Gov't announces JSF purchase

[Old fella]

Are they not the enemy and one of the reasons for 16B + loose change............. so says the Min of D.

http://www.canada.com/news/Security+thr ... story.html

[trampbike]

TORONTO STAR http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... cle/848664

Back to F-35 jets right choice for Canada
F-35 jets right choice for Canada
August 17, 2010

Paul Manson
Angus Watt

The announcement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace the CF-18 has sparked a flurry of debate, some of it ill-informed. The most common misconceptions are listed below, together with our own response to these.

• We don’t need a fighter aircraft. Canada has national interests to protect, and international responsibilities to fulfill. This will not change. The military remains a key instrument of national power, providing a clear demonstration that we take our obligations seriously, whether these involve protection of our sovereignty, peacekeeping operations, fighting terrorism and, yes, fighting a war if necessary. We need to equip our military properly to meet whatever challenges might arise in an uncertain and unpredictable future. The F-35 will serve until at least 2050, and probably beyond. Over that time, Canada will need an air force that can reasonably handle whatever risks and threats may appear. Like fire insurance for your house, you can’t buy it after the fact.

• The F-35 has only one engine. Contrary to popular opinion, the CF-18 was not chosen because it had two engines. Even 30 years ago engine reliability was so good that this was not a significant factor in the selection of our current fighter. Since then, jet engine technology has evolved so much that a single-engine fighter is a viable choice for Canada.

• We don’t need to replace the CF-18 until at least 2017. Why choose now? The 28-year-old CF-18 has recently been updated and will serve capably until 2017, beyond which serious structural problems will arise. A major aircraft purchase usually requires at least five years to complete; the F-35 contract, therefore, needs to be signed by 2012. It is not premature to start the process now.

• The F-35 is too expensive. It is true that the F-35 represents a large defence investment. However, there are significant cost advantages due to the large customer base; at least 3,000 will be sold to a variety of countries. This mass production will reduce Canada’s cost, as will the sharing of the ongoing support costs among the partner nations. Moreover, purchasing aircraft as part of a large group of nations assures interoperability, an important military consideration. Our aerospace industries will also have the potential to compete for worldwide contracts to support this large fleet, providing thousands of high-tech jobs for many years. The return on Canada’s investment will be very impressive indeed.

• Canada could get a better deal through open competition. In theory, an open competition might produce a cheaper contract. The reality is different in this particular case. Mergers of large aircraft companies and the huge start-up investments required to produce a modern fighter severely limit the choices. If there existed another fifth generation fighter with comparable capabilities and costs, within another broad international customer group, perhaps a valid competition could be run. Unfortunately, other potential candidates are fourth generation fighters nearing the end of their operational relevance or small-batch fifth generation aircraft having reduced capabilities. The F-35 manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has been forced to ruthlessly control both production and support costs to satisfy its F-35 customers, many of whom would cancel their orders should the price become excessive. Furthermore, with so many international customers, F-35 pricing visibility will be very high indeed, assuring a fair price for Canada.

We firmly believe that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter represents the best choice for Canada. The government’s announcement should have included more of the rigorous expert analysis that went into its decision. Ultimately, as with the once-controversial CF-18 selection, Canadians will come to understand the correctness of the decision, and its importance for the future security of our nation.

Retired general Paul Manson is a former Chief of the Defence Staff. Earlier in his military career he was program manager for the CF-18 Acquisition. Retired lieutenant-general Angus Watt is a former Chief of the Air Staff and Commander of Canada’s Air Force who retired in 2009.

[teacher]

Alexander von Rosenbach: The F-35 is the only choice for Canada

By Alexander von Rosenbach

After nearly 10 years of fighting in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces have earned a reputation for strength, flexibility and professionalism. Canadians are rightly proud, even if they oppose the war.

Post-2011, Canada will face a choice — preserve this hard-fought reputation or slip back into the shadows of global security. We chose the latter for much of the 1990s, letting our military decay on the naive hope that its future role would be simply to keep the peace. This was a costly mistake we should not repeat.

If we do choose to preserve our fighting capability, we need to hedge against a variety of future threats. This means choosing equipment that is versatile and forward-looking, capable of winning not only today’s battles, but also those well into the future. Indeed, the fighter aircraft we select now will likely still be flying in 2050.
However, selecting the right aircraft to counter vague long-term threats is difficult, not least because the government must make the bulk of the investment in the short-term. Clearly, the best-case scenario would see an open competition where various defence companies put forward their respective aircraft. Each would offer different capabilities and cost projections, allowing Canada to select the best deal for the military and the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, this ideal scenario has one flaw: It assumes a choice between aircraft of near-similar quality. In reality, today’s market for fighter jets is not a level playing field. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 is literally in a class of its own.

Undoubtedly, it will cost taxpayers dearly — $9-billion for 65 aircraft, or roughly $138-million each by current estimates. But what it brings to the table in terms of capability is unique: It is the only fifth-generation fighter on the market.

Military experts assign fighter jets to specific “generations” measured in terms of technological advancement. The first “fourth-generation” fighter aircraft were introduced in the mid-1970s, when digital technology was in its infancy (the floppy disk had just hit global markets). In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Air Force rolled out the F-22 Raptor and then the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the world’s first two fifth-generation aircraft. What sets them apart is their forward-looking design that equips them for the battlefields of tomorrow. They are not only advanced fighters, but are equipped to perform intelligence-gathering missions.

These are the smartest aircraft ever built — and the global consensus is that in future conflicts, the smartest force (not the largest) will prevail. Canada’s major allies are all acquiring fifth-generation fighters. Although the United States has made clear it will not sell the F-22 abroad, the F-35 program is being undertaken jointly with the United Kingdom, Australia and several other NATO nations. Thus, a drastic change of course by Canada would put us out of step with our allies and limit our ability to operate alongside them in future missions of any nature. It is worth noting that possible future competitors Russia, China and India are also developing fifth-generation planes.

The bottom line is that if Canada is serious about preserving its fighting capability until 2050, there is no choice but to stand firm on our commitment to the F-35. Our allies and prospective rivals understand this already. The sooner this message is made clear in the Commons, the better.

National Post

- Alexander von Rosenbach is armed forces editor at IHS Jane’s magazine.



Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... z0zSz11Znh

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... or-canada/

[akoch]

Who exactly is threatening Canadian sovereignty? People, get real. Stop making enemies for no reason for starters, things will get easier. Get along with life.

[aviator2010]

well norway took one of or islands without firing a wepon. the goal is not to become the dutch of north america.

[trampbike]

People, get real. Stop making enemies for no reason for starters

Who is talking about making ennemies?

Canada is actually just doing the bare minimum to still hold a tiny political weight in the world and to be somehow ready for future conflicts. After WW1, everyone agreed that such a horrible thing should not and would not happen again...

Nobody knows what the future will look like, so doing the minimum to be ready does seem very rational, even for pacifists (and by the way, who isn't a pacifist? Who really wants wars?)

[akoch]

and by the way, who isn't a pacifist? Who really wants wars?

I am actually amazed at the amount of folks like that. "Let's go and kick their butt! Those damn martians/russkies/commies/arabs/muslims/chinese/babilonians etc. Will give them freedom! Kill them in the name of democracy!". And they do, in quantities.

[akoch]

Quote:
Military 'had no idea' why we were going to war with Iraq, Colonel Tim Collins tells inquiry

Quote:
Former prime minister Tony Blair and U.S. president George Bush had given Saddam Hussein 'an offer he couldn't understand' and even the Iraqi dictator probably did not know what he was required to do to avoid war, said Col Collins.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0zYIYIkc8

[teacher]

To keep the peace one must prepare for war. You don't give firefighters and police crap equipement incase there's no real fires.

[Moose47]

<<<akoch
Post subject: Re: Gov't announces JSF purchase
New postPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:41 am
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 51
Who exactly is threatening Canadian sovereignty? People, get real. Stop making enemies for no reason for starters, things will get easier. Get along with life>>>

I'd like to hear what you have to say when the Russians start to claim part of our high arctic territory as theirs. Will you stand up and help defend it against occupation?

[akoch]

<<<akoch
Post subject: Re: Gov't announces JSF purchase
New postPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:41 am
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 51
Who exactly is threatening Canadian sovereignty? People, get real. Stop making enemies for no reason for starters, things will get easier. Get along with life>>>

I'd like to hear what you have to say when the Russians start to claim part of our high arctic territory as theirs. Will you stand up and help defend it against occupation?

Hmmm, let's see - what will you have to say when Canada starts to claim part of Russian high arctic territory? Will you stand up and help them defend against occupation? Or minimally, will you go and question the government intentions? This is certainly not a common thing to happen (even recently, never mind historical perspective), even if you personally do.

Count me in whichever way you prefer to answer this question, I'll do the same.

Moose47
Post subject: Re: Gov't announces JSF purchasePosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:41 pm
Rank 4
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:45 pm
Posts: 226

[akoch]

On another note, out of all countries US is the most likely country to test Canadian sovereignty. At least this is the only country that attempted that in the past, so this speculation is at least as good as any other.

Will you attempt to defend Canada in this case? And do it with the US airplanes and technology, including complex technology that can be controlled? I am really curious where is the common sense. And why Canada consistently giving up the high-tech and scientific industries, moving more and more towards services, imports and raw material export. This is where the sovereignty is being compromised the most. And that is being masked by using fear and intimidation - hey, look - we have this big scary russia or whatever.

[CosmoBuszard]

i've met one fighter pilot and he's had an engine failure in the CF18. with a single engined plane he'd have been forced to scrap it. as it is he flew it roughly 100 miles on the other one and landed safely. This isn't necessarily sound statistics. I agree with the above post that if anyone's going to attack canada it'll be the US. after all, if it isn't them then they'll jump at the chance to heroically defend us with all their shiny weapons and such. On the other hand, if they do attack (russia? come on! anybody attacking us will be doing it for our natural resources (i.e. water) which russia has plenty of) we're screwed and 16 billion dollars worth of planes won't help us much. for the record, i'd go eurofighter, so that when europe comes to our aid (assuming harper hasn't completely alienated us by then) at least we match.

cynical? yes. but what's not cynical about amassing arms?

[teacher]

This whole "there was no competition" arguement is unreal, it was a while ago but it was held. You don't see European countries holding competitions after spending money to develop the Eurofighter or the A400?

Just to add fuel to the fire:

Grits have short memory fighting F-35s
By L. IAN MACDONALD, QMI Agency

Last Updated: September 17, 2010 2:00am

The Conservatives have announced $16 billion of defence spending on the new F-35, the next generation jet fighter plane. The government will spend $9 billion to acquire 65 F-35s and another $7 billion to service them.

The Liberals have countered that if they form the next government, they will put the acquisition on hold so that there can be a competition to build the aircraft, rather than sole-sourcing it.

We’ve been in this movie before.

In the 1993 election, the Liberals campaigned against the Conservatives’ $4.8 billion plan to acquire 50 EH-101 helicopters. Symbolically, Jean Chretien kept that promise on his very first day in office.

The cancellation costs alone were $500 million. The technology transfers that would have been gained in servicing the helos were lost to the Canadian aerospace industry.

And 17 years later, the Canadian Forces are still flying around in 40-year-old Sea Kings, notorious for falling into the ocean, and which require at least 30 hours’ service for every hour in the air.

Interestingly, Chretien’s communications director in those days was Peter Donolo, now Michael Ignatieff’s chief of staff. He’s running the same playbook, but it’s a different play with a lot more at stake, including sovereignty over Canadian air space.

One thing is for sure — the CF-18 fighters based in Quebec and Alberta have been flying since the mid-1980s, and are due to be retired by mid-decade.

The Liberals’ complaint about sole-sourcing the F-35 is transparently phoney. The only company that builds it is Lockheed Martin. Boeing builds, well, Boeings. Sub-contracting in the supply chain, that could be another matter. But the mainframe of the aircraft, and its state-of-the-art technology, can only come from Lockheed Martin.

The Liberals should not be shocked or appalled by that. The F-35 was selected as the next generation fighter by a consortium of the U.S., Canada and other NATO nations. At the time, the Liberals were in government and it was their decision.

Any decision by a Liberal government to put the procurement on hold would jeopardize billions of dollars of industrial benefits from building and servicing the aircraft.

In addition, Canada would lose the technology transfers that go with the F-35. This is no small matter. When Canadair was awarded the CF-18 maintenance contract in 1986, the technology transfers were crucial to Bombardier’s emergence as a global player in aerospace.

Let Iggy explain that to the Canadian aerospace industry based in Quebec and Ontario.

Then there are those who say we don’t need an advanced jet fighter to patrol our skies, since the Cold War ended 20 years ago and the Russians no longer pose a threat to North American airspace. Rubbish. The Russians may not be the Sovs anymore, but they still have territorial ambitions as a transpolar power and are known for occasionally pushing the envelope.

Moreover, if we don’t enforce our own sovereignty, particularly our sovereignty over Arctic air and waters, the Americans will do it for us. This is not an outcome Canadians want.

Finally, it is nonsense to suggest the Canadian Forces don’t need a fighter component for overseas actions. The F-18s were deployed in the first Gulf War in 1991, constituting the only Canadian role, other than a hospital, that saw the coalition eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

It’s a slam dunk.

— MacDonald is editor 
of Policy Options magazine

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/colum ... 78396.html

[Siddley Hawker]

..so that when europe comes to our aid...

Now that'll be a first. I hope I'm around for that.

[AuxBatOn]

i've met one fighter pilot and he's had an engine failure in the CF18. with a single engined plane he'd have been forced to scrap it. as it is he flew it roughly 100 miles on the other one and landed safely.

Well, two points to pounder...

1- The engine failure you are talking about (probably between Greenwood and Bagotville, turbine disk departed the left engine, leaving the flight controls in a mechanical/electrical back up mode). He elected to land in Bagotville for various reasons, mainly because it's a CF-18 base and there are cables there. If that happened in a single engine aircraft, you don't need to make that decision. You go to the nearest airfield. Period dot. Saying that he would have had to eject is not quite accurate.

2- The Hornet's engines (F404) are 1970s technology. The JSF Engine (F135) is 2000s technology. It is much more reliable than the Hornet's engine. No, it is not perfect, however given the stats on catastrophic engine failures of the Hornet (which is minimal), it's safe to say that odds are that engine failures will be rare on the JSF.

[pointyertoes]

I'm very interested in the informed opinion of active or ex-military types on the forum about this choice of aircraft.
Is this purely political?
Why have many other countries opted for earlier (but new and modernised) generation a/c? The S. Korea and Singapore opted for new F-15 Strike Eagles with the latest avionics. Australia, the F/A-18E and F Superhornet. South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic opted for the SAAB Gripen. UAE bought new Block 60 F-16s. Saudis bought the Eurofighter Typhoon. The list goes on...
Some of these countries (especially S. Korea) have a much greater chance of using their aircraft in anger. And they all require full NATO interoperability (which all these aircraft provide). Obviously, none seem to view the stealth attributes of the F-35 as a deal maker.
So why did Canada opt for this aircraft in a single source manner?

[AuxBatOn]

I am an active Hornet driver.

Don't forget, the Super Hornet is a fourth generation aircraft and the new fighter will be our last manned fighter (my opinion) and we better get something that will last us for a while (40 years?)

The big difference between Canada and the countries you listed (most of them) is that we don't spend much on military acquisition. You can bet that if South Korea finds a need for the JSF, they will have the money to do so. As far as Australia goes, they bought the SH as a fill gap between the Legacy Hornets and the JSF. They will buy the JSF in the end.

The JSF offers much much more than any 4th generation fighter. Stealth is one thing, but it's much more than that. The Super Hornet is basically the same thing as our current Hornet (avionic-wise), after they went through the modernization program (and I'd argue they are more capable in some respect).

[canwhitewolf]

How?

The Deadly Question for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Air Power Australia - Australia's Independent Defence Think Tank


Air Power Australia NOTAM
5th July, 2010


a good analysis and comparison of the F35 against the SU35S...the f35 loses it seems
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

[pointyertoes]

The JSF offers much much more than any 4th generation fighter. Stealth is one thing, but it's much more than that. The Super Hornet is basically the same thing as our current Hornet (avionic-wise), after they went through the modernization program (and I'd argue they are more capable in some respect).

Thanks for the reply Aux Bat!

I'm familiar with some of the additional capabilities of the F-35 (the Distributed Aperature System and what I'm sure is an amazing EW suite), but how important is that to our military needs? We could have bought many more Gripen NGs or new-build F-16s with very similar capabilities.

Would it not make sense to buy more new (but non-stealthy a/c) with similar capabilities and perhaps save enough money to buy tanker support so that we could self-deploy our fighters in a crisis?

[. ._]

I still think it would be cheaper to by 160,000 of these bad boys:

http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft% ... g21UM.html

We'd get them with numbers- kind of like the "Avenger" theory. Talk about your pilot shortage!

-istp

[AuxBatOn]

Thanks for the reply Aux Bat!

I'm familiar with some of the additional capabilities of the F-35 (the Distributed Aperature System and what I'm sure is an amazing EW suite), but how important is that to our military needs? We could have bought many more Gripen NGs or new-build F-16s with very similar capabilities.

Would it not make sense to buy more new (but non-stealthy a/c) with similar capabilities and perhaps save enough money to buy tanker support so that we could self-deploy our fighters in a crisis?

Don't forget, we're going to use the JSF for many many years to come. If we want to be relevant on the international scene for all that time, we need the cutting edge now. Yes, I believe we need to have those capabilities.

We could buy 100 000 Spitfires for that price. Is it going to be better than buying the JSF?

[. ._]

Migs are cheaper and supersonic.

OK, I'll shut up now.

[boeingboy]

We could buy 100 000 Spitfires for that price. Is it going to be better than buying the JSF?

One famous quote:

"The quality of the crate matters little.........sucess depends upon the man that sits in it!"

[modi13]

Who exactly is threatening Canadian sovereignty? People, get real. Stop making enemies for no reason for starters, things will get easier. Get along with life.

Can you see 40 years into the future? Do you know that in a decade or two we won't have a conflict on our hands? Even if we aren't directly threatened, that doesn't mean our military won't have a role to play in the world; Canada hasn't fought a war on our own soil since 1885 but we've been involved in numerous conflicts since then. In almost every case, Canada came to the assistance of countries that had been invaded or civilians who were in harm's way. Our F-18s were involved in the Gulf War and Kosovo, and our F-35s may have to take part in a similar conflict in the future protecting non-Canadians. Expecting that any Fourth Generation fighter will still be able to compete on the international scene in 2050 is ridiculous; should we still be using Starfighters because the hardware isn't all that different and it would have been cheaper than buying F-18s? We need to have the most up-to-date equipment available so that it can last for several decades without becoming obsolete, and even new aircraft like the Eurofighter and Super Hornet don't have that capability. The US Navy is going to be phasing out the Super Hornet by 2024, so how can we be expected to keep it for 26 more years?