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.."
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.
For facebook users;
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
We should have waited for the dead of winter and then tried out some free samples.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.."
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.
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.)
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.
Or you know, spend the money on a national housing plan or whatever.
Why not do both? Homes not AND Bombs! That's the ticket.
ETA: weird, the "not" should have a strikethough...
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
It's called sarcasm.
Ah, I was confused by your support for NATO bombing, and the Conservatives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'..."
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.
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
CDN_FORCES:
Man for non military folk reading these posts, you really laid that out perfectly. I couldn't agree more. Especially refuelling and twin engines. The twin engines by the way for those who don't know, were the deciding factor in the purchase of the F18, and a key reason why the F16 didn't make the final cut.
When I was the Admin O at a fighter squadron in Cold Lake, I had more then 1 pilot tell me how happy the were with the F18 just for that reason. And, fighter pilots like going fast, lol.
Here's an older Rabble article on the topic. Unfortunately, despite the big, unmistakable bullseye painted right on its belly, it really never was an election issue. The NDP could have made much, much more of this and didn't. Why? The BC NDP got kicked out for much, much less than this in 2001.
Escalating F-35 fighter jet price tag + future defence plan costs = election issue
The article also points to what I think is the hidden issue here:
A Commons committee has investigated the purchase of the new fighters, including the price tag and whether Canada actually needs these weapons. Eyebrows were quickly raised over the news that there would be no other bids for the contract.
From any perspective one could apply, these planes appear to be the wrong choice for Canada, and the lack of tendering is antithetical to how Harper claims to run this country. The planes also appear to be designed with future problems and their attendant costs built in -- by design. Is this some backroom obligation the Conservatives have bound us into with Lockheed Martin? If so, how and why? And why are so few in Parliament shouting about it?
Here's an older Rabble article on the topic. Unfortunately, despite the big, unmistakable bullseye painted right on its belly, it really never was an election issue. The NDP could have made much, much more of this and didn't. Why? The BC NDP got kicked out for much, much less than this in 2001.
Escalating F-35 fighter jet price tag + future defence plan costs = election issue
The article also points to what I think is the hidden issue here:
A Commons committee has investigated the purchase of the new fighters, including the price tag and whether Canada actually needs these weapons. Eyebrows were quickly raised over the news that there would be no other bids for the contract.From any perspective one could apply, these planes appear to be the wrong choice for Canada, and the lack of tendering is antithetical to how Harper claims to run this country. The planes also appear to be designed with future problems and their attendant costs built in -- by design. Is this some backroom obligation the Conservatives have bound us into with Lockheed Martin? If so, how and why? And why are so few in Parliament shouting about it?
You don't watch CPAC coverage of Parliament?
Or are you waiting for the MSM to follow New Democrats' speeches there?
Answering, in part, my own question:
Canada
Main article: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurementCanada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from its beginning, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level 3 participant along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002, making them an early participant of the JSF program.[85]
On 16 July 2010, the Canadian government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 CF-18s for $16B (with all ancillary costs included) with deliveries planned for 2016.
The intention to sign a sole-sourced, untendered F-35 contract and the government's refusal to provide detailed costing became one of the major causes of a finding of contempt of Parliament and the subsequent defeat of Stephen Harper's Conservative government through a non-confidence vote on 25 March 2011. This directly lead to the F-35 purchase becoming an issue in the 2011 federal election.[86][87][88][89][90]
Was it really an issue in the election though?
You don't watch CPAC coverage of Parliament?
No, I confess I don't.
Or are you waiting for the MSM to follow New Democrats' speeches there?
Yes, I kind of am, rightly or wrongly. Would you say it was a genuine election issue? Was it a major subject in the debates? If so, I stand corrected.
Apparently there are many design flaws also..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eQgUpkJ1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8LD5Q8ecc
Security Experts Say China Hijacked Stealth F-35 Fighter Jet Plans From BAE Systems
http://www.terminalx.org/2012/03/security-experts-say-china-hacked.html
"The Chinese exploited vulnerabilities in BAE's computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the $300 Billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.."
and are now shaking their heads and wondering why anyone would put a plug nickel into this outrageous, ill-designed lemon...
Well, it creates jobs...not a primary consideration these days but still ranked up there politically speaking. There's market share for innovation, irrespective if its public investment being laundered into capital, with the only return to the public being in the form of jobs for a few, and massive profits extracted by the few. It could be a widget to work the same way, as it very often is. Ottawa is chock full of project management offices.
yes, and as always, socialize cost privatize profit..
I'm not sure if the NDP as a party believes in a national defense, aside from being a job creation program. (I'm just judging from the rhetoric I hear from NDP MPs whenever they talk on the subject.)
I find myself much more aligned with the Liberals and Conservatives on national defense and foreign affairs issues.
But I think the Conservatives have handled the CF-18 replacement very poorly and the same might be stated about the RCAF.
The government has insisted that it was totally committed to the F-35 because we had to have a "fifth generation fighter". The "fifth generation" means the fighter has "stealth" (low probability of radar intercept). Except the fighters to be stationed for northern defense of Canadian airspace will have parachutes added to permit the fighters to land on short arctic runways, and this capability removes the "stealth" radar avoidance. So this means that "stealth capability" will only be of use in southern areas (US border), or for NATO missions.
Another factor is that the one engine design of the F-35 means there is no backup in the event of engine failure, meaning pilots could be bailing out onto frozen arctic tundra or worse yet, into freezing arctic seas.
The RCAF has insisted that its minimal needs were the 60 fighters, but the conservatives were lately saying that the government had placed a ceiling on the contract which implied that far fewer planes would actually be ordered given the projected price for the jets.
Hopefully the opposition will now convince the government to conduct a full review of its aerial defense requirements and go for a more open tendering process for replacement fighters. The way we are headed right now, the Air Force could end up without any replacement for the CF-18s and Canada will be left without airspace defense capability.
Hopefully the opposition will now convince the government to conduct a full review of its aerial defense requirements and go for a more open tendering process for replacement fighters. The way we are headed right now, the Air Force could end up without any replacement for the CF-18s and Canada will be left without airspace defense capability.
Fighter jets to defend against what, exactly? The F18s were used to bomb countries overseas.
They just don't get it and it's another case of conservative incompetance or an outright swindle with Canadian money going to a buddy buddy american contractor....
The plane is short range ..Canada is long range ..which means to be of any use whatsoever the planes will need to be refueled in the air by slow flying clumsy tankers that stick out like a sore thumb and make for an easy target...
Guess what happens when the short range plane gets no fuel?
They take a nose dive into the ground ...which coincidemtly is where the conservatives are heading ..nose first! But not before they destroy, rape and pillage all they can from this country.
New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zky2bn0Gtyg New
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-QvXax88J8
Hopefully the opposition will now convince the government to conduct a full review of its aerial defense requirements and go for a more open tendering process for replacement fighters. The way we are headed right now, the Air Force could end up without any replacement for the CF-18s and Canada will be left without airspace defense capability.
Fighter jets to defend against what, exactly? The F18s were used to bomb countries overseas.
Well anyone who is intruding into Canadian airspace such as nuclear armed Russian bombers. I'm really not at all interested in having a debate on Libya.
As I said, I disagree with NDP defense policy which often seems to suggest that the only reason for armed forces is for creating jobs.
Fantino said today the gov't hasn't taken out the possibility of backing out of the F35s. They're talking about that on P&P in a minute or two.
Fantino said today the gov't hasn't taken out the possibility of backing out of the F35s. They're talking about that on P&P in a minute or two.
Yes. Thats the reason I made the post. For months the government & Fantino have been repeating the same old line and it looks like they are finally going to maybe have a look at other options. A good opportunity to press for a fresh assessment of Canada's aerial defense needs before making any further committments.
But Fantino later said the F35 is still on for Canada. Chris Alexander is saying the F35 contract is still years away.
Headlines should read: Nervous Harpers Unsure of Themselves; Still Governing Like They Have a Minority with NDP the Government in Waiting
Bob Rae just called on Harper to resign over the F35 fiasco - on CBC's "Power and Politics".
The CBC has completely fallen for the Auditor-Generals report approach to the F35 fiasco. Another sad day for a poor excuse of the national news gathering organization envisaged by Graham Spry.
We have known for months that the plane cost more than the Cons let on. Many U.S. sources have reported on the cost over-runs. The U.S. Congress is in revolt over the project.
The Libs brought a contempt of parliament motion forward on the F35 issue because the government refused to reveal the costs. When nobody reported what was going on in anything like the depth that should have been done by every news organization, the Libs got toasted at the polls.
The AG misdirected attention to DND as the source of misinformation to the govenment when evern cursory attention to other sources allowed the government to know how wrong its own information was.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-ignatieff-introduces-non...
So the Con appointed unilingual AG reports that DND mislead the government, when was actually happened was that the Harper government mislead parliament. Mandsbridge, Milewski and the At Issue people (minsus Chantal Hebert) fed the DND diversion.
Apparently Mulcair is going after Defence Minister McKay tommorrow, hoping to split the Cons since Harper can always diffuse the crisis by dumping the minister, a hated rival.
Poor Igantieff, he was right all along. Its just that the lapdog press refuses to report the facts. We live under the Harper tyranny. Most observors recognize that nobody in Ottawa can order a coffee without permission from the PMO, why do they pretend otherwise?
On the At Issue panel I saw last night, Andrew Coyne was as stark as I've ever seen him about the implications of this. He specifically mentioned contempt of parliament. With a very sober expression, he said, "This is as serious as it gets."
Coyne generally makes me crazy, but I thought he did this debacle justice last night.
