It's all the other secret programs integrated into the F-35 that make it really interesting.
Unfortunately, the general public will never get to really know why the F-35 is a kick ass aircraft. Same goes for the Raptor.
For cost, I predict 90M$ per aircraft.
Well that's fine, maybe it's the best and how it is can be a secret. So you just can't get that much value for a lower price but, how will Canada afford it?
Just because a luxury sedan is better than a cheap compact. Should you takeout a mortgage you can't afford, just to buy one risking your house?
What good is buying several of them if they end up parked in a field because the economy goes Zimbabwe?
ok.... I have tried not to comment, but I feel I have to. One comment only though... am promising myself.
First, for one year I worked on the the fighter replacement project in NDHQ. I am not as in depth expert as some of my compatriots but have a reasonable knowledge of the options out there. Much of it classified. I am recently retired, I will never personally fly any of the options of what is chosen so have no personal vested interest.
My bottom line, if I had to put my son into one of those aircraft (f-35, super hornet, Eurofighter, grippen, etc) to go into a combat mission, including intercepting stuff over the Arctic I would put him in the F-35. Period dot. Hands down. The only exception would be if the F-22 were for sale and affordable.
Beef - we are not buying a car to commute to work, we are buying a war machine, unlike Jean Chretien I do believe our boys deserve the Cadillac. Very happy to put my tax dollars on the Caddy!
Flame away? You're the only poster with any real knowledge of this subject! I wish you'd add your 2 cents more often.
I recal that a few years ago the Aussies made an informal inquiry into whether the F-22 might be made available for export without success. To bad. I suppose with so much committed to the F-35 at this point the US doesn't want to jeopardize loosing some of the supporting cast on its sales.
My bottom line, if I had to put my son into one of those aircraft (f-35, super hornet, Eurofighter, grippen, etc) to go into a combat mission, including intercepting stuff over the Arctic I would put him in the F-35. Period dot. Hands down. The only exception would be if the F-22 were for sale and affordable.
You said it yourself: affordable. Is the F-35 still affordable? Are we buying features that other aircraft don't have, if so what are they exactly? For example, full aspect stealth and advanced sensor suites? May be we should just do what the Aussies did. Buy some Super Hornet as a stop gap to replace the old aircraft until the F-35 is ready. I think for sure everyone here don't want this to end up like the SAR helicopter cluster leg hump.
Expat wrote:My answer has always been: Do we want to put all our taxpayer dollars into one project?
Well.... to be fair, we haven't. We've invested heavily in transport (CC-177, C-130J) and done so moderately in rotary (Griffon, Comorant).
Does Canada want to be relevant in the future, as far as the Air Forces go? Obviously we are on the wrong track...
What track do we want to be on? If you asked the average person on the street, it would be to reinforce Arctic Soveriegnty and stay the hell out of distant bush wars that only wind up changing the names in the end.
Having been around various conflicts and militarily supported "aid" missions, I just do not see the justification of a fighter program for the Canadian Military. Neither do plenty of people in the Canadian Forces who are not vested in fighters - the proportional cost of the current fighter program for what it delivers is excessive at best and consumes a colossal portion of the Air Force budget. Spending to the level we would need to spend for an F-35, Super Hornet, or anything else "modern" is just not justifiable to me, as a taxpayer.
We are all aviators, and we are fans of modern leading edge technology, but parking that at the door for a moment, I really am very uncomfortable with the idea of the amount of money we're talking about for this program regardless of the choice. Many high ranking military people I have spent time with who are not vested in this, are also uncomfortable. Consider what these funds, or even a fraction of these funds could do to the modernization of the rest of our Military? It's staggering, and there has been from my understanding a lot of lobbying within the Forces to this effect.
All the arguments for and against have been presented, but really I cannot get past the idea that Canada needs a paltry 40, 50, or 60 of these obscenely expensive airplanes. "We don't know what the threat will be 20yrs from now..." is part of the stance taken by a Col. friend of mine, and while that may be true, given a few facts I just don't see how it holds enough water to justify the billions we are talking about spending. The simple fact is, we are not going to be involved in any war any time soon that the Americans will not be leading. We do not face any invasion threat over the Pole, and if we did 40 (Or however many happen to be airworthy at the time) of these things are not going to make any real difference - the Americans would be leading that charge too. I understand the need for a certain autonomy, and how those with nationalistic pride see it, but really that just ignores the geo-political and econmic reality of the world we now live in.
Given the rate of technological development, who can say what we will have at our disposal 20yrs from now? Canada, imho, is not a nation that should be out projecting force, it was wrong in Afghanistan, it was wrong in Libya, and will continue to be wrong as we move forward with any of the potential conflicts the Americans are dreaming up. Even if we were to engage any of the Boogymen North Americans love to worry about, air superiority is a given and is certainly not something we would be concerning ourselves with. It would be token involvement at best.
Frankly, if we are going to spend these types of funds on our Armed Forces, I think there are many, many other programs that are sorely in need of financial support in terms of hardware and training, not to mention the appalling state of Veteran's Affairs. This expenditure is extremely disproportional for what it will pay back. That is not just my view, but that of many people even within the Air Force who I've talked to about this.
You think maintaining a few Sea King's is hard? Wait until this rolls along. Facts are, the Military is not very good at these things due to its structure, and contrary to pop-culture or the Hollywood portrayal of the Armed Forces, the Military is a juggernaught of an organization that consistently trips over itself in all areas. Keeping complex hardware functioning in peace time is hard enough, Afghanistan or any other harsh environment is another kettle of fish entirely, it was the same for all the nations there. Maintenance on proven airframes is something we struggle with mightily already, and I cannot see how a fifth gen fighter is going to be anything but a disaster on this front as well. That will all add up, costs will balloon, and other important areas of the military budget will be sacrificed to cover it.
Just my take, but I have yet to hear anything that is convincing in the other direction, and I'm not talking about here on Avcanada, but from people involved. It's just a toy we do not need, the time has come to look at alternatives and to move forward.
sky's the limit wrote:You think maintaining a few Sea King's is hard? Wait until this rolls along.
So you are comparing maintaining a 50 year old helicopter to the most advanced fighter jet in the world. Great argument..
Facts are, the Military is not very good at these things due to its structure,
What is your experience with fighter jet maintenance in war time, let alone peace time? You seem to have all the facts, yet from my own experience I see that you are forming an opinion based on your own emotional view on this topic as shown here:
It's just a toy we do not need, the time has come to look at alternatives and to move forward.
Whether we need fighter jets or not is not under discussion. Honestly, I find it pathetic that there are Canadians who are still so closed off from the rest of the world. You are right, lets just cower away from the international community and pretend that the world is all rainbows and flowers. Let somebody else worry about it, Canadians are cowards.
You are gem Frosti, don't let anyone tell you differently! I've got your back here, don't worry, I think the site would be missing a key ingredient were you to leave.
F35's for everyone! This round is on me!
"Oh say can you see..." er, wait.
"God save the Queen..." dammit, hang on a sec, I'll get this right yet.
"O'Canada," something, something, something.
Maybe someone can just hand me a drum to beat? Anyone?
frosti wrote: You seem to have all the facts, yet from my own experience I see that you are forming an opinion based on your own emotional view on this topic
If you judge that stl opinion's is worthless and not based on any relevant experience, pretty much everything anyone else might write on this topic will be totally worthless.
To me, arguing that we don't need new fighters is actually the only logical stance against the acquisition of the F-35.
I can only dream of what kind of FWSAR platform and new maritime helicopters we could buy with a fraction of the F-35 budget.
However, if the politicians and military officials decide we do indeed need new modern fighters capable of being deployed against varied threats for the next 50 years, then I don't see anything that could do a better job than the F-35.
Skyhunter wrote:
My bottom line, if I had to put my son into one of those aircraft (f-35, super hornet, Eurofighter, grippen, etc) to go into a combat mission, including intercepting stuff over the Arctic I would put him in the F-35. Period dot. Hands down. The only exception would be if the F-22 were for sale and affordable.
How long has it been since the last combat death of a Canadian fighter pilot ? 60 yrs ?
How long has it been since the last combat death of a Canadian Army soldier ? 1 yr maybe and with a body count over 150 in the last 10 yrs...
In perfect world every part of the Military would get the very best equipment. For fighter pilots that would be the F 35. Unfortunately the size of the defense budget has/is/will be severly limited. Buying the F 35 will cost more than other options, especially the operating costs over the lifetime of the airplane. This means that money that could go to making combat safer for Soldiers, the guys and gals that have done all the dying, will instead make life incrementally safer for fighter pilots. I have a problem with that.....
I wish we didn't have to make such crass choices but but the reality is that every dollar applied towards the inevitable cost overruns is a dollar that will taken away from army and navy procurement . To think that this will not degrade the survivabilty of the soldier in the next deployment is to be willfully blind to the consequences of F 35 procurement.
trampbike wrote:
To me, arguing that we don't need new fighters is actually the only logical stance against the acquisition of the F-35.
I can only dream of what kind of FWSAR platform and new maritime helicopters we could buy with a fraction of the F-35 budget.
If our military budget was to the level of other first-world nations (excluding the US) we would be able to afford a lot of the things we need. Most Canadians, however, are still reluctant to fund the Armed Forces properly. I find it pathetic that we have to pick between FWSAR platforms, new helicopters or fighter jets. Canadians support may be a mile wide but it's only an inch deep.
frosti wrote:
If our military budget was to the level of other first-world nations (excluding the US) we would be able to afford a lot of the things we need.
We spend more on defence than Israel or Spain or any of the Scandinavian countries, and more by percentage of GDP than Japan and Switzerland.
I think it depends on what Canada really wants its role to be in the international community. If we are going to play the peacekeeper then putting the money towards a well geared ground force just makes more sense then overspending on air superiority where you really just need some non-stealth aircraft to provide targeted air support. Even in an all out air superiority conflict I'd argue that the UAV's will soon be a better dollar value for our forces, not because they can necessarily outperform but because they are becoming very cheap and when the F-35 runs out of expensive air to air missiles they will simply be overrun by sheer numbers and economics. Plus in a protracted ground engagement which is the style of most recent Canadian engagements having the nonstop surveillance and targeted strike capability on command seems far more useful.
I'm not unsympathetic to a well geared military but generally a well geared military likes to be 'used' and I'm not really in favor of US style diplomacy which ends up costing the country dearly both in lives and debt. In the end when it comes to a real war don't forget that humans are the cheapest and therefore most expendable part. So when people argue we need a well geared military I have to ask to what end, and what wars are we expecting or planning towards in the next 30 years because all I'm seeing is limited engagements against poorly equipped 3rd world nations who get a bit to rowdy for the international community.
I'm in favor of a newer Hornet variant, I think it meets real needs at a price we can afford. The ones who really need the extra gear are the guys on the ground who have to walk into dangerous situations and try deal with dangerous elements hiding among civilians.
frosti wrote: I find it pathetic that we have to pick between FWSAR platforms, new helicopters or fighter jets. Canadians support may be a mile wide but it's only an inch deep.
I find it pathetic that since many countries throw more money into the military, you think Canada should increase the DND budget.
I find it pathetic that developed countries invest so much in their armed forces and cut so much in fundamental research, education and many other things that make the world kind of a better place.
iflyforpie wrote:Well.... to be fair, we haven't. We've invested heavily in transport (CC-177, C-130J) and done so moderately in rotary (Griffon, Comorant).
Don't forget the new Chinook! Can't wait to see 'em in action!
Until someone actually does a cost evaluation for "alternatives" to the F-35 and proves that they will be cheaper to procure, operate and maintain, all this talk of "The F35 is too expensive" is just that, talk and opinion. Because something is older doesn't mean it's cheaper, especially if you are buying it new. We may get whatever super dooper stealth non sense hornet at a, supposedly 'according to the internet', lower price than the F-35, but you can bet that it will be more expensive in the long term being the only operator. The super hornet was only built to be a stop-gap to the F-35, we don't need a stop-gap aircraft, we need a long-term replacement like the F-35.
frosti wrote:we need a long-term replacement like the F-35.
Need |nēd|
verb [ trans. ]
1 require (something) because it is essential : I need help now
Once again, I fail to see how the F-35 or any other fighter fits the above definition.
Here, I'll fix it for you:
frosti wrote:we want a long-term replacement like the F-35.
Now "wants" are much more susceptible to debate and discussion than "needs." As Tramp suggested, there are real "Needs" in this nation of ours that trump jet fighters... and there are even "needs" within the military that trump jet fighters.
Perhaps if our gov't wasn't so busy selling off our nation's assets and giving billions in corporate tax relief, we could afford to "want" your jets along with filling other "needs?" But that's an entirely separate discussion.
Of course there's also the debate surrounding the use of said fighters from a foreign policy standpoint, and that is one I am very interested and engaged in. In all seriousness Frosti, what is your vision for these F-35's? What will we be using them for that they are a "need" for Canada? Just curious as to how you would like to see this asset deployed and why?
frosti wrote:we don't need a stop-gap aircraft, we need a long-term replacement like the F-35.
Unlike STL I agree we do need a replacement, however I disagree that the F-35 is it. There are financial, geographical and political realities that you simply refuse to acknowledge along with the government. Because of these realities Canada has always compromised to find the equipment to suit all our needs, not just the military ones. Those compromises are either in affordable but still capable equipment, or if we do buy the Cadillac's we are forced to reduce the numbers. We've already done that with the F-35 to the point we won't have enough of them to do even the most basic tasking originally assigned or replace the ones that will inevitably be lost. The government is hiding the soaring cost by stripping money from other areas turning these things into obscenely expensive ramp shades if we do end up foolishly getting them.
And as far as its much vaunted capability is concerned, every airplane has an advertised capability that it fails to live up to. When we got the CF-18 there were a couple of features that would have been wonderful to use in a busy air to air environment had they actually worked...but they didn't.
I really don't even know what makes the super hornet attractive. We have hornets, my understanding was we kind of built them under license. I wish I know what that means.
Makes me confused thinking that we could have made more. I have read we could not afford to do that. That makes me think we can't afford to buy new fighters now, f-35s f-22s, super hornets or even used surplus.
Of course I want new plane and the best ones. In fact I'm ok with trying some F-35s and paying a bit more tax. So what?
frosti wrote:
sky's the limit wrote:You think maintaining a few Sea King's is hard? Wait until this rolls along.
So you are comparing maintaining a 50 year old helicopter to the most advanced fighter jet in the world. Great argument..
Now I readily admit I'm the village idiot here, maybe that's why I need to ask...
Are you suggesting it will be easier to maintain the F-35s?
If we can fix them and I believe we can even though I agree they will be more difficult that the old helicopters. Why can't we eventually build a plant to make them?
Are Canadians cowards or just dumb, short sighted, lazy etc. ?
