Scrapping Fighter Jets Could Hurt Everyone: U.S.

No, we don't have to take their deal, but we will. As for the Libs, I don't know if I believe they wouldn't press forward with this  in either case.

I can tell you as an ex military man, I sure don't like how this is shaping up in any way. Worse, it distracts conversation from an even bigger mistake by Harper, cutting the Navy. I should tell you I am a retired Naval Officer, so I guess you could say I am viewing this with a little bit of predispostion, to say the least.

This doesnt' look good at all.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Since they are now attacking their own corporate tax cuts, I would expect the Liberal of Party of Canada to attack the  F-35 lemons at some point, which I believe was their initiative in the first place.

Lets call it the Avro Arrow. 

...then call it the homo sapien.

The word homo is absolutely guaranteed to strike fear into their hearts.

Canada Has No Way to Refuel New Jets In Air - by David Pugliese

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+refuel+jets/4193964/story...

"The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35 fighter jet it wants to purchase and is now looking at ways to get around that problem. Options range from paying for modifications to the stealth jets to purchasing a new fleet of tanker aircraft that can gas up the high-tech fighters in mid-air. That option could cost several hundred million dollars...

In addition, because the F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada's north because those are too short for the fighter, the Defence Department is looking at having manufacturer Lockheed Martin install a 'drag' chute on the plane."

The same U.S. that had trimmed back its orders on this ballooning albatross. Along with the UK and the Aussies. It should always have been the superhornet and it could have already been delivered(the first ones) instead of wasting money refurbishing the cf18s right now. So many reasons why too. Duel engines, longer range, compatible parts with existing fleet, familiar controls and easier to maintain(we already know how to do most of it!) Better payload etc etc etc and most imprtantly they could have bought 100 for 5 to 6 billion and got a service contract for a billion more. 10 billion + saved, more planes, could have paid down debt or improved social spending.

They don't believe we need it, they are just obeying orders.

In the 1950s Canada's conservatives were duped into buying the Bomarc lemons and giving up thousands of Avro jobs and an entire aircraft industry to the US. They said fighter jets were out and missiles were in style. Only problem was, the Bomarcs were dud missiles that if ever launched, were guaranteed to explode nuclear warheads somewhere over Canada. Made in America, bought by a conservative government in Ottawa. Obsolete indeed.

And today we have conservatives wanting to sink a whole bunch of money into another make-work project to benefit another ailing US economy based largely on war and closed economy for Pentagon capitalism. The Lockheed jets are said to have a number of technical glitches and "issues" that need fixing. More lemons for the taxpayers to foot bills for. Some things never change.

Actually, if you mean icebreakers and Arctic patrol boats, then you are absolutely right.

except where these become military assets of hostile, enemy interests...

You do know the Super Hornet is almost completely different than the older Hornets right?  Different engines, wings, tails, pylons and most of the fuselage.  We would have very few parts that are compatible, the only thing that is remotely similar is the cockpit setup but even than is different due to the newer avionics of the Super Hornet. 

And they cost a lot more than you quoted for 100 planes, the Austrailians bought 24 for $3 billion (with 10 year service total price was $6 billion).  So 96 planes = 12 billion, plus another $12 billion for every 10 years of service contract if everything stays the same (which it won't).  Over 20 years $36 billion. 

The JSF being single engine will cost less for maintanence, as the engines are the most expensive part to maintain for a modern jet. So JSF cost, weapons, spares, simulators and maintenance over 20 years $16 billion for 65 airframes = $246 million per airframe.  Superhornet with same criteria = $375 million per airframe. 

To top it off the F-35 will be much more survivable in the future, the Super Hornet will be obsolete in 10 years. 

  Seems like the F-35 is a pretty good deal. 

Everything the CF-18 is good for.  Canada's commitments to NORAD, participation in international operations, support of the Army, Navy and other Air Force assets as need be. 

So we should let others do it for us?  I'm sure many Canadians will love that the US policing our skies, one step away from Canada becoming a new state.  Oh well I will be able to get Cherry Coke up here then!

Canada ought to concentrate on its own needs and throw off the shackles of US subjugation!

Do you realize that Canadian companies are already making parts for this aircraft?  $150 million invested for a return of $360 million, if the aircraft are bought that entitles these companies to a 2500+ aircraft supply run probably worth billions for the aerospace industry in Canada, and their designated Unions.  A few of which probably sponsor this site.  No other aircraft can supply the same amount of business, so in effect if we don't get the F-35 it would be a repeat of the Conservatives scraping the Arrow back in the 60s.  Thousands of possible jobs gone.  

Technical issues of the F-35?  There are some yes, but very few military or civilian aircraft go through testing without finding some issues, for example the 787 or A380 or A400.  It is aerospace, it is cutting edge, the best thing is the US is covering the R&D cost. 

Exactly.  If we're going to dump a bunch of cash into something, how about healthcare or education, instead of superhornets or F-35s?

The Cons are determined to show that they are the war party. That's another reason to throw the bums out. Our defense budget should be primarilly directed towards search and rescue, offshore smuggling, keeping the shipping lanes open, protection of sovereignty - and none of those require a stealth fighter as far as I can tell. More SAR helicopters, coast guard ships/icebreakers, planes with short take off and landing capabilities - those are the ticket to an efficient and practical defense strategy for this country. Let the Americans waste their money on stealth aircraft - we don't want expensive toys for the military to play with - we want practical alternatives.

Lets face it our military is so integrated with America now no one in the command structure thinks of Canadian sovereignty in those terms.  Our masters have already taken their places inside the imperial structure, the rest of us are merely pawns to be controlled.  I'd say lets protest but I suspect at least one window would get broken and then we would all have to demand the violent perpetrators be brought to justice.

Thanks for dismissing the views of the majority of the people who post on this site.  I guess we should all leave babble now and admit that our anti-imperialism is wrong and defer too your superior view of the world as a place to be made safe for democracy.  

Ready Aye Ready  Pax Americana Forever

Canadianpatriot35 doesn't seem to be able to answer questions honestly. If he were less eloquent in his presentation of Conservative/military industrial complex talking-points, I would assume reading comprehension problems (he clearly didn't understand the conditions he agreed to when he signed up here - or simply doesn't respect them).

Post Cold War Canada's military has been busy, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan.  Desert Storm stopped the expansion of Iraq into Kuwait, Kosovo a conflict to stop genocide, and Afghanistan a conflict to stop the spread of terrorism.  Seems like we are busier than ever and there is no telling what the future will hold.  All these conflicts were UN sanctioned, should we not participate in these conflicts, and let these groups do whatever we like? 

Now this site endorses the views of pro human rights, anti-imperialism, pro labour, but should it include Anti-Military?  From some of the comments I should think so, questioning the very existance of our military in some cases.  Nowhere on this site does it say military intervention in human rights abuse cases is forbidden (CF-18s in Kosovo).  The common view is that Iraq taking over Kuwait was an act of aggression, and the Allies actions were to combat this invader.  Should the military not be involved, and let this country expand into other countries?

Another view of this site pro-labour - this F-35 contract will bring billions of dollars to the enonomy and the unions will get a sizeable cut.  Are we saying on this site that we don't want that?  Some rabble supporters may disagree.  These contracts and jobs will not be isolated to the Aerospace industry, as it will entail many aspects of aircraft design, for example the avionics in these planes require computer programmers.  There are many in Ontario who have never worked in the aerospace industry directly that will be a part of this program.  Seems good for the labour movement.

So the problem many on this site seem to associate with the F-35 is that it is a "US" fighter and it has some measure of Stealth in the design.  So the question is; would it be a different story if it was a Swedish or European figter will less stealth attributes?

I'm sorry, CP35, but we're just not on the same frequency. Might I suggest making some effort to be more true to your own intellect for your own sake? And I think all of us here tend to be genuinely worried for otherwise good people who accept such lopsided views of recent history. It's just not healthy. Don't accept just one version of the truth. Don't be afraid to examine opposing points of view. Because if your political views are as sturdy as you think they are, then they should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Lots of scrutiny from the opposing views.

The saying goes that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle. But with cold war propaganda from both sides of the last 70 years that would have made Joe Goebbels proud, I think you should temper your understanding of the facts with views of people who represent the widest range of politicized views. The victors are the ones who write history. And they will always tend to embellish the truth before it's printed and published as text books and newspapers in Texas or NYC etc and dumped on this side of the border.

I don't know about the triumph of evil and such, but the triumph of corporatism depends on the infusion of total hogwash, post 41 being exhibit A in that regard, into the vacuous minds of willing rubes. In this particular instance, we see a worn out act before us, where a prop appears to be talking, while the ventriloquists are barely moving their lips.

I am all for keynesian economics but not military keynesian economics.  I am for good union jobs but I feel Harper is using the economic arguement as a last resort.  If the f-35 was a jobs issue than Harper should have gotten an offset agreement.  16 billion for military planes but 16 billion in Canadian investment in return.  Offset are very common but all Canada got vague promises about bidding rights in the F 35 production.  Lets spend 16 billion on our country rather than sending it to the US.

So no one has the will to answer a couple simple questions,  here I will repeat them

Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistans were all UN sanctioned, should we not participate in these conflicts and as such let these groups (of the respective conflict) do whatever they want?  Example may be territorial expansion, genocide, or terrorism. 

In Desert Storm, Iraq invaded Kuwait (which is a fact) should Canada have been involved with the Allies in stopping this aggression? 

Come on someone step up to the plate. 

CanadianPatriot is gone.

The U.S. Marine Corps version of the F-35 is to be a STO/VL (Short Take Off/Verticle Landing) aircraft. It is to replace the U.S. Marine Corps' Harriers which it uses as ground attack aircraft.

Given that Harper's stated (military) reason for purchasing the F-35 is to defend Canada's north. If we are to take him at his word, then Canada doesn't need the U.S. Marine Corps' (ground attack) version. It is wholly unsuited when it comes to the need for a fast, long-range, manoeuverable fighter-interceptor that has a high rate of climb and performs optimallly at high altitude: As a ground attack aircraft has the exact opposite characteristics.

In fact, if the U.S. Marine Corps insists on the requirements that the aircraft perform in the ground attack role and be a STO/VL aircraft, this will require a major reworking of their version of the F-35. Being a ground attack plane operating within visual ranges of its targets, it no longer needs to be a stealth aircraft. Thus the aircraft's "skin" can be made of conventional materials and the entire silhouette can be changed to make it conventional. To make it STO/VL, the engine layout needs to be modified. The most efficient and effective layout for STO/VL is the rotating exhaust nozzle system of the Harrier.

At the very least, these additional delays in production will cause yet another rise in the aircraft's cost. The more the F-35 becomes like the Harrier (which in my opinion, will be inferior to the Harrier), the more it begs the question of why not stick with the Harrier?

If the U.S. Marine Corps sticks to its requirements, its quite possible their version of the F-35 won't even make it into production.