babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Stage Set For Vote on $16 Billion, Costly F-35 Stealth Fighter Jets

NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Stage Set for Vote on Costly Fighter Jets

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101118/f-35-fighter-jet-parliamentary...

"The stage is set for a parliamentary vote next week on the Harper government's planned $16 Billion purchase of F-35 Stealth fighter-jets...Canada is alone among NATO allies in refusing to question the skyrocketing costs of the F-35 jets.."


Comments

mahmud
Offline
Joined: May 14 2008

 

The Cons and the Liberals differ only on whether it should be a tendered purchase and how "cheap" the Fighter Jets are.

Didn't occur to them that Candians are dying in emergency lobbies waiting for some care. Or that the number of Canadians resorting to food banks keeps increasing.. and so on.


Polunatic2
Offline
Joined: Mar 12 2006

For facebook users; 

Stop the gravy plane Smile


Hurtin Albertan
Offline
Joined: Nov 19 2010

Whatever we end up buying, I will bet almost anything that it will be unable to land on a remote gravel airstrip in Nunavut.

Whatever we end up buying, I will bet almost anything that one of the arguments in favour will be the defense of our arctic sovereignty.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

Whatever we end up buying, I will bet almost anything that one of the arguments in favour will be the defense of our arctic sovereignty.

Ha ha ha! That's very funny, considering that this aircraft is purpose design built to be an offensive air dominance fighter and ground attack plane.

It is a stealth aircraft. The 1950s vintage era slow lumbering recon/bombers Russia sends over Canada's north (in cooperation with NORAD btw) could be quite handily escorted by Korean (F-86 Sabers) or even WW2 (Mustangs) era interceptors, there is no need for a Canadian fighter-interceptor to defeat Canadian radar(!) Right?


Hurtin Albertan
Offline
Joined: Nov 19 2010

Well, we have a need for something, anything to intercept Russian bombers and/or American F22's flying out of Alaska and/or Danish blimps over Hans Island and/or UFO\s and/or what the hey ever.  My point was, whatever we buy will be based out of Bagotville or Cold Lake, as far as I know those are the 2 airbases Canada would use to defend the north.

Makes more sense to me to have something we could launch from an airstrip up north.  Save on travel time and fuel and such.  But in this day and age of technological whiz bang stuff maybe for that role we'd be better off with Sopwith camels.


thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

F18 superhornet 100 of them and would only cost 4 billion. They could also start delivery ASAP as they already funstion. They also out perform the F35 on everthing except stealth, and have 2 engines. Pilts are familiar with controls=less training, and they have compatable parts that our techs already know about. The 12 billion saved could be put into anything even more warmaking vessels or transport. It doesn't even make sense from a conservative perspective. The only reason for this is like buying a Harley. Name recognizition even if the Honda is better and cheaper.


Hurtin Albertan
Offline
Joined: Nov 19 2010

Well, sure, whatever, I'm not a big plane expert but cheaper is always better.

But I still say it ought to be something that can be based permanently up north.  Be able to take off and land at something other than a big paved runway.  I am not exactly sure but I would hazard a guess there's only a few paved runways in all of the NWT and Nunavut.  You could operate them out of pretty much anywhere if I understand things correctly.  Keep people guessing what we are up to.

But sure as heck we will buy something for the role and it will sit in southern Canada somewhere.

That's what pisses me off the most.  Not military spending, but military spending on things that do absolutely nothing for our national defense.  We buy tanks for the army.  Do we really need our army to have tanks?  Our navy ships can work closely with a NATO fleet but they can't sail around in our own territorial waters up north. 


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

But I still say it ought to be something that can be based permanently up north.  Be able to take off and land at something other than a big paved runway.  I am not exactly sure but I would hazard a guess there's only a few paved runways in all of the NWT and Nunavut.  You could operate them out of pretty much anywhere if I understand things correctly.  Keep people guessing what we are up to.

What you are looking for is an aircraft that can handle extreme weather and environment (i.e., dust, dirt, gravel, etc.) and have a STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) capability.

In that case, the British Hawker-Siddeley (I believe) or American license built Douglas (I believe) fighter/ground attack Harrier (remember? The VTOL=Vertical Take Off and landing aircraft.)

Or Russian Sukhoi Su-29 or 31 or 35 fighter/interceptor or whatever its corresponding number is. It's also a STOL aircraft and given it's a Russian aircraft, it's built to meet the exact specifications Canadian combat aircraft require (ruggedness, simplicity, able to withstand the extreme weather and environment conditions.) Probably much less costly than an equivalent U.S., U.K. or E.U. aircraft.


Hurtin Albertan
Offline
Joined: Nov 19 2010

We should have waited for the dead of winter and then tried out some free samples.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

We should have waited for the dead of winter and then tried out some free samples.

Well, the Russian economy is hurting so nothing is for free.

But again, I'm sure Russia will give Canada a deal much more competitive than one from the U.S., U.K., or E.U.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Frmrsldr wrote:
In that case, the British Hawker-Siddeley (I believe) or American license built Douglas (I believe) fighter/ground attack Harrier (remember? The VTOL=Vertical Take Off and landing aircraft.)

 

It was called the Harrier Jump Jet I believe. I was living in North Bay at the time of the Argentina - Falkland Islands - UK conflict, and these monsters made a pit stop at the airport there. Incredibly loud. Did a few aerobatics before leaving, to put on a bit of a show. Awesome, if you're into that sort of thing.  I wonder if they're still in production - maybe as an upgraded model?


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Boom Boom wrote:

It was called the Harrier Jump Jet I believe. I was living in North Bay at the time of the Argentina - Falkland Islands - UK conflict, and these monsters made a pit stop at the airport there. Incredibly loud. Did a few aerobatics before leaving, to put on a bit of a show. Awesome, if you're into that sort of thing.  I wonder if they're still in production - maybe as an upgraded model?

I saw one about 10 years ago at Ft. Lewis (Washington State, U.S.A.)

The British Navy use them as carrier fighter/attack planes.

The U.S. Marine Corps use them mostly in the ground attack role, though that is largely superseded by the Cobra attack helicopter and Douglas(?) A-10 Warthog attack plane.

I think they're still around. I know Americans have been tweaking their capabilities over the years.

As a VTOL/STOL interceptor, I think it could be quite useful for Canada. I don't think they'd be all that costly either.


thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/24/helicopter-russian.html#soci...

Harris said if the Russian choppers are good enough for Canadian troops at war, why did the government rule them out when it decided in 2006 to buy new U.S. helicopters for the military.

At the time, the government said, there were no other choppers capable of doing the job. The American Chinooks are larger, but the MI-17s appear to be just as capable in the air above Kandahar.

They also come with a built in de-icing system — a perk Canada had to pay extra for on its Chinooks. The cost of buying a single Chinook works out to about $80 million, compared with $17 million for one of the Russian helicopters.

"So, we've got an out-of-control department of National Defence when it comes to procurement," Harris said.

Defence analyst Rob Huebert said the huge price difference between the two helicopters might help explain why the government has kept the deal secret.

_______________

What was that we are afraid of, russian invading our north while we lease their cheaper choppers to fly in a combat zone? And somehow they aren't good enough for us to purchase. Love those con no bid contracts.

This should have made the nightly news but didn't. Seems kinda important in light of our F35 purchase and recent chopper purchase.




NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Decision to Buy F-35s For $9 Billion 'Firm' MacKay

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/billion+bill+firm+MacKay/3948079/sto...

"The government will not budge from the plan to buy F-35 fighter-jets and is confident the price won't rise before the $9 Billion purchase contract is signed. Defense Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday...[Dominic] Leblanc called the F-35 'the flying credit card with absolutely no spending limit, and an unknown interest rate..'"

How the US Got Norway to Buy Joint Strike Fighters

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/jsf-12-08-2010

"The campaign was designed to talk up the F-35's capabilities in public while applying 'forceful' pressure on Norweigan officials in private...The revelations could resurrect questions about the role the US government played in Canada's decision to purchase the same planes.."


Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Offline
Joined: Aug 27 2001

This purchase is a stiking example of how lost the Liberals are these days.

Trudeau or even Chretien would have leapt upon this opportunity - an opportunity to defeat the Conservatives, and divide their supporters against themselves: nationalists against yanqui-worshippers; fiscal conservatives against military fetishists, libertarian isolationists against imperialists.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

The other most recent F35 thread is closed, so I'll post this here:

Cost Overruns on F-22 and F-35 Fighter Jets Make Them Target for Budget Cuts

excerpt:

The Pentagon - which has warned that steep budget cuts written into the recent debt deal could "have devastating effects on our national defense" - may soon have to find other programs to cut back as well. (Another Lockheed Martin stealth fighter jet, the F-35, has also been plagued by cost overruns and could be eyed for cuts. The U.S. fleet of F-35s was also grounded earlier this month for an electrical problem.)


WilderMore
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2009

The F35 is a waste of money. We could buy 3 times the number of Eurofighters or F18 Super Hornets, and not worry about delays of cost over runs. Or we could really do something unique, like building a series of laser defence bases around our territory to pick off incoming missiles or bombers.


Catchfire
Online
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Or you know, spend the money on a national housing plan or whatever.


WilderMore
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2009

Why not do both? Homes not AND Bombs! That's the ticket.

 

ETA: weird, the "not" should have a strikethough...


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

WilderMore wrote:

Why not do both? Homes not AND Bombs! That's the ticket.

 

ETA: weird, the "not" should have a strikethough...

Why not stay on websites where not-very-sly-trolling is unecessary


WilderMore
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2009

It's called sarcasm.


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

Ah,  I was confused by your support for NATO bombing, and the Conservatives.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Catchfire wrote:

Or you know, spend the money on a national housing plan or whatever.

 

Thanks, CF - I've posted updates this week on both the planned navy and air force updates and yours is the first sensible response thus far.


milo204
Offline
Joined: Feb 3 2010

i think we all know why they are buying these overpriced killing machines instead of doing what makes sense.  our government thinks it's a good way to kiss up to the US.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Harper really wants to make an impact in the world, and having a strong overfed military is a means to that end. He'll probably volunteer the F18s to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria next. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper has wet dreams over the F35s.


WilderMore
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2009

Boom Boom wrote:

 Wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper has wet dreams over the F35s.

 

I doubt he gets very excited about anything, let alone enough to get a boner and ejaculate in his sleep.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

WilderMore wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

 Wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper has wet dreams over the F35s.

I doubt he gets very excited about anything,...

I think Herr Harper does have a hard-on for war.

Like Hiro Hito, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Bailout Bombers: Italy's Billion-Euro F-35 'Suicide Mission' (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/italy-crisis-military-protests-627/

"Italy is heading deeper into the crisis quagmire, with its debt already nearing the 2-trillion-euro mark. But while average Italians are ready to save, the government has another plan on the table, which critics consider 'economic suicide'..."


CDN_FORCES
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2011

The F35 has some advantages over other modern fighters, but in my opinion its disadvantages should make it unsuitable for the RCAF. 

1. It only has one engine, so lose it and you're losing a 90 million dollar airplane and maybe a highly trained pilot as well. This is THE biggest disadvantage, and on its strength alone the plane isn't suitable.

2. The radar masking paint needs to be completely stripped and replaced if you get any scratches on it; you can't apply touch-up paint like you would on a car.

3. Here's a big one. The F35 can't be air refueled by the RCAF's current fleet of tankers. The F35A uses a boom system to air refuel; the F18 uses a basket system. That means we either buy new tankers (we currently have 7, valued at 450 million total, and new ones will cost much more) OR rely on USAF tankers.

 

There are at least three modern fighters out there that would be just fine, and be cheaper as well. They're the F/A-18F, the EuroFighter, or the Rafale.


mmphosis
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2009

Quote:

it will be a great day

when

our schools

get all the money

they need

and the air force

has to hold a bake sale

to buy a

bomber


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments