Forces tag $3.8B to buy advanced Joint Strike Fighter

[teacher]

Forces tag $3.8B to buy advanced jets
Joint Strike Fighter studied to replace CF-18s in the next decade

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Canada's military is setting aside almost $4 billion for the purchase of a fleet of futuristic fighter jets that will replace its CF-18s in the next decade.

The Canadian Forces is creating a new office in Ottawa in August to deal with its future fighter needs and plan how it will proceed with replacing the existing CF-18 jets.

The government has committed to investing in the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter and an air force study produced last year determined that the JSF best suited Canada's requirements at the most affordable price.

Canada has informed JSF builder Lockheed Martin that it plans to buy 80 of the planes with production to begin in 2014 and deliveries starting two years after that.

The Defence Department estimates that the cost of purchasing 80 JSFs will be about $3.8 billion (all figures in U.S. dollars).

Department officials, however, stress that the cost figure and the dates and numbers of aircraft needed are for planning purposes and may change. The government has not given final approval on any JSF purchase, although it will have to decide by 2012 on how it will replace the CF-18s, department officials say.

Australia has tentatively budgeted $9 billion to buy 100 JSFs, but could cut that in half if costs rise, according to Australian defence officials quoted last year in Aviation Week and Space Technology, a major U.S. industry publication. Canadian Defence Department documents obtained by the Citizen estimate the cost to replace the existing fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft will be $10.5 billion.

Defence spokeswoman Tanya Barnes pointed out that the $3.8-billion figure for a JSF purchase does not include any additional costs, such as training, sustainment and follow-on development. "It's an estimate based only on the fly-away cost of the individual aircraft," she added.

Canada has already invested $150 million in the JSF program. Late last year, the government decided to take part in the next phase of the aircraft's development, agreeing to invest around $500 million over the next 45 years to pay for the specialized equipment for JSF production.

Mike Slack, the Defence Department's director of continental materiel co-operation, said the next five years will be used to determine the requirements for a future fighter jet, as well as dealing with issues such as whether manned aircraft or some other kind of technology can meet those needs.

Advances in unmanned fighter aircraft technology could also limit the number of JSF needed, some military observers have pointed out.

"One doesn't know where technology might end up in five years from now, for example, on unmanned tactical platforms, and how many of the missions can be performed using unmanned capabilities versus manned tactical capabilities," Mr. Slack acknowledged.

That type of dilemma is being faced by all nations interested in the JSF, he added.

The idea behind JSF is to produce in large quantities a high-tech, stealthy aircraft that, at a time of soaring costs for military equipment, is relatively affordable.

Government officials have promoted the benefits of the JSF program for Canada's aerospace industry. They say Canadian firms have been awarded around 150 JSF contracts so far. Canadian industrial opportunities are expected to total more than $5 billion over the life of the JSF program. That total could increase if other nations decide to buy the fighter.

"There is nothing like this anywhere," Mr. Slack said. "This is the largest defence co-operative program ever undertaken by Canada and, for that matter, all the other countries involved in it."

But some analysts have challenged the wisdom of purchasing the JSF. In his new book, Intent for a Nation, Michael Byers argues that not only are none of the future contracts guaranteed for Canadian industry, but it is not certain that the JSF is the best equipment for the country's needs.

"What is certain is that the Canadian taxpayer will, once again, end up supporting the U.S. defence industry," writes Mr. Byers, a University of British Columbia international law professor.

http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... 61db6946ac

[invertedattitude]

Simply wow. I predicted this a long time ago when Canada first invested in the program. Not that it was hard to see coming

Wow one thing that will likely happen is the next gov't will come in and squash this great idea

[the_professor]

Doesn't the CF normally wait until 10 years after the equipment has become obsolete before starting the 25-40year military procurement process?

This will never stand. We'll be still be flying the F-18 when the JSF becomes obsolete.... and then we'll buy the JSF, used, from the Netherlands...

[grimey]

This will never stand. We'll be still be flying the F-18 when the JSF becomes obsolete.... and then we'll buy the JSF, used, from the Netherlands...

No no... we'll buy the JSF, decide it's too much for our budget, sell them to the Netherlands for pennies on the dollar, and then buy them back used and un-airworthy, for more than we sold them for.

Anyone else think it's odd that we budgeted 3.8 billion for 80, and the Aussies budgeted 10 billion for 100? Someone's either anticipating getting a much model, or someone is really bad at math.

edit: disregard last paragraph, I read the article wrong.

[snowcone]

Seven years from now we will talk about getting them, that is absolutley awful!

[Guido]

Single engine... I dunno. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Civilian planes with one engine are one thing, but no redundancy in a military jet doesn't seem to bright to me whatwith flying over a country as big and desolate as Canada is in the North - let alone foreign, unfriendly nations... anyone have any stats as to how many times the twin engines on the CF-188 have saved peoples' bacon?

[C-GGGQ]

f-16 only has one

[shitdisturber]

f-16 only has one

Which is why we didn't buy them when the new fighter aircraft contract was being contested. A good airplane, a lot cheaper than the CF-18 but the single engine lost the competition. For the very good reason that there's far too much unsettled country out there to be patrolling without the safety of a second engine.

[Rockie]

Forces tag $3.8B to buy advanced jets
Joint Strike Fighter studied to replace CF-18s in the next decade

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

"What is certain is that the Canadian taxpayer will, once again, end up supporting the U.S. defence industry," writes Mr. Byers, a University of British Columbia international law professor.

http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... 61db6946ac

Ok, I know I said I wouldn't post insults but this guy's an idiot.

Military procurement since the PC's came to power has been a breath of fresh air, and staggering leap forward in common sense since the utter disgrace of the Liberals. If they get back in you can be sure this will be delayed for another 20 years or cancelled outright.

[I Like Myself]

Wow,
I was wondering if I would live to see the F-18 replaced.
Glad to see that I just might.

...although the F-18 is still an awesome aircraft.

[sky's the limit]

And we need to waste that much money for what??? Oh right, the Russians are coming, I remember now. I'm so glad my tax dollars are being spent wisely, if you're going to spend on the military, at least buy something we actually need. I can only hope Harper is long gone before this all goes down.

Maybe they'll give the Snowbirds some too....

stl

[Lommer]

On the single engine thing, the CF-104 only had one engine, does anyone know how that fighter faired in Canadian service?

[Rockie]

if you're going to spend on the military, at least buy something we actually need.

You say that as if you know what the military needs. Not only that, you say that as if you know what they'll need in 15 years. Why are you wasting your talent flying for a living when there are entire countries that desperately need that kind of foresight?

[2R]

It was not that long ago the Canadian forces were busy getting rid of the leopard tanks .It would seem that no one has crystal ball that is accurate enough for every scenario that the all volunteer force may face .
If you had of suggested Air conditioning for the leopards years ago they would have thought you mad.
Our Nato treaty obligations wil have more influence on our purchasing of aircraft both in numbers ,size and type .It will be the job of the politicians to sell the purchase to the electorate.
Why not get lots of everything we can always use them to train foreign airforces if we never have to use them in anger.And the snowbirds can get some and sell airplane rides at airshows.They pay ten thousand dollars in moscow to fly in migs .I bet that some here would even pay for a check out in one of the new modern fighters

[sky's the limit]

if you're going to spend on the military, at least buy something we actually need.

Why are you wasting your talent flying for a living when there are entire countries that desperately need that kind of foresight?

That, is a very good question. The problem is, I absolutely hate the Government work environment, and couldn't really function there.... So, until I find a way to become a benevolent dictator, I'll have to stick with flying.

We need a plane like that about as much as we need more greenhouse gases...


stl

[Rockie]

Why don't you think we need an airplane like that?

[shitdisturber]

On the single engine thing, the CF-104 only had one engine, does anyone know how that fighter faired in Canadian service?

Not very well but not for the reasons most people think thanks to the sensationalist media. We lost a lot of 104's but that's because we; having no other choice, weren't using them properly.
The 104 was designed to be a high altitude high speed interceptor. Since we couldn't really afford to have a decent ground attack aircraft, we pressed the Starfighter into service. Not a good idea when you only have one engine and a wingspan of, if memory serves, about twelve feet. When that one engine quit; through birdstrikes or whatever, they glided like a brick. They were fun to get off if you'd been working in the avionics bay though, just slide down the wing.

[Rockie]

Strangely the 104 was probably best suited to the all weather strike role in central Europe which Canada did for a short time. It was small, went fast and had no wing so it could smash its way through even the worst weather with barely a ripple. Not very useful in Canada though I don't think.

There is the single engine argument in favour of the Eurofighter or something like that for Canada, and it was certainly one of the key factors in selecting the CF-18. But engines today are extremely reliable in fighter aircraft as opposed to the old F-5's, 104's etc. and it may be less of a concern. How do you guys feel about flying the north with one engine on a caravan or beaver?

[2R]

No fear here about the Caravan.A great airplane .
The bugs in the north well that is another matter

[Rockie]

There's the combat survivability obviously. But the main issue with the two engines getting the CF-18 was for Canada's north. They just wanted the reliability and reduncancy of two as opposed to one. The best two engine combat survivable aircraft is the A-10, but that's because its engines are widely separated and a shell that takes out one is unlikely to take out the other as well. Same applies to an uncontained engine disintegration. Two engines mounted right beside each other aren't that much of an advantage when people are shooting big chunks of self guiding high explosive stuff at you.

[sky's the limit]

Two engines mounted right beside each other aren't that much of an advantage when people are shooting big chunks of self guiding high explosive stuff at you.

With all due respect,


Remind me again WHO is going to be "shooting big chunks of self guiding high explosive at you?" This is a system that addresses a threat which no long exists. If someone was going to attack us, 50 of these are not going to make the difference. But nobody is going to attack us - not in my lifetime anyway.

The argument that we need them to support our future Operations like Afghanistan assumes we should be involved in future conflicts like that one - and from what I'm reading about public opinion, we shouldn't be there now, never mind in the future. We don't have a 4 lane highway across this country, 3.8 Billion could works wonders for that, just one example off the top of my head, but there's a myriad of things this money could be more wisely spent on than cutting edge fighters.

We all are pilots, we all like things that go fast and make noise, but in this instance, acquiring a weapons system like this makes little to no sense. The people we're fighting against at the moment live in caves and use car bombs, why don't we start providing our troops on the ground with the things they need? When we left for Afghan we had the wrong uniforms, the body armor had to be taken from the guys/gals in Bosnia, and the Yanks did the airlift....

Regardless of the Party in control, we need to clearly identify what CANADIANS want their armed forces to be tasked for, and supply them accordingly. The war in Afghanistan and future wars like it garner little public support, even Harper is starting to see that. So until there's a medium to small threat of an invasion by a medium to small country over our Pole, we don't need it.

The Sovereignty arguement doesn't work either, there are others ways to establish that.

Just my take, fire away.

stl

[Rockie]

I agree that protecting Canadian sovereignty against aggressors is unlikely given our location on this planet. But never say never, and if we did we won't get the 10 years of warning required to buy the planes and train the pilots. It's called being prepared rather than getting prepared too late.

But you're forgetting that Canada is a member of NATO, and as such has taken part in more combat operations, including CF-18's, since the end of the cold war than in the previous 35 years. I don't see that changing because fortunately Canadians recognize that the world remains a dangerous place and we cannot afford to be a bystander. Canada hasn't deployed our CF-18's anywhere recently because they have been too outdated to effectively work with our allies within NATO. That is changing with the update currently being done, and we will be fully modernized again once (if) the JSF arrives.

It is not a case of having cool toys. It is not warmongering either. It is a case of living up to our responsibilities as a nation committed to treaties with other nations.

Our government has a duty to protect Canadian citizens and interests wherever they may be in the world and sometimes you can't do that by writing stern letters. You assert we don't need a combat aircraft, but can you guarantee it?

[sky's the limit]

Of course nothing can be guaranteed, but I think spending the kind of money involved for the procurement, operation, and maintenance of these aircraft is not the best use of the extremely larges sum of money it will require. As for our commitment to NATO, I think that is something that needs to be reassessed in the future.

NATO at the moment is an instrument to project American/Western power, little more. There's nobody left for it to fight, and while we can all get up in arms, pardon the pun, about other members not fulfilling their commitments, I think we should start to question those commitments as other nations have. Once you start to do that, then these expeditions to places like Afghanistan become unnecessary.

I think after the next American Presidential Election, we're going to see a rather large shift in their foreign policy in an attempt to undo some of the damage that's been done recently - regardless of which party wins the Office. America cannot sustain this course much longer, and everyone but the Neo Cons seems to see that.

Anyway, as for the fighters, it's a much more complex question than it first appears, as you have to take into consideration many factors, some for it, some against. That said, it's my opinion that until we have a clearly defined need for these things, we shouldn't be spending that kind of money "just in case." There are better projects both in the Military and out, that could sorely use this kind of money.

stl

Edited for some really bad Saturday morning typing...

[Rockie]

Fair enough.

[loopy]

I wonder which version of the JSF they will consider? Will they take the same version as the USAF, conventional TO and lanading? Or will they take the same version as the USN and marines, the VTOL. I would say there is an arguement for the latter. What kind of role do the CF play normally? Operations like they are in now?

Wouldn't it be nice if they could provide their own air cover and ground support. A new "harrier" would allow that kind of deployment without thousands of feet of conveniently located concrete. Look how the Norwegians and Swedes deploy to strips of road and use them. Look how few paved airports and airbases we have across the north. This type of aircraft could provide the deployment flexibility that the CF may need going into the future.

Just my 2 cents.