F-35 issues

[killarney]

The CF-18 was never a good air defense fighter, the Hornet was designed as a light fighter with ground attack capacity to be flung off a carrier, leaving the air defense to the F-14. All we have used the CF-18 for is bomb runs in a few conflicts and patrols. Canada really relies on NORAD for real air defense. Im not dissing the CF-18, I love the plane, many fond memories, but tactically, it is what everyone says it is... Jack of all Trades, master of none.


The CAF needs to get its head out of the cold war and into the modern ages. Right now, we need long range patrols and a small reactionary force. A fleet of UAVs could handle the sovereignty patrols, and a few squadrons of F-35s for our international obligations. The F-35 would be atleast as good as the CF-18, so our air-to-air 'capability' is intact. What Canada would gain from the F-35 is some stealth, but more importantly a REAL ability to interact with international forces.

[JohnnyCanuck]

But is that really the question?

To me, it really is as simple as no government has any business spending $30 billion without a competitive process and without a thorough (and public) needs analysis. While certain parts would need to be classified, the general needs analysis on an expenditure like this needs have rigour. The manner in which it has been done has none.

We don't know that the F-35 is the right fighter and we don't know if the cost is appropriate. How can that be responsible government to the tune of $30 billion?

[Tim Cake]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

But is that really the question?

To me, it really is as simple as no government has any business spending $30 billion without a competitive process and without a thorough (and public) needs analysis. While certain parts would need to be classified, the general needs analysis on an expenditure like this needs have rigour. The manner in which it has been done has none.

We don't know that the F-35 is the right fighter and we don't know if the cost is appropriate. How can that be responsible government to the tune of $30 billion?

Johnny:

You have hit the nail on the head. Where was the publicly audited biddng process? Where was the detailed needs analysis? It looks like America's penchant for no-bid defense contracts has made its way to Canada. Another question: why does the RCAF have to be tied to a US built product offering? If you want to read about the nightmare of American military aircraft procurement, please read the following book by James Burton: Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard. (Other authors on this subject include Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey. The Center for Defense Information website contains one of Sprey's articles entitled "Is the F-22 Worth the Money?", at cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3389&from_page. Chuck Spinney has a blog site at chuckspinney.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html. He also has many books, one of which is "Defense Facts of Life: The Plans/Reality Mismatch").

I hope the pitiable American defense acquisition situation doesn't occur in Canada. The Canadian economy is much smaller than that of the USA -- hence Canadians do not have the "dollar slack" to absorb large scale spending mistakes by their federal government. I'm not saying the F-35 is a mistake -- but this sort of decision requires exacting levels of due diligence on the part of Canadians' federal government. YOU PAY the feds to do that-- make the politicians and civil servants EARN their pay! Perhaps the new Sukhoi stealth fighter from Russia would offer better value for money spent. I am neither an aeronautical engineer nor a fighter pilot -- but this is the sort of question that should be asked before Canada signs on the dotted line and shells out billions of dollars. Again, it is YOUR MONEY -- spend it wisely, give your warfighters the best weapons systems available -- BUT please don't make the horrible errors in weapons systems procurement that occurred in my country, the USA.

Tim

[stampeder]

killarney, with all due respect a read through the prior posts is enough to see plenty of refutation of the claims you've just made. Please be kind and rewind the thread to get up to date on what's been covered already.

Whether you choose to reply to previous posts or not, I don't see what you've just posted as being convincing. I will directly refute your claim that:

Originally Posted by killarney

the Hornet was designed as a light fighter with ground attack capacity to be flung off a carrier

by reminding everyone that the Hornet was designed by Northrop as a land-based multi-task (including air superiority) fighter, but that McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) sub-licensed the design from Northrop to upgrade it for U.S. Navy carrier operations. Canada selected the latter version despite not requiring the tail hook gear (for obvious reasons) and may actually have benefited from the stouter landing gear over the long run regarding airframe durability.

Originally Posted by killarney

The CF-18 was never a good air defense fighter

As has been convincingly clarified earlier in this thread, the F-18 was indeed meant to replace the F-14 as an air superiority fighter, and real world experience over the decades shows that your statement is incorrect and ill-informed.

I could go on refuting your claims by why should I when this thread is full of great reading on those subjects already?

[gworg]

News of the day - GAO is Concerned About Significant Delays in F-35 Software

congressional auditors say the plane is "significantly behind schedule as it enters its most challenging phase."

[stampeder]

The U.S. diplomat shown in Wikileaks documents to have applied enormous pressure on Norway to stick with their own intended F-35 purchase is now based in Canada, doing the same thing here:

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3877

That's just good business for the U.S., but it sure doesn't exhibit any concern for the lowly Canadian taxpayer, who has been forceably made absent from the Canadian government's plans.

[WestCDA]

Canada selected the latter version despite not requiring the tail hook gear (for obvious reasons)

Actually, they do occasionally use the tail hook with a mobile arrestor gear system (MAGS?), for short strip landings.

[stampeder]

Good to know that they've made use of them.

[stampeder]

Every citizen of Canada is entitled to run for public office if they've met all the legal and "vetting" criteria, so all the power in the world to this fellow, but his recent activities regarding selling the F-35 fighter jet to Canada are certainly notable:

One of the Conservative candidates in the federal election was until last December one of the lobbyists for the maker of the controversial F-35 jet the Harper government picked to be Canada’s next generation of fighter planes, records show.
As senior partner at CFN Consultants, an Ottawa firm specializing in defence issues, Raymond Sturgeon lobbied the government on behalf of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, the U.S. manufacturer of the F-35 Lightning II, the jet whose multi-billion sole-sourced price tag has been heavily criticized.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1959650/

I can't call this patronage since the fellow is putting himself on the line for a seat in parliament. Had this been an appointment of some sort it would have been suitable for outrage. As it is, I just find it curious and don't really know what to make of it.

[stampeder]

Far from the election circus, Australian independent defence analyst Peter Goon, from Air Power Australia, says he's no fan of the F-35, adding that Canadian politicians have been misled over its capabilities.

''Not intentionally by their departments and ministries of defence personnel,'' Goon says.

''They're just relying on what's been told by suppliers and unfortunately, as I've found from colleagues of mine in the Pentagon, they were also misled by the marketing of this program.''

http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1397388

[stampeder]

Prime Minister Harper and his campaign team have claimed that the cost per plane to Canada for the F-35 fighter jet is fixed and that no additional costs will be incurred. Since the U.S. government has already declared that the cost per plane has climbed acutely above the Harper team's announced price, there is a huge legal issue undermining such a Conservative claim:

While chiding the Liberals for a number of statements, a news release sent out by the Conservative party on Sunday failed to address the U.S. competitive pricing law. That law dictates that when the U.S. Department of Defence has invested in a developmental military project, it cannot offer to sell those materials to foreign nations for any price under what the U.S. would pay itself.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...861/story.html

Alan Williams, a former senior official and vocal critic of the program, said Harper is correct that allies are "sheltered" from development costs, but the federal government has no such guarantee over rising "procurement costs."

U.S. export law forbids the Pentagon from selling military equipment at a cost less than it pays.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201...-costs-110408/

[Fry1989]

http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/up...hoi-PAK-FA.jpg

THIS IS what we should buy, the Sukhoi PAK FA, from Russia.

It's being put into production for 2013 (2 years before the F-35) and is to be comparable if not superior to the F-22 Raptor. Everyone wants the Raptor (the Aussies want it realllly badly, and Israel probably does too), but since there's an export ban, where's the harm in looking elsewhere? (other then annoying the Yanks). The PAK FA has 2 engines, rather than one, which has been an issue of note regarding the F-35, it's vastly superior to the F-35 dud, and even costs 22 million dollars less per unit than the F-35!

Do your research, the Sukhoi PAK FA is the bird for Canada all the way baby!

[Kanga-Kucha]

Tis PAK FA is very good plane da? will blow Raptor from sky!

Today, Georgia, Tommorow we bring back CCCP!

[stampeder]

The first thing the next Canadian government should do is walk away from the F-35 deal and put the entire jet fighter purchase plan on hold while a few things are done:

• draft a comprehensive national defence white paper identifying the country's needs for the entire Armed Forces now and in the near future
• if fighter jets figure highly in that white paper then develop a set of requirements that can be met by modern aircraft already in production
• conduct an open, fair competition
• entertain only such deal "sweeteners" (such as maintenance and construction contracts) that will have no effect on the technical decisions being made
• have the guts to say no to foreign political and industrial pressure
• choose the best aircraft based on those open, fair procedures which best meets and/or exceeds those requirements

[gworg]

Doesn't this define our mission

The Canada First Defence Strategy is working on six core missions as level of ambition for the Canadian Forces. According to the strategy the forces must be able to support all of the following operations and if necessary, support them all simultaneously.

Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD.
Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Respond to a major terrorist attack.
Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster.
Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period.
Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods.

Yet another white paper seems like a waste.