capable bombers like the Backfire and the BlackJack, which Putin announced he will be expanding their fleet. At the same time the Soviet Military which is going through a fairly heavy buildup in terms of Submarine forces and the development of long range next generation missile carrying bombers.

To me there is a threat to the arctic, with so many parties scrambling to claim those resources, and when you have an airforce of a mere 60 jets, then you need to make sure that those jets have a strategic advantage and are not merely equal to those of our enemies.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As for the acertation of the russians not being a threat because of the perception of them flying old school Bear and Badger bombers when they approach our coast line. we certainly haven't seen their varsity which consists of Supersonic capable bombers like the Backfire and the BlackJack, which Putin announced he will be expanding their fleet. At the same time the Soviet Military which is going through a fairly heavy buildup in terms of Submarine forces and the development of long range next generation missile carrying bombers.

This, I think dismissing Russia is a dangerous thing to do considering the rapid decay of their "democracy".

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Hanni

This, I think dismissing Russia is a dangerous thing to do considering the rapid decay of their "democracy".

Totally agree with dismissing Russia. Remember everyone was thinking that there wouldn't be another conventional war in the 1st/2nd world anymore. Georgia invades a breakaway province and Russia brings down the hammer hard.

[DemolitionCat]

Never said that the F35 was a bad plane, just question the use of resources.

How are they not sacrificing icebreaker support? They promised three, but now they've scaled back to one, the Diefenbaker. We aren't getting 9 icebreakers. The rest of the frigates they've committed are only good for ice up to a meter thick. This means they may be fine for the summer, but not year round arctic capability. Maybe they're better for global misadventures and the summer cruise season instead.

I don't see us in a guns-a-blazing battle for the Arctic. We'll lose our rights slowly and economically over time because we didn't do the geologic surveys, can't carry out the search and rescue, don't contain big oil and the PMO can't manage the diplomatic corps.

[Delthefunky]

I'm kind of against the F35 program, I just don't think enough discussion has gone on to determine what is best for Canada's very diverse needs. And its very costly. However I do recognize the need for a new fleet of fighter jets. My question is, has making our own fighter been discussed?

Why not!? We have a rich aviation history, we once made the worlds best fighter jet, we can ensure that the money spent employs many more people here at home, and we could build it to better suit our needs. It could also be a great source of pride.

It would be daunting, but a small country like Sweden was able to make the JAS Gripen and it suits their needs better then any other AC. And of course it would be costly, but so are the F35's.

Just a thought

[SebC]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

How are they not sacrificing icebreaker support? They promised three, but now they've scaled back to one, the Diefenbaker.

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

My question is, has making our own fighter been discussed?

Why not!?

That these come from adjacent posts is amazing. I can't believe we're naming a ship after the guy who did an incredible amount of damage to Canada's military capabilities.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

I'm kind of against the F35 program, I just don't think enough discussion has gone on to determine what is best for Canada's very diverse needs. And its very costly. However I do recognize the need for a new fleet of fighter jets. My question is, has making our own fighter been discussed?

Why not!? We have a rich aviation history, we once made the worlds best fighter jet, we can ensure that the money spent employs many more people here at home, and we could build it to better suit our needs. It could also be a great source of pride.

It would be daunting, but a small country like Sweden was able to make the JAS Gripen and it suits their needs better then any other AC. And of course it would be costly, but so are the F35's.

Just a thought

To build a $100 m fighter it would probably take $20 billion just to get off the ground, then you would prey that you could sell it to other countries just to break even. Canada is simply not equipped to build this type of aircraft.

Ask most from Sweden about the Gripen and you'll get a big growl, financially it's a been a dud.

BTW, Canadian companies are in the development of the F-35 and so far have brought about $350 million into our economy.

[burn_this_city]

That ship sailed in 1958 when they cancelled the Arrow.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by SebC

That these come from adjacent posts is amazing. I can't believe we're naming a ship after the guy who did an incredible amount of damage to Canada's military capabilities.

Could be worst, they could have called it the Clark,Turner or Campbell

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

I'm kind of against the F35 program, I just don't think enough discussion has gone on to determine what is best for Canada's very diverse needs. And its very costly. However I do recognize the need for a new fleet of fighter jets. My question is, has making our own fighter been discussed?

Why not!? We have a rich aviation history, we once made the worlds best fighter jet, we can ensure that the money spent employs many more people here at home, and we could build it to better suit our needs. It could also be a great source of pride.

It would be daunting, but a small country like Sweden was able to make the JAS Gripen and it suits their needs better then any other AC. And of course it would be costly, but so are the F35's.

Just a thought

For the same reason why we can't build our own naval vessels anymore. We don't have the manufacturing capabilities to design, build and deploy our own fighter jets.

Personally I can love to see it, but you have to remember that when Avro tooled up to build the Arrow they had been in the business of building fighters and bombers for decades. Once the Arrow vanished we lost all of those skilled workers, and the capability to build fighters.

Plus its a limited market place to enter late. Your never going to be able to compete with McDonald Douglas, Boeing and other military aircraft manufactures in the international market where the real money is made.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by T@T

Could be worst, they could have called it the Clark,Turner or Campbell

Or the Trudeau. An arrogant fighter that looks saucy and brilliant on the ground, but is next to useless and try's to create a BS reputation in the air.

A lovely looking plane with underpowered engine, a useless weapons system and an ejection system that fires way too late.

[Delthefunky]

The Diefenbaker would be far better used on a fighter then an ice-breaker.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

For the same reason why we can't build our own naval vessels anymore. We don't have the manufacturing capabilities to design, build and deploy our own fighter jets.

Not entirely true. We wouldn't be able to ramp up design/testing but we would have no problem building. The F-35's that Canada buys could easily be built in country, it's simple assembly line work. The problem with Canada is we don't have the resources to start design from scratch, at least not something that could complete with an F-35.