Canada to Purchase 65 F-35s

[Catch22]

So it looks like we've committed. It still can fall through for a number of reasons though, so this isn't completely final, especially since the Liberals plan to kill the purchase if they are elected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html?src=busln

CBC News - Canada - Canada to spend $9B on F-35 fighter jets

Not as pricy as I had first thought.

 

[BombTaxi]

Good luck with that... expected delivery date is 2075 and adjusted price with inflation will be about 16 trillion dollars. You guys should have talked to the RN first - they know all about waiting for F-35s, and also about building carriers that will be in reserve before the aircraft for them arrive

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good luck with that... expected delivery date is 2075 and adjusted price with inflation will be about 16 trillion dollars. You guys should have talked to the RN first - they know all about waiting for F-35s, and also about building carriers that will be in reserve before the aircraft for them arrive

Gee BT - a cynical for the most advanced combat aircraft ever built that BTW is doing exceptionally well in its test flights. Ever hear of "Firm Fixed Contract? I bet DND has and I'm sure if there any cost over runs in their production run, LM will be paying for it.

FARNBOROUGH: Lockheed encouraged by pace of F-35 testing


And I wonder how may offset jobs will be created in Canada by this decision. Maybe the CAF DID talk to the RN, hence the decision!

 

[BombTaxi]

You're right, I was a bit heavy on the cynicism - apologies. I did further reading on the Canadian involvement after that rather off-the-cuff comment and I understand that Canada is going in more for economic reasons than purely military ones - their participation allows Canadian industry to compete for work on the aircraft.

I do still have my doubts over the project though. Mainly around security, for example the theft of several terabytes of project data by hackers, and also around whether the UK is being given proper access to technology. Finally, some of my reading has suggested that if the MoD decides to reduce it's financial commitment, we may end up in a situation where an American national is required to be involved in a British chain of command - as is the case with Trident. I do not like that one bit. The US distanced itself from us during the last round of sabre-rattling in the Falklands. The idea of the US being able to veto the deployment of RAF/RN aircraft in a future repeat of this scenario frankly makes my blood run cold...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You're right, I was a bit heavy on the cynicism - apologies. I did further reading on the Canadian involvement after that rather off-the-cuff comment and I understand that Canada is going in more for economic reasons than purely military ones - their participation allows Canadian industry to compete for work on the aircraft.

I hate to say it but many Canadian military procurements of US products over the past 40 years involved some type of offset and it worked out great for both countries, not only a strengthening of an allied military presence in this part of the world, but a sharing of technology that eventually helps both countries. The jobs though were the primary reason.

I do still have my doubts over the project though. Mainly around security, for example the theft of several terabytes of project data by hackers, and also around whether the UK is being given proper access to technology.

I can agree there and offer this - each major partner in this project design some of its own software "goodies," share what they have to and guard certain aspects of sensitive software. The UK shouldn't have to be a "victim" should someone hack into a mainframe and compromise top secret information and vice-versa.

Finally, some of my reading has suggested that if the MoD decides to reduce it's financial commitment, we may end up in a situation where an American national is required to be involved in a British chain of command - as is the case with Trident. I do not like that one bit. The US distanced itself from us during the last round of sabre-rattling in the Falklands. The idea of the US being able to veto the deployment of RAF/RN aircraft in a future repeat of this scenario frankly makes my blood run cold...

I can agree with your frustration 100%. BAE is the third largest US defense contractor and that may provide leverage in that situation. I could see the rationale behind a US National with regards to the Trident, but I can't see how the US can justify blocking a UK deployment of their conventional forces for the protection of the UK's national sovereignty. Again agree 100%

 

[BombTaxi]

In reality, I think the insertion of a foreign national into the UK chain of command is unlikely - not least because Downing Street knows that any government which consented to this would be out in a flash. Like you say, it is different to Trident, and the UK public are increasingly seeing a need for greater autonomy in foreign policy.

As regard software design... I suppose it's difficult. Close integration is needed to ensure that the platform works for all users. But then again, everyone stands to lose a lot in case of cyber-attack. A bit of a lose-lose situation in some respects.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Of course this has become "political" - by the same people who cost this country $500M in cancellation penalties over replacement helicopters for our (17 years later) still-flying Sea Kings.

The following sums up the marketplace very neatly, .

Sort of Political: So, let's go shopping for replacement fighters...

MM
Proud Canadian

 

[Catch22]

What gets me about the news stories and the like that keep coming up is that it's clear nobody has a clue what they're talking about. For instance, I heard a headline on CBC last night "Canada buying new fighters. Do we need them right now?" Yes! Our CF-18s are at the end of their service life, and NEED to be replaced. Either we replace them or we don't have fighters period.

MM, nice link. It's nice and to the point. I love the part about the CBC costing double the fighters...

 

[BombTaxi]

I think the debate in Canada is probably much like the debate here. It's not a case of 'do we need fighters period?' - everyone knows we do. It's more a case of 'Do we need so many fighters when the economy is such a mess and there are other things to spend the money on?'. For example, new school building has now been stopped completely in the UK, and the govt has promised to get rid of tens of thousands of free pre-school places. But the RAF still has, AFAIK, options on £200 millions worth of Eurofighters. People are questioning which is more important at the moment. While defence budgeting has to be done in the medium-to-long term, everything else, like our schools, is being viewed in a very short-term light, and people don't like it....

 

[Matt308]

All good comments and worthy of discussion. My biggest fear is the heat dump on the F-35. Perhaps managed for the moment, but I worry that with future upgrades the ability to manage residual heat from future non-kintetic weapons will be a challenge.

And with respect to those participating in various tiers of the acquisition plan, I do have some sympathy. But I also am concerned about the level of commitment guaranteed in today's political/economic climate contrasted with US national security secrets. I fully trust the Brits and Aussies. But frankly wonder about others who publicly condemn our actions or our interests, wrt being tier 1 partners. There's area for reflection as far as I am concerned.

 

[BombTaxi]

There a host of compelling reasons for us to stay in, notwithstanding the concerns I have already mentioned, and I am certain we will stay the course.

Firstly, the RN desperately needs this plane, as they are currently operating RAF Harriers off the remaining Illustrious class vessels to maintain a strike capability.

Secondly, the man and woman in the British street is much better informed about military procurement than they were before Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will vote with extreme prejudice if the govt does not procure the best systems money can buy for 'Our Boys' in the field,.

Thirdly, the current Coalition govt has backtracked on Labour's ending of the 'Special Relationship' and is sending out strong signals that the UK's geopolitical future remains in a significant partnership with the US. This is hardly surprising, seeing as the majority partner is virulently Eurosceptic, and I think that over the current parliament there will probably be more new procurement from across the Atlantic than there is from across the Channel.

I also think that Canada will stay in as they have a hefty economic benefit to earn from participation. Other countries? I think that if their operational requirements are serious, they will stay in regardless of blabbing politicos. There really isn't any other game in town for the F-35's capabilities.

 

[Catch22]

I also think that Canada will stay in as they have a hefty economic benefit to earn from participation. Other countries? I think that if their operational requirements are serious, they will stay in regardless of blabbing politicos. There really isn't any other game in town for the F-35's capabilities.

I hope we do. I hope this isn't being too political, and if it is, I'll gladly delete this. But I think it would help to just explain the political climate here in Canada.

Right now, the Conservative party is in power. They only have a minority government however, so conceivably the Liberal Party and the New Democrats could take them down, so they have to be careful with what they do. The Conservatives have done some things and weren't really all that forthcoming about them, so they've already drawn the ire of the other parties (slightly more so than usual). In regards to the F-35, once again the Conservatives weren't really all that forthcoming with details until the announcement. Basically, the Liberals and NDP are upset because they claim there wasn't enough research done, and there wasn't a "playoff" so to speak, like there was in the 80s with the F-18 and F-16. Because of this they feel that we may be paying too much money etc. The Liberal leader has already said if he gets elected between now and procurement, he'll halt the proceedings and take another look at anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to either push the CF-18 WAY past its limits or just ditch the fighter fleet altogether. The NDP is slightly less critical, and have said that the F-35 may be the best plane for Canada, but they'd like to take a look at all of the options, similar to a playoff. The other party, the Bloc Québecois, is a conservative leaning party, that's almost a special interest party, only in this case its interest is getting what's best for Quebec. They'll support the Conservatives in this IF they get substantial amounts of the economic benefits.

This being said, most Canadians think the PM's an idiot, the Liberal leader's a bigger idiot, and the NDP leader's even more of an idiot, so we'll see where that goes. At this point in time I cannot see the Liberals getting elected, the NDP won't ever get elected judging by the history of how well they've done in the past, and you can't vote for the Bloc unless you live in Quebec, and things will stay as is: a Conservative minority government, which means F-35s.

 

[Maestro]

I don't know what to think about this...

Of course, we need new fighters... They say Canada's F-18s' "service life" is gonna reach its end soon, I personally say it reached it about 10 years ago... But that's an other story.

Buying replacements is good. However, I fear it is not enough... I mean, F-35s seems to be good planes... for an attack ! For our territorial defence, we're still screwed. You see, our "most dangerous" border is up north, where there is ice and snow about 10 months a year. The reason F-18s were preferred to other fighter types for that job was the fact that it had dual engines, so if ever something happened in the air, they could still make it back on one engine.

The F-35 only has one engine and ( unlike the F-18 ) we don't know how it is gonna react to the cold air of the North-West Territories.

So buying F-35s is okay for the case we would need to build up an expeditionary force to attack a country, but we also need something for our own defence.

In short : F-35s are okay... But what else ?

 

[Marcel]

Of course, we need new fighters... They say Canada's F-18s' "service life" is gonna reach its end soon, I personally say it reached it about 10 years ago... But that's an other story.

Hmmm, I believe our F-16 airframes could hold out for many more years to come. probably your F-18's are in the same league (I believe they're not as old as our oldest F-16's..) On a pure technical point of view, they needn't be replaced. They can still be modified to carry modern weapons and what do we need such an expensive new fighter for? What do we use it for? For fighting in UN wars like Afghanistan. I think an F-16 still meets the demands for such kinds of wars. Same counts for the F-18. But our government in it's wisdom has stated that the F-16 should be replaced, most probably by the F-35 (The SAAB Grippen is also still in the running, but is lagging behind).

 

[Maestro]

But may be your F-16s are better taken care of than our F-18s... I've been hearing of Canadian F-18s losing parts while in flight or simply crashing for about 10 years now !

And I'm in no way against the purchase of brand-new F-35s, as our gouvernment wants us to be within the Great nations of NATO (USA, UK and *cough* France *cough*), we could need those advanced planes to fight countries with a good level of technology... Like Iran or even (in the worse senario) China or Russia.

However, as I stated earlier, they might have a very though time if deployed in the north of Canada.

 

[Matt308]

If Canada is to be integrated with US defense where Canada is taking a lead role, F-35s are integral. If Canada wants to sit on the sidelines and assume the role of "relegated tactical offense" fed from US assets, that's fine too. But, Canada has too much territory to become acquiescent, they must take responsibility for their national security.

Just my two cents. Does that require F-35s? Perhaps not. But it likely will require major upgrades to current CF-18s or newer platforms like the F-18E/F.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Does that require F-35s? Perhaps not. But it likely will require major upgrades to current CF-18s or newer platforms like the F-18E/F."

Matt I'm glad you rejuvenated this thread because in some quarters the debate is now being 'shaped' by the classic Canadian argument that the F-35 isn't twin engined - and how Canada must have twin engined aircraft in this role (CF-100, Voodoo, Hornet, Banshee). I personally think that line of thought is just soooo dated. Twin engined is no longer a factor given the size and reliability of today's gas turbines. It's the airframes and avionics that you have to care about. None of the modern aircraft can be flown by a human - they are all reliant on a computer. One engine, two, three or four ... if the plane can't be controlled other than by its computer - than THAT is the over-riding issue.

Personally I think the F-35 is a good program and our copies will be able to operate out of a wide variety of field conditions.

So the F-35 selection gets my full approval.

MM

 

[Maestro]

I don't think that issue is that dated, as it still has to be taken in consideration when operating in tough areas, far away from any civilization, in a ice and snow desert.

More reliable doesn't mean flawless. An engine is still an assembly of mechanical pieces and any one of them could possibly fail. Which would lead to a desaster on a single-engine fighter in the North-West Territories. Crash-landing in a snow desert is a different story than crash-landing in a corn field in Alberta, where you can be rescued within minutes.

That is why I say F-35s must be bought for offence, but we need something a little different for defence. Keep the 65 F-35s but get a second deal for a twin-engined fighter for deployment in the north.

 

[looney]

Hmmm, I believe our F-16 airframes could hold out for many more years to come. probably your F-18's are in the same league (I believe they're not as old as our oldest F-16's..) On a pure technical point of view, they needn't be replaced. They can still be modified to carry modern weapons and what do we need such an expensive new fighter for? What do we use it for? For fighting in UN wars like Afghanistan. I think an F-16 still meets the demands for such kinds of wars. Same counts for the F-18. But our government in it's wisdom has stated that the F-16 should be replaced, most probably by the F-35 (The SAAB Grippen is also still in the running, but is lagging behind).

Biggest problem is what our 50 F-35 will be doing? They are not Stealty ( the dutch are goin to use it's internal weapon bays as fuel tanks * TSSSSS* ), they are only gonna be used as either patrol aircraft (identfiing civilian planes above The Netherlands), or as bombers in Afganistan. Where they can only service a few. We can't use the fighters as defence (not enough to do the job, specially cause we are goin to loose 1 airbase (Leeuwarden)), and as bombers we don't need such an expensive aircraft. As they will be fighting Taliban or similar (meaning no heavy AA weapons).

P.s. I heared form an old F16 maintenance guy our F16's aren't allowed to pull more than 6 G above The Netherlands and 8 above Afganistan.. They are old, but still way more cost effective than a F35 ever will be.

 

[Lucky13]

What F-18's is it that Canada have? A/B's, C/D's, if it's any of those, why not buy the E/F's then? Probably alot better than the old version, they have better electronics etc., and are cheaper than the F-35.