F-35 Up, Up and Away?

[Sir Purrcival]

So for 2 years now, despite many critics, the current gov. has doggedly persisted in its defense of its purchase of the fighter that has never fought. Starting at a 9 Billion dollar price tag, it would now seem that more realistic estimates of costs are at 25 B. and climbing (apparently the jet isn't). Now that public works is in charge of the acquisition, it appears that other options may now be on the table. Should we continue with the F-35 program or should we scrap it and go elsewhere for our F-18 replacement?

[TheLionKing]

No, there are other and less costly options.

[woody]

Never buy the first generation of anything,they should look for a review on google before buying something so expensive.

[Blue In BC]

No, there are other and less costly options.

I don't know much about what the alternatives might be or the relative cost comparisons. I don't entirely agree that the less costly options are necessarily the best options either technically or financially in the long run. It may be that the higher initial cost might be offset during the lifetime of the aircraft by lower maintencance costs or future upgrading needs. This may be du to better initial equipment and newer technolgy etc.

I'd be interested in a financial case study to support alternatives. The reality is that aside from us making a financial observation, we aren't qualified to make this sort of judgement. Very expensive technical equipment for application requirements we don't fully understand.

You may have more knowledge than I do so I'd be at least interested in what you suggest as alternatives and / or why you feel they are better?

The sad part is that there is an on going requirement to spend enormous amounts of money and resources on weapons. That will be true regardless of the final choice.

[WestCoastJoe]

Aircraft for defence or attack? Or just surveillance?

From whom are we defending? Whom might we attack with these jets? (Syria? I don't think so. Although if Assad uses chemicals on his own people, the world will consider some kind of intervention.) Commitment to NATO and NORAD? OK ...

And would the US allow any country to attack us without getting involved?

Yes we need defence, but not an urgent priority at this time, and not necessary to buy the latest unproven stuff. Go lightly on purchases, and go slowly. (Oh yeah, and go lightly on joining American adventures overseas).

Naive? Well what has happened in the last 25 years (or a lot longer) that threatens our borders?
............

Yes, I expect there are strong opinions out there. Not intending to offend anyone, and not looking for argument. Just stating opinions, as a citizen of this world, not just Canada. My statements are not directed at anybody here.

BTW, very proud of Canada's commitment to peace keeping around the world.

War monger? Ummm, no. Peace keeper? Yeah ...

[Toppy Vann]

We are no longer the peace keepers that we once were.

I would prefer that we keep the best military we can but that we put our resources in building an economy that is not just based on natural resources. The world has changed and the type of great jobs we used to have are not being provided for our youth like there were for me and my generation based on graduating in the early 70s from university. When I did an MBA it is not the money that I even had to think about - it was dirt cheap reasonable. Just had to have been in an exec role and have a good GMAT score. Now the ones that can afford professional type degrees are using rich parent money or betting big time they can land a good job - but hello folks - that is just not happening. I am not complaining about this for me. I'm doing just fine. I am just worried about the current workers and their children.

The irony today for me is how many young people just think that rising education costs are okay even those who can't afford it while I know it is my aged folks who enjoyed good summer jobs and low education costs are making it harder.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -election/

Faced with a KPMG audit showing the proposed 65-aircraft F-35 purchase would have cost taxpayers upwards of $30 billion (according to some reports as much as $40 billion), over a 36-year span, the government had no option but to reboot, sources familiar with the decision say. “Can you imagine now taking an additional $23 billion out of the defence budget over the next 30 years?” asked one. “You would simply have an air force. That would be the Canadian military. You would have nothing else.”

On tap now is a competition among at least five aircraft, including Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Lockheed-Martin’s F-35, to replace Canada’s ageing CF-18s. Industry players have quietly been led to expect this will flow from the current “options analysis” underway in Ottawa.

At a cabinet committee meeting Tuesday, sources familiar with the discussion say, it was decided that the F-35 as a sole-source program could not go ahead, given the contents of the KPMG report. What remained unclear was a strategy for selling the reversal to Canadians, and for dealing with the fallout — including the potential impact on the Canadian aerospace firms and allies in the F-35 consortium.

The F-35 sole-sourced contract has been an albatross around the government’s neck from the day it was announced in 2010, with a supposed price tag of $9 billion. Former assistant deputy minister (materiel) Alan Williams has waged a quiet and largely successful jihad against the purchase, which he considers both improper and not in Canada’s interest. Former industry minister David Emerson recently published a report in which he suggested, without mentioning the F-35, that Canada could do a much better job securing industrial benefits from aircraft procurements.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-p ... 21303.html

Washington think-tank criticizes Harper government’s planned purchase of F-35 fighters
By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – Thu, 7 Jul, 2011

The study by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs states the F-35 is a remarkable aircraft for "interventionist" missions, but unsuitable for a country with a moderate defence budget whose two main military objectives are Arctic sovereignty and supporting NATO operations.

"The F-35 was built to penetrate and neutralize air defence on the first day of bombardment," says Ivan Ho, the study's author. "However, while these operations were very important for U.S. missions, Canada has no need for an initial strike capacity on enemy air defences."

Ho also delves into the issue of the ever-changing cost of the fighters, suggesting the parliamentary budget officer's estimate of $148 million per unit is more accurate than the Harper government's estimate of $75 million.

"Not only should Canadians scrutinize the costs, but they should also examine the reasons for purchasing the F-35," he wrote.

President Obama has as much admitted that the follies of the Americans in two wars on a credit card (statement from White House independent budget office) has been follly while frmer VP Dick Cheney on FOX saying no one respects the USA now and no one fears the USA and that is bad. Clowns like Cheney never learn. He by the way canceled a trip to Canada as it is unsafe here. What a freaking clown.

The UK is nearly bankrupt now - their folly in Iraq, etc made by Tony Blair. I see the UK news here in HK and it is now becoming clear that they are broke.

Gov'ts never admit mistakes but given the plight of the world economy and problems at home, I'd like to see us take better care of Canadians first before wasting lives and resources in foreign wars that have nothing to do with freedom or whatever.

I was shocked to learn that this was a first strike attack plane - a role that is sheer folly.

[cromartie]

Don't you guys outsource your defence to us anyway?

I keed, I keed, sort of. But in my mind, isn't this money much better spent on home defense and rescue, and military material geared toward your peacekeeping role? Isn't a solid, strong coast guard and navy considerably more important than a first strike jet fighter?

I mean, you're buying defective submarines from Britain that don't work and decommissioned military helicopters from Russia to fight forest fires.

[TheLionKing]

I mean, you're buying defective submarines from Britain that don't work and decommissioned military helicopters from Russia to fight forest fires.

Now there is a colossal waste of money. With the money spent on repairs and retrofit, we could have bought a new sub

[South Pender]

Hey all,

I've read a lot on the F 35, (including a lot of technical stuff in defence publications) and I don't think we'll end up buying them. It's a great aircraft, and all the problems they've had on the development side will be sorted out eventually. Any time a new weapons platform comes online, all sorts of flaws are discovered that then need to be remedied. The CF 18 was no different. It's just the public and media don't recall the development problems of the F-18 from 40 years ago, and have little context with which to gauge the F35 problems.

In the meantime, political delays in the US have been a major factor in driving the per-unit cost up, and technical problems related to the F-35 variants we had no intention of buying have driven up the cost of the overall program --which Canadian media have been negligent in delineating for the public. Problems with vertical take off and landing, stress on the landing carriage and arrestor hook (for example) are not applicable to the Canadian variant, which is more or less a conventional aircraft.

I have two serious qualms with the F35: the first is that we only intended to buy 65 of them (iirc), cutting the size of our fighter fleet in half from the number of fighters from the original F-18 purchase. The second is the F35 carries fewer total armaments than the F18, which isn't a problem if you're the Americans and can simultaneously deploy multiple weapons platforms with overlapping capabilities, but a matter of some concern if you're deploying a single fighter.

Most Canadians would scoff at the latter problem, but on this point, most Canadians are wrong. One of the problems with military procurement is that one cannot foresee specific military requirements in the long term. During the immediate post-Soviet era of the Chretien Liberals, nobody thought Canada would need new main battle tanks, for example. Ditto for armoured ied-proof/resistant transport, heavy lift helicopters, etc. One of the primary criteria for a Canadian fighter should be maximum mission flexibility in terms of the ordinance deployed, because frankly, we haven't a clue what we're going to need it for. Personally, I'd like to see the RCAF buy a stealth fighter like the F35, paired with an infantry support aircraft, such as an updated A-10 or AC-130 gunships.

Finally, there are so many variables that are unquantifiable/unknowable in terms of costs in the F35 program, that I don't even think official inquiries/audits can determine what costs will be. I recently read "Canada, Democracy and the F 35" by Alan Williams, (it's dry and technical); Williams is the chap that signed the initial docs so Canada could get in on the F 35. One of the many things he glosses over is interoperability, which is one of those features which is practically impossible to but a dollar figure on. Buying an American aircraft, for example, we can be virtually guaranteed to have seamless access to parts, upgrades and armaments, meaning we don't need to keep a lot of them in stock (which is very pricey). Some wingnuts have suggested Canada look at the latest Russian fighter (which will never happen) --but if we did, we would have to ensure we purchased hundreds of millions, if not billions of spare parts, investing in our own upgrades, weapons systems, etc, because if stocks are low and we need the Russians to Fed Ex something over here, but they don't approve of the military action we're going to engage in (as in say, Syria or Iran) we could be hooped. That's a major consideration.

There are also not-insignificant international political implications for any purchase of this size, which again, are difficult to quantify. Moving out of the F35 program and purchasing, say, the Eurofighter, might have political implications between US/Canada relations. Canada pulling out of the F35 will cause the costs of the overall project to jump again in the US, increase the per unit cost for other nations that have signed on to the F35, which in turn could lead to lost jobs in whatever state produces whatever component for the F35. I'm not saying we should buy the F35 purely on the grounds of avoiding any sort of political wrath from the US, but it is naive to think this won't effect our relationship in the short term. There's a cost associated there: what that might be is anyone's guess.

If I had to guess, I'd put money on us buying limited numbers of the updated Super Hornet to keep the RCAF in the game until 2030 or so, when hopefully this latest generation of fighters is more cost effective. This could be a net-benefit to Canada's airforce. If we end up buying a stealth fighter sometime down the road, but already have say 50 newish Super Hornets, we'll have an airforce with greater capabilities. I'm good with that.

I'm also good with the domestic political implications. I'm well known as a Tory around here: in the next election cycle the PM can reasonably say 'we determined this wasn't a good investment for Canada's military.' When pushed further on why it took so long, he can truthfully say, 'the situation changed'. Canadians didn't like the costs associated with the F 35, and thus both the Liberals and the Dippers could have made political hay with it. but now that it's canceled? Canadians didn't like the price tag, but they tend to trust the Tories on both economic stewardship and defence issues far more than the opposition. That could play in the Tories' favour too.

Cheers,

James

Really excellent analysis, James. Although it's hard to know just what role Canada will be called upon to play in future conflicts (and thus whether or not the F-35 might have been an appropriate choice), there is just no doubt that this government decision will greatly benefit the Tories politically. In my opinion, too much was made of the botched cost estimates by Peter MacKay (stemming largely from a failure to adequately take into account long-term maintenance costs), and it has seemed to me that much of the outrage coming from the Grits and far left was more political than economic. This move should end that and help demonstrate that the Tories should be seen as not only good stewards of our economy, but also a government that listens and adapts when this is warranted--the latter a characteristic seen by some to be somewhat lacking in past policy decisions.

[cromartie]

Aircraft for defence or attack? Or just surveillance?
Go lightly on purchases, and go slowly. (Oh yeah, and go lightly on joining American adventures overseas).

Drones are all the rage, and significantly cheaper if you're into the surveillance thing.

And, Afghanistan notwithstanding, we're only out for overseas adventures involving oil producing states anyway. You guys have plenty of oil.

Hey, wait a minute.....

[WestCoastJoe]

Aircraft for defence or attack? Or just surveillance?
Go lightly on purchases, and go slowly. (Oh yeah, and go lightly on joining American adventures overseas).

Drones are all the rage, and significantly cheaper if you're into the surveillance thing.

And, Afghanistan notwithstanding, we're only out for overseas adventures involving oil producing states anyway. You guys have plenty of oil.

Hey, wait a minute.....

Ha ha ...

Ya know, now, with the Oil Sands, we have the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. Sometimes I think B.C. and Alberta should join together and separate from Canada. We have the water, fish, animals, minerals, lumber, movie industry, tourism, gas, and gateway to the Pacific Rim. They have ... umm just oil methinks, but plenty of it. OK, they have some cows and horses. And bad drivers.

You must have read Denny Boyd back in the day. Sports writer. When Alberta had yellow licence plates. He once said a friend from Australia was visiting. The friend commented, in all innocence: "It's interesting how they make all the bad drivers up here use yellow licence plates."

I suppose from time to time, some American officials think: "Hmmm, all that oil up there." And a couple of hundred years ago, the idea was it would just be "a matter of marching," to take over Canada. But the only invasion ever tried failed. Not suggesting you guys should try again.

And I do think we should spend less on our defence and just let the Americans do it for us. Turn them into peace keepers.

Such good neighbours ...

[Toppy Vann]

Don't you guys outsource your defence to us anyway?

I keed, I keed, sort of. But in my mind, isn't this money much better spent on home defense and rescue, and military material geared toward your peacekeeping role? Isn't a solid, strong coast guard and navy considerably more important than a first strike jet fighter?

I mean, you're buying defective submarines from Britain that don't work and decommissioned military helicopters from Russia to fight forest fires.

Right frigging on.

What Canada has historically had are some of the best trained military in the world. That is what we need to keep doing.

Yes the coast guard for rescue and also illegal guns/drugs etc.

Today I am off to one of Hong Kong's many islands. I will pass police boats, Immigration boats and custom boats - many of them.

Very visible and a hard border where guns dont get in.

[cromartie]

Ha ha ...

Ya know, now, with the Oil Sands, we have the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. Sometimes I think B.C. and Alberta should join together and separate from Canada. We have the water, fish, animals, minerals, lumber, movie industry, tourism, gas, and gateway to the Pacific Rim. They have ... umm just oil methinks, but plenty of it. OK, they have some cows and horses. And bad drivers.

You must have read Denny Boyd back in the day. Sports writer. When Alberta had yellow licence plates. He once said a friend from Australia was visiting. The friend commented, in all innocence: "It's interesting how they make all the bad drivers up here use yellow licence plates."

I suppose from time to time, some American officials think: "Hmmm, all that oil up there." And a couple of hundred years ago, the idea was it would just be "a matter of marching," to take over Canada. But the only invasion ever tried failed. Not suggesting you guys should try again.

And I do think we should spend less on our defence and just let the Americans do it for us. Turn them into peace keepers.

Such good neighbours ...

You and Alberta would get along about as well as California and Texas. Plus, frankly, your dollar would be so strong that it would seriously harm more sectors than it would help over the long term.

Ironically, in Ohio they make drivers convicted of DUIs use yellow license plates.

I'm afraid the number of First Nations people willing to help you stem off an invasion would be considerably smaller and less effective this time around.

But it's interesting to read the parallels between James Madison's War of 1812 rhetoric and Donald Rumsfeld's pre Iraq War rhetoric in re being greeted as liberators.

Seriously, though. There are literally hundreds of better things Canadians can do with that money on defense than develop a first strike jet fighter, particularly with the world's largest police station right next door.

[WestCoastJoe]

Ha ha ...

Ya know, now, with the Oil Sands, we have the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. Sometimes I think B.C. and Alberta should join together and separate from Canada. We have the water, fish, animals, minerals, lumber, movie industry, tourism, gas, and gateway to the Pacific Rim. They have ... umm just oil methinks, but plenty of it. OK, they have some cows and horses. And bad drivers.

You must have read Denny Boyd back in the day. Sports writer. When Alberta had yellow licence plates. He once said a friend from Australia was visiting. The friend commented, in all innocence: "It's interesting how they make all the bad drivers up here use yellow licence plates."

I suppose from time to time, some American officials think: "Hmmm, all that oil up there." And a couple of hundred years ago, the idea was it would just be "a matter of marching," to take over Canada. But the only invasion ever tried failed. Not suggesting you guys should try again.

And I do think we should spend less on our defence and just let the Americans do it for us. Turn them into peace keepers.

Such good neighbours ...

You and Alberta would get along about as well as California and Texas. Plus, frankly, your dollar would be so strong that it would seriously harm more sectors than it would help over the long term.

Ironically, in Ohio they make drivers convicted of DUIs use yellow license plates.

I'm afraid the number of First Nations people willing to help you stem off an invasion would be considerably smaller and less effective this time around.

But it's interesting to read the parallels between James Madison's War of 1812 rhetoric and Donald Rumsfeld's pre Iraq War rhetoric in re being greeted as liberators.

Seriously, though. There are literally hundreds of better things Canadians can do with that money on defense than develop a first strike jet fighter, particularly with the world's largest police station right next door.

Alberta and Texas. Cows. Horses. Oil. Red necks. Extreme conservatism. Barren land. Ranches. Racism? War mongers? Football. Arrogance. Myopia. Low taxes? Corporate bias. Did I miss anything? (Oh yeah, pickup trucks, guns ... )

j/k Alberta ... Although they might not take any of those suggestions as insulting.