Canada Poised To Buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 JSFs

Freshly Exhumed (105597) writes 'Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters. A detailed, 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said. When the F-35 purchase was first proposed, Canadians were alarmed by the colossal price tag, and also that no fly-off competition had been conducted or was planned. This latest news is sure to rekindle criticism that the RCAF's requirements seem to have been written after the fact to match the F-35's capabilities (or lack thereof)."

Comments

Russia

[Gothmolly]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no. The US presence there might keep them away, but otherwise Canada isn't winning any wars.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, the US would go back to letting Canada have US nuclear weapons.

Re:Russia

[Vinegar Joe]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.

Why worry? Obama will draw a red line and say "No further!"

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.

Why worry? Obama will draw a red line and say "No further!"

Bush saw Putin's soulful eyes and shirtless chest, so we don't have to worry.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because Canada's allies won't object to an invasion and Canadians are to polite to point out to the Russian's that they shouldn't invade.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Palin will see them coming.

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

And Putin saw our Bush.

Re:Russia

[aliquis]

And Russia have taken control over so many countries lately .

Re:Russia

[JimCanuck]

Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons due to our own internal laws. Nothing to do with the US, and at the time when Canada decided not to house nuclear weapons in Canada, the United States was not too pleased.

Re:Russia

[plopez]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Re:Russia

[cyn1c77]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no. The US presence there might keep them away, but otherwise Canada isn't winning any wars.

That's not really the point. Having advanced weaponry also allows Canada to have the ability project their force and affect peacekeeping missions or global security.

If they were worried about Russia invading, they would develop nuclear weapons. Fortunately, Canada is under the nuclear umbrella of the US and does not need to do this. Much like North Korea is under the nuclear umbrella of China.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

correct, in fact Canada isn't just 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons we're where most unwanted nuclear weapons go to die.

Re:Russia

[ColdWetDog]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.

But then again, so does the F-35.

Re:Russia

[Shakrai]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.

Umm, are you trolling or completely naive about geopolitics? Canada is a NATO member. An attack against one is an attack against all. There are three nuclear armed NATO states, and all three of them share common languages and cultural heritages with Canada. They aren't likely to look kindly upon any attempt to violate her sovereignty.

More to the point, Russia's MO isn't to invade her neighbors. It's to destabilize them, using restless minorities. That strategy works in poor countries with disparate ethic groups that share no common history. It isn't likely to bear fruit if applied to a rich developed country and I doubt that Moscow would try.

Re:Russia

[the eric conspiracy]

The difference is NK leaders are bat-shit crazy and are developing their own nukes anyway.

Canuks are mostly interested in preserving the integrity of the Stanley Cup and the Maple Syrup Cartel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Russia

[c6gunner]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Unfortunately drones aren't quite there yet. This will probably be the last manned fighter purchased by Canada, but we're not quite ready to go drones-only at this point.

That's actually been one of the only really solid objections to this purchase ... it can be persuasively argued that it makes much more sense to try and extend the lifespan of the current CF-18 fleet (or purchase new CF-18s with a much lower price tag than the F-35s) and wait 10-15 years for drone technology to further mature. I'm undecided on the issue. We do need new fighters in the interim, and the F35 is a fantastic piece of technology, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest decision at this point.

Re:Russia

[Charliemopps]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.

But then again, so does the F-35.

Fighter Jets became useless 20yrs ago. They're only still around because the current generals running the US military grew up whacking off to topgun.

Re:Russia

[Luckyo]

Why would they want Northern Canada? They have enough problems trying to keep China out of their South-East. Their country is biggest on the planet and has a very low population density already.

Jets are mainly needed for patrol and "believable defense deterrent" - i.e. showing any other regional power that may want to attack that you have enough defenses to make it exceedingly difficult or impossible to do so. Of course, with US as your land neighbour, that makes for a one tall order...

Re:Russia

[rtb61]

I think you are confusing creating a military defence force with a vassal state making a tributary payment.

For those various vassal states like Canada and Australia, that money would be far better spent on turning infantry and armoured units into mechanised combat engineers with full infrastructure building skills. Basically as a part of the extended training doing full trades apprenticeships. Of course you shouldn't let that training go to waste. So when the Federal government sponsors infrastructure spending they send in the combat engineers to do the labour, as they are already paid for and it applies their training honing it in a most useful fashion. Then all the government then has to pay for is materials creating huge savings on infrastructure spending. Of course the military are then useful beyond the service employment and easily go into construction careers. Even that ever demanding corporate US military industrial state should consider making that switch in order to repair it's deteriorating infrastructure.

Seriously, the reality, you want to defend you country, just look at North Korea vs Iraq. Just a handful of nukes is all you need. So forget tributary payments to the US in the form of buying tanks and planes just make your own long range stealth cruise missiles and arm the with nukes. No matter how big that invasion force one or two nukes and they are gone, just like they were never there. Never there being the normal outcome of the threat of tactical nukes.

Re:Russia

[fahrbot-bot]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Unless "these are not the drone you're looking for", they're also aircraft. Just sayin' ...

Re:Russia

[Gothmolly]

Umm, are you stupid or just relying on ad hominem arguments?

Seriously, if Russia "claimed" a few Arctic islands which happen to be Canadian, do you think NATO would nuke them?
You've been playing too much Twilight:2000.

Re:Russia

[LordLimecat]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.

Yea, have fun with that. You have any guesses as to what the US response to that would be? Or any sort of plan for getting an invasion force over here?

Re:Russia

[viperidaenz]

We're talking about brunettes not fighter jets,,,

Re:Russia

[jbeaupre]

Why worry? Obama will draw a red line and say "No further!"

Is that the Mason-Dixon Line?

Re:Russia

[LordLimecat]

Claiming them is all fun and games. Whats the plan to put troops on them, and how do you intend to deal with the largest navy in the world (Canada's good buddy) dropping by to say hi?

NATO doesnt need to nuke them. It can just plant an aircraft carrier near Greenland, and let that say "No" in lieu of any nukes.

YOU'VE been playing too much Command and Conquer. Russia attacking Canada would be suicide.

Re:Russia

[MightyYar]

Just a handful of nukes is all you need.

North Korea has Seoul in artillery range and a Chinese protector. They didn't need nukes from 1953 through 2009, and they weren't invaded even when it was well-known that they were developing nukes. See also: Iran.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but this thread was started with the hypothesis that Russia may want to invade Canada. If Russia started showing signs of that sort of expansionism, Canada's attitude towards nukes would likely be more welcoming again.

Re:Russia

[thrich81]

The Russian and Chinese generals must have watched the same movies because both countries are developing and fielding their own new (5th generation) fighters. No one yet is fielding drones or defenses to match the 5th gen manned aircraft. Maybe the drone replacements will work, maybe they will have their own huge development problems.

Re:Russia

[Eloking]

We do need new fighters in the interim, and the F35 is a fantastic piece of technology, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest decision at this point.

While I'm sure you had other one in your mind, I don't think "because it's a fantastic piece of technology" is the best argument to bring to justify a 9 billion dollar purchase

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighter jets became obsolete 54 years ago !!
That's what we were told when the Regressive Preservative Party scrapped the Avro Arrow !!!! :-(

Re:Russia

[Pseudonym]

For those various vassal states like Canada and Australia, that money would be far better spent on turning infantry and armoured units into mechanised combat engineers with full infrastructure building skills.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to this, but if you believe current political rhetoric, Australia's biggest military threat is 16 year olds in leaky fishing boats running aground on Ashmore Island.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope useless. All either of them need for defence is planes and/or drones and maybe a few subs. Just shoot down or sink any threats. Infrastructure makes for good stimulus for the economy so doing the work for 'free' with soldiers is counter-productive.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because with over 5 billion square kilometers of Siberia, they need a few million more square kilometers of empty arctic.

Crimea at least gave them a warm water port.

Re:Russia

[jklovanc]

But Canada hos no problem with US nuclear armed ships and aircraft being in Canada.

While it has no more permanently stationed nuclear weapons as of 1984, Canada continues to cooperate with the United States and its nuclear weapons program. Canada allows testing of nuclear weapon delivery systems; nuclear weapon carrying vessels are permitted to visit Canadian ports; and aircraft carrying nuclear warheads are permitted to fly in Canadian airspace with the permission of the Canadian government. There is, however, popular objection to this federal policy. Over 60% of Canadians live in cities or areas designated “Nuclear Weapons Free”, reflecting a contemporary disinclination towards nuclear weapons in Canada. Canada also continues to remain under the NATO 'nuclear umbrella'; even after disarming itself in 1984, Canada has maintained support for nuclear armed nations as doing otherwise would be counter to Canadian NATO commitments.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

NATO should make Russia expect to get nuked if they invade (at least by tactical weapons). Why waste soldiers' lives in conventional fighting?

Re:Russia

[NotQuiteReal]

What!!! After "wait 10-15 years" everything isn't going to be all peace love and understanding? We have to plan for the next war after the next war we deter?

Next you'll be telling me I am not going to get a flying car before I die.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of NATO? You're an idiot.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is not like Canada.

  The US will hang Australia out to dry like the British did in WWII, when the British withdrew pretty much everything they had from asia and move it africa/europe. Its when Australia slipped its "vassal state" from the UK to the US and our prime minster told Churchill to still it up his clacker and bought out troops back into the pacific to fight the Japanese. Vassal state indeed.

  Yes, would have been able to do that with your "turn everyone into construction workers model".

  Australia Jumped onto the F-35 purchase quite early. Even though we still bought F-18 SH, which we then upgraded to growlers, then we bought more growlers. Then we placed orders for 72 and now the only question is what type of F-35 will our next order be and if we can fly them off our LHDs.

  To say the region is getting pretty jumpy is understating it. Ever since China built an oil rig in Vietnam things went from "cold war" to "locked and loaded".

Re:Russia

[theshowmecanuck]

Oil and other resources in abundance.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't seem like there could possibly be a better reason?

Re:Russia

[Samantha Wright]

develop nuclear weapons.

As another commenter said already, Canada went through nuclear disarmament in 1984. (The US wasn't pleased.) "Develop" is definitely the wrong word.

Re:Russia

[Samantha Wright]

We'd deal with them the same way we dealt with Denmark. Simple.

Re:Russia

[Noah Haders]

Yes but technically Russia would have to go through the United States ticket to Canada, so the US would probably be on top of any incursion before got to Canada.

Re:Russia

[Rob Simpson]

Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.

Let's see what happens when the fighter is swarmed by dozens of them. Paging Van Riper...

Re:Russia

[Luckyo]

So let me see if I get what you're trying to say. Russia, the single largest country in the world, that has exactly one problem with oil and other resources - it lacks people and investment to actually get those resources out of the ground will care about Canadian resources enough to go and grab them? The Russia that sold Alaska to US because it simply could not use its resources and needed investment just to put what it has on the Eurasian continent to some use?

I'm not sure how many hits to the head it takes to be that stupid, but it must be quite a lot.

Re:Russia

[JMJimmy]

Yes, cause we're smart. Get the US to pay for then, get all the benefits with few of the drawbacks, and get paid to dismantle them later on. Sure we'd like to live in a nuclear free world but we're not so naive to believe that'll ever be a reality.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like most of the rest of NATO

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that having the world's largest ever superpower as an ally with it's own arsenal of thousands of nukes had nothing to do with it. If the US showed no interest whatsoever in South Korea, and I dunno, never already had fought a war to protect it, then history would have been exactly the same.

tldr; You are a huge idiot.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I saw that on Battlestar Galactica once.

Re:Russia

[flyingfsck]

Where do I begin?

a. Any country that has nuclear reactors can be safely assumed to have a few strategic nuclear bombs stashed down a deep mine shaft. Plutonium has a 25000 year half life, so once you have them you have them. You just have to make triggers regularly.

b. Nuclear bombs are obsolete. It is not necessary to destroy a whole city. Precision guided missiles and bombs are much more useful and cheaper.

c. Russia is not our enemy. Russia is an ally. Russia has never attacked Western Europe or North America, it was always Western Europe attacking Russia, or Western Europe descending into a civil war, then requiring Russia to help fix the mess.

d. Russia is the Slavic big brother that always has to come to the rescue of his little Slavic brothers. They like doing that time and again, just as little as the little brothers like getting slapped upside the head each time.

e. Hysterical propaganda doth not history books make.

f. If you are really looking for an expansionist, evil empire to blame for everything in a simple world view, then you need not look any further than the good Ol' US of A, UK, France or Germany. Blaming everything on Russia doesn't quite fit the facts.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but once we take the order, then when people tell the US Congress to dismantle the F35 program, they can reply "We can't. We've already taken an order from Canada, and it would be rude to dismantle the program after having done so."

Re:Russia

[FatLittleMonkey]

It's like the old WWII joke: "Vun German panzer can beat 5 American panzers." "Ja wohl... but ze Americans sent 6!"

Re:Russia

[flyingfsck]

Canada probably has a few bomb kits stashed away somewhere deep down, but nuclear weapons are obsolete. Precision guided bombs are far more useful and cost effective.

Re:Russia

[flyingfsck]

You don't really need to fight in the far north. All you need to do, is keep warm and wait for the other guys to starve and freeze. Both Russia and Canada know that very well.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

are you stupid or just relying on ad hominem arguments?

[laughs]

Re:Russia

[cycler]

Ah... so many errors.... Where do I begin?

a)
Sweden and Finland has nuclear reactors. Neither has nuclear weapons.

c)
I would hardly say that Russia has fixed anything. Just recently they invaded the Ukraine.

d)
See above. What in that event was rescuing?

e)
Very true! And it goes both ways......

f)
True as well! But that doesn't mean that there is no blame on Russia. (Well, I do mean the government, not all the people)

/C

Re:Russia

[stealth_finger]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Not to be pedantic, but drones are aircraft.

Re:Russia

[oobayly]

Not necessarily - they could just go straight over (or under) the North Pole, It may not be the shortest route (I haven't checked distances), but it's certainly the path of least resistance, unless of course Canada has armed their polar bears and mooseseses

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Also the merest hint of Iraq having WMDs caused one of the biggest clusterfucks of all time.

Re:Russia

[qeveren]

Actually, Canada does have nuclear weapons, after a fashion. IIRC there are some located on US military bases in Canadian territory, to be released to Canadian control in the event of ... well, the end of the world I guess. XD

Re:Russia

[flyingfsck]

Russia has never invaded Western Europe or North America. It is always the other way around. Russia is an ally, not an enemy. Go and read your neglected high school history books. They are Slavs and they take care of other Slavs, whether the other Slavs like it or not...

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.

But then again, so does the F-35.

Fighter Jets became useless 20yrs ago. They're only still around because the current generals running the US military grew up whacking off to topgun.

This is the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. Fighter jets certainly have come in handy when Russia restarted their Cold War era practice of flying nuclear armed strategic bombers right up to United States airspace near where I live here in Alaska. Is it difficult for you to imagine how it might possibly change geo-politics a little bit if Russia was flying strategic bombers in US airspace uncontested?

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing ... Canadians *can* read the writing on the wall -- the electorate knows these planes are useless to Canada. This purchase is being pushed through to serve some political agenda (I won't bother to speculate other than to say you can be sure it has nothing to do with the actual defence of Canada from Russia or anybody). It must be done now, because there is a national election in 2015 and the current ruling Conservative party isn't confident they are going to win. The other political parties in Canada will almost certainly cancel the purchase if planes haven't been delivered and they aren't totally locked-in to the purchase. It's nice to see our government contines to serve us well ... I'm sure my great-great grandchildren are going to be very happy to pay for such pretty museum pieces.

Re:Russia

[Mashiki]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Seriously? I'm guessing you don't live in Canada. Even that far north jets are so-so in terms of reliability. One of the reasons why we developed stealth snowmobiles.

Re:Russia

[BadDreamer]

There isn't anything fantastic about the technology in the F35, especially not for the price, but not even when ignoring the economical aspect.

Modern block designs of F16 and F/A18 have comparable avionics to the F35. The Silent Eagle F15 is just as good at avoiding enemy aircraft radar as the F35, and there is no reason the same technology could not be applied to F/A18's except lack of demand.

There is nothing wise about the F35 except throwing a bone to the US government. Which of course is a big part of any decision to buy fighter aircraft.

Re:Russia

[Your.Master]

How do you suppose Russia got Alaska if they never invaded North America?

Re:Russia

[AmiMoJo]

No-one is willing to risk using drones that could be interfered with by the enemy over manned aircraft. If the drone needs a data link to a remote pilot it can be jammed or taken over and turned around. If it is autonomous it still has to rely on things like GPS or other navigation aids, and is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks from the air and ground. Drones don't have enough intelligence deal with what a technologically advanced enemy can throw at them yet. Even the Taliban are developing some effective techniques to counter them.

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The superpower that was defeated in Vietnam, Somalia and, soon, Afghanistan? That superpower? Ah, yeah.

Re:Russia

[AmiMoJo]

The US isn't the only country making military aircraft. There is the Eurofighter, as well as various other European models. They could even buy Russian.

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be suicide... For Canada. All Russia would need to get the US out of the picture would be turning a supercarrier into a flaming, watery graves for its 5000 crewmembers and the boys would be brought home.

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The NATO that bombed former Yugoslavia for one solid month and, when they could not find any tank, switched to civilian targets only? The NATO that has been practically defeated by the Talibans and is about to leave Afghanistan in shame? Yeah, right. Bunch of hooligans. They wouldn't last three days in a real war.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Why worry? Obama will draw a red line and say "No further!"

Is that the Mason-Dixon Line?

No. He's a damyankee from Chicago. Which as any true Southern Conservative will tell you is practically Moscow.

And that's not even counting the fact that he's a... a... a...

Re:Russia

[RabidReindeer]

What!!! After "wait 10-15 years" everything isn't going to be all peace love and understanding? We have to plan for the next war after the next war we deter?

Next you'll be telling me I am not going to get a flying car before I die.

You joke. But you'll sing a different tune when the Canadian invasion of the USA begins!

Re:Russia

[danbob999]

Canada's number one rival in the North isn't Russia. It's another country called the USA. There is a conflict over a part of the sea near the boundary between Alaska and Yukon. Canada's number two rival isn't Russia either. It's Denmark. Canada and Denmark both claim a tiny island which is on the border between the two countries. Russia does not claim any territory claimed by Canada.

Re:Russia

[Ost99]

Sweden and Finland have the means to produce nuclear weapons.
Same goes for most other countries with nuclear research facilities. It's not as if it's difficult.

Re:Russia

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Fighter Jets became useless 20yrs ago. They're only still around because the current generals running the US military grew up whacking off to topgun.

That's a common misunderstanding. A fighter jet is not an offensive weapon. It doesn't serve to win the war. It serves to dominate the skies so that the rest (ground troops, bombers, helicopters, battle ships...) win the war.

So... does having a good fighter jet make you win the war? No. But not having them sure as hell makes you loosing it!

Without the protection of the jets any tank, ground operation, battle ship can be jumped at any time by an enemy jet and turned to ash.

Which brings us neatly to the F-35: it is meant and conceived as a stealth bomber but not as an air dominance fighter. So will it enable the US and it's allies to dominate the skies? For me that is the real question.

Re:Russia

[goarilla]

Which brings us neatly to the F-35: it is meant and conceived as a stealth bomber but not as an air dominance fighter. So will it enable the US and it's allies to dominate the skies? For me that is the real question.

I dont think that's true, IIRC the F35 is meant to replace F16/F18 jet's which are multirole/jack of all trade fighterjets.
The B2 is a stealth bomber. And in today's air battles it's the capabilities of your guided missile systems that win your "dogfights" anyway.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.

More to the point, Russia's MO isn't to invade her neighbors. It's to destabilize them, using restless minorities. That strategy works in poor countries with disparate ethic groups that share no common history. It isn't likely to bear fruit if applied to a rich developed country and I doubt that Moscow would try.

Ever hear of Quebec? ;)

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way that the British and Spanish got America ...... oh yeah that was "settlement" just like how almost all European settlement was invasion. Oh and how American "settlement" of the west was also invasion.

Stunned bunny back to school for you.

Re:Russia

[Gramie2]

US military bases in Canadian territory? That would be news to me and, I suspect, to our government and military. There are certainly joint exercises here, and US military personnel working with Canadians, and occasional visits by US ships and planes, but no permanent facilities.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't. Partly because of their multirole nature as strike aircraft that can also destroy other aircraft. Since you have to have some plan for destroying incoming enemy aircraft since you can combine offensive power with it makes it efficient. At the moment defensive plans including such aircraft are superior to plans that don't.

Re:Russia

[rasmusbr]

Sweden and Finland have the means to produce nuclear weapons.
Same goes for most other countries with nuclear research facilities. It's not as if it's difficult.

It is apparently fairly difficult and expensive to make small, lightweight nuclear weapons. France was still doing nuclear tests in the 1990's, presumably because they still had kinks to iron out in their design.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no they didn't to Fighter Jets becoming useless. I could well believe the current US generals grew up whacking of to top gun. :)

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to get to the supersonic jet first. It does not matter how many drones they have if they are not there and very fast.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware of the reason its called the JOINT strike fighter? There are already a number partners and Canada ordering some jets is unlikely to add much more weight to such decisions.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was an excuse not a reason.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like we found the ruskie!

man you've consumed too much of that so called 'hysterical propaganda', wow.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

but nuclear weapons are obsolete.

MAD still exists

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes as there is oil under the Arctic ;)

I'd actually expect them to ignore them unless they actually invaded the islands in question.

Re: Russia

[LordLimecat]

Im not sure what world you live in where our response to Russia destroying a $5 billion military asset would be to quietly retreat.

Im also not sure what world you live in where they have the capability to destroy one of our carriers. We have 10 carriers and 62 destroyers. Russia has 1 carrier and 13 destroyers. We could go into nuclear weaponry but I dont think Russia is that dumb, even in a scenario where they decide to attack northern Canada.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Space elevator!

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The least manned resistance because its an inhospitable environment that's dangerous and difficult to navigate. You will also have to be supplying your men over the arctic.
Of course this would all be much easier if they could just fly everything to Canada but they've just bought some jets ,)

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Your anus gets looser whenever you misspell loser.

Re:Russia

[Patent Lover]

Yes, that's when they bomb the Baldwins.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Slav I would like to request Russia to stop taking care of other Slavs.

Re:Russia

[ILongForDarkness]

For a second there I thought you were saying polar bears with molasses which as the adage goes might be a good way to slow down an invader (slower than molasses in January). Even if the Russians came through Nunavut it would be too close for comfort for the americans in Alaska I think so they'd be involved. What they might get away with is small chunks at a time like they are in europe. Not try to take northern Canada but just a small island, or a few miles into territorial waters for oil drilling. Not a big enough deal for the world to risk a full scale war again but still a douchy move that would be what we've come to expect from Putin.

Re:Russia

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. That is Canada's biggest defence from a Russian invasion: distance and climate. You can stretch your supply lines a few thousand kilometers across the artic and get hardly anything of value (in terms of industry/people, there is a bunch of mining interests up there but I don't suspect an invading army to be picking up pick axes any time soon after invading). By the time you get to population centres NATO will have spun up and be waiting in Edmonton or wherever. Then the navy pounds your supply lines in the rear (they are good at that) and you die like Napoleon.

Re:Russia

[Grishnakh]

You're not that smart, because now the tables have turned: we're getting you Canucks to help fund our F-35 debacle.

Re:Russia

[Charliemopps]

Modern air superiority is done with Cruise missiles. There are no foreign aircraft left by the time our bombers go in. Soon it will all be done with drones.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO...that is EXACTLY what the US told us when trying to help get the Avro Arrow scrapped...it was complete bull then. Okay now maybe not complete bull now but I can't help but notice two very expensive non drone aircraft programs recently in the US. Hmmm.

"Really the BOMARC missile system is the way of the future. Honest! Really! Trust me! Would I lie?"

Re:Russia

[Minwee]

You joke. But you'll sing a different tune when the Canadian invasion of the USA begins!

"Begins"? Haven't you noticed how many Canadian military bases are already in occupied parts of the USA?

Re:Russia

[rahvin112]

You act as if it would be easier to traverse Siberia and the Bering straight. It might very well be easier to cross the arctic in winter when pack ice is heaviest than it is to cross Siberia, the Bering straight, Alaska and Northern Canada (all at or above the arctic circle). Given the terrain across Siberia and Alaska and how rough and dangerous the sea is in the Bering straight I'd put odds on putting those supply lines across the pole before I put them on the Alaska route.

Re:Russia

[gatkinso]

Canada is in a unique position that they can enjoy being nuclear free, but has all of the benefits of having them due to proximity to the US.

(Not to mention some of the problems as well - like being a target regardless of their nuclear posture.)

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they didn't invade the Ukraine. Nor Crimea. Crimea held a vote. The fact that some foreign governments don't like their choice doesn't mean "invasion". Nor does it mean "forced to vote at gunpoint" nor any other tripe they've got you believing.

You may have missed Putin's little query the other day. He asked that if there were 40 no 60 no 80000 troops there (the number keeps growing), then where's the evidence? Show me the money. Oh, you can't see them...convenient. They're hiding? So how do they know they're there? Are we playing pantomime?

Not even a bullshit fuzzy black and white photo with Colin Powell shaking tubes of washing powder. Nothing. Not even a bullshit video like they made for the "chemical attack" in Syria. ( No one could find any missing people nor families of the "victims", you know. Quietly left alone once pointed out. )

We are being bullshitted to in our very faces, and noone questions the veracity of the stories presented. This is a horrific state of affairs..

Re:Russia

[Minwee]

Umm, are you trolling or completely naive about geopolitics? Canada is a NATO member. An attack against one is an attack against all. There are three nuclear armed NATO states, and all three of them share common languages and cultural heritages with Canada. They aren't likely to look kindly upon any attempt to violate her sovereignty.

You may skipped this class in global politics.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

false, to produce weapon-grade materials would require us to re-design our reactors, in fact they were designed to make it as hard as possible to make nuclear weapons so that no one would get any funny ideas.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

c & d: Finland is not inhabitated by Slavs, and it is part of western europe - and has been invaded by Russia and Soviet both.
e & f: see above - apparently your history books are lacking.

Re:Russia

[cheesybagel]

F-35 has crap combat range and Canada has a large airspace to cover. That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Re:Russia

[ILongForDarkness]

No northern Canada to Edmonton (using Edmonton as an example because I think it is the northernmost major city) is about 2500 km. Add to that whatever distance you go outside of Canadian waters the polar route is still 3000+ km. As the song goes "Canada is really big" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vxDDcTc64c&feature=kp)

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the BQ was just short of annihilated last federal election, and the PQ took a sound thrashing last provincial election, I'd say now is a poor time to try and fan the flames of separatism in Quebec. Try again in a decade or two.

Re:Russia

[colenski]

That is incorrect. "The only other user [of the nuclear missile Genie] was Canada, whose CF-101 Voodoos carried Genies until 1984 via a dual-key arrangement where the missiles were kept under United States custody, and released to Canada under circumstances requiring their use. The RAF briefly considered the missile for use on the English Electric Lightning." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

The GENIE and Bomarcs deployed in Canada were missiles designed to engage clouds of incoming Russian bombers, and by 1984, that tactic was pointless as the Russians most certainly had MIRV ICBM's, making a bomber attack obsolete.

Re:Russia

[g8oz]

A NATO response would not necessarily be confined to the Arctic theater. All of Russia would be a target.

The Kremlin is well aware of this - they don't make their moves based on Hollywood plot ideas.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Nukes are not obsolete, they were never useful as anything but a deterrent (even the two detonated over japan were more a demonstration than anything else).

Precision guided weapons are better for eliminating targets in a war. But don't do much for deterrence.

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get real or find a psychiatrist, kiddo.

How you destroy a carrier, and it's entire task group? Easy peasy. Bring bombers, and fire swarms and swarms of very fast flying missiles from far beyond any range of possible retaliation. Not all the Ticonderogas in the world, or whatever they call them these days, can deal with that. Carriers are only useful as modern day gunboats, to project political power or bully technologically inferior opponents.

Everything else is a dream and a small boy fantasy.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

What!!! After "wait 10-15 years" everything isn't going to be all peace love and understanding? We have to plan for the next war after the next war we deter?

Next you'll be telling me I am not going to get a flying car before I die.

You joke. But you'll sing a different tune when the Canadian invasion of the USA begins!

No worries, we will just flick the switch and turn the F35's 'off'/back.

Re: Russia

[HornWumpus]

What is the range of an excet again? 200 miles? That isn't 'far beyond the range of possible retaliation'. Bombers are locked up by F-18s before they fire the first missile. Bomber base is smegged before the first survivor limps home. Fast attack planes might be able to get a pass in before being shot down, but bombers are toast.

Your plan is to have more bombers then a carrier group has SAMs, heat seekers and bullets. Not impossible, but even Russian crews will balk at that. Gotta try to take air superiority first. Then you're back to square one.

Re:Russia

[HornWumpus]

Frogs are a pretty useless 'restless minority'. The worst they will do is 'go on strike' wave a plastic light saber at them and they surrender.

Canadians are far too polite with the quebecees. Should just proceed with banning the use of french.

Re:Russia

[david_thornley]

You must tell me how a cruise missile shoots down enemy aircraft in the air. Bombing them on the ground will not establish air superiority if we don't have fighters to shoot down the rest.

Re:Russia

[reiserifick]

Fighter jets can pull a few G's of acceleration. Missiles being shot at fighter jets can pull 30+ G's. Missiles are cheap and even if it takes a few tries to take out a jet, you're still way ahead.

Re:Russia

[Wootery]

Price-point issue, no?

If the Canadians are paying the 'true worth' of the F-35, and the USA had to pay the standard-military-development-SNAFUBAR overhead, surely the Canadians 'win', no?

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be suicide... For Canada. All Russia would need to get the US out of the picture would be turning a supercarrier into a flaming, watery graves for its 5000 crewmembers and the boys would be brought home.

Just like after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Oh no that really pissed off the USA and bought it into the war.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia has never invaded Western Europe or North America.

They did attack Finland though, more than once. They also attacked Poland. Both where for reasons of conquest.

Go and read your neglected high school history books

I suggest you read some books that have real history rather than propaganda in.

Re:Russia

[rahvin112]

And the route through Siberia (which is almost entirely devoid of anything that can support human life) alone is close to that. Then you have the Bering straight which is one of the most treacherous stretches of ocean in the world, then Alaska (with almost no roadways and the ones they do have are built on permafrost and not traversable by heavy equipment) and Northwest Canada (with the same problems as alaska) to traverse. All of which are just as treacherous as crossing the pole and at least on the pole you could use bulldozers to mound up snow to provide wind blocks and smooth ice highways along with plenty of opportunities for base camps along the way.

If someone had the choice of taking an army across the pole or via Siberia, the straight, Alaska and Northern Canada I believe they would choose the pole as it would be a far easier journey and far easier to establish unrestricted supply lines. Mechanized transport would make the ice and weather mostly a non issue whereas the other route would present all the same issues plus a dozen additional ones (such as swamps that could eat tanks for breakfast). The only reason to go the other route would be if the ice had receded enough to put open ocean between Canada and the pole.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they didn't invade the Ukraine. Nor Crimea. Crimea held a vote.

Russian troops where there before the vote. Putin may claim otherwise but I don't find his claims convincing.

Normally a vote on secession would be organised by the government not foreign troops claiming not to be foreign troops. If you insist they weren't Russian troops, but instead a suddenly incredibly well organised group of armed men with access to heavy weapons and C&C better than any other militia, then that makes it a coup.

And yes I have video of these soldiers. Its been on the BBC and I trust the beeb over Putin any day of the week.

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was parts of Europe who actually pushed for intervention in Yugoslavia. This seems fair enough as there were actual massacres taking place. Also If they where only attacking civilian targets how did an F117 get shot down by a cannon? I've known some of the people who where involved in the campaign and can assure you they would not have knowingly fired upon civilians.
That said I don't think the higher ups had clear goals or strategies for achieving them and its for those problems I criticise them. Those almost certainly did lead to unnecessary civilian death and suffering.

As to Afghanistan if the Taliban had won they would be in charge of the country (although there are areas still under there dominion and they are still dangerous. I actually consider the Afghan (although not the Iraq) campaign as a justified war as the Taliban where aiding and abetting a group who had attacked the USA and caused quite large loss of life. I believe it was stupid to shoehorn in the war on drugs into this a real war. A lot of suffering could have been avoided if they'd just bought all the opium instead. Bet it would have been a lot cheaper in terms of money and life and there was an shortage of legal opiates in the world so would have been useful for that as well.

Finally if Putin agreed with your assessment of NATO he'd already be invading Europe.

Re:Russia

[ppanon]

That's already the case in summer and it's only going to get worse with Climate Change. Having to switch between water, ice, water, land for your supply lines for 1/3 of the year isn't really good for transporting large quantities of supplies (or you can run ships from port to port around what's left of the shrinking ice cap during those months). As you pointed out, the "permafrost" now thaws during the summer, and that is going to cause an issue for heavy transports in supply lines once they hit the mainland. I suppose the oil companies may build a service road if they wind up needing to build a pipeline North because they don't get permission to go in any of the other populated directions. If that existed then the Russians could use it.

For all the issues with Siberian permafrost, there is still a railway that goes across it (the Trans-Siberian), and you can move a lot of materiel on that. It was, after all, a major supply line for allied hardware being sent to Russia to help take on the Germans in WWII. There's no reason why that couldn't be used to send a lot of stuff in the other direction. The major issue is that it would be pretty easy to bomb with modern airplanes and cruise missiles, however I would think that would go double for any supply route and depots on the Arctic ice cap.

If Russia invaded Canada, then the NATO defence pact would come into effect, so they may as well go through Alaska and take control of the oil fields there while they're at it. But as someone else pointed out there isn't much road infrastructure across Alaska so it would be easier to just go around it and debark in Hyder.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget our fifth element ..... Canadian actors and musicians they are already deeply embeded in your country

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Missiles have been around for a while now and aircraft still seem to be around and able to bomb things.

Re:Russia

[NicBenjamin]

They can't buy Russian because the Russians ain't selling to a five eyes member.

They'd have to tell the Canadians damn near everything about the planes they bought, as Canadians are not genetically stupid they'd figure out most of what the Russians weren't saying, the US would be listening in the whole damn time, which would mean nobody would ever buy a Russian plane again.

Re:Russia

[NicBenjamin]

Umm, are you stupid or just relying on ad hominem arguments?

Seriously, if Russia "claimed" a few Arctic islands which happen to be Canadian, do you think NATO would nuke them?
You've been playing too much Twilight:2000.

I don't know about nuke, but there'd definitely be a couple carrier groups deployed to the Arctic, Obama making a trip to Ottawa to support the PM, lots of saber-rattling, etc.

And if that didn't work there would, indeed, be combat.

The entire US Alliance structure is based on the principle that the US would risk nuclear war to protect all the members of the alliance. therefore if Russia invaded Canada we'd have to risk a nuclear war. Since the Russians know that, and they don't want nuclear war, it probably won't happen.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even a bullshit video like they made for the "chemical attack" in Syria. ( No one could find any missing people nor families of the "victims", you know. Quietly left alone once pointed out. )

Medicins Sans Frontieres and the BBC don't agree with you:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-thousands-suffering-neurotoxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported-msf

Who's the "no one"? I must admit I haven't looked & MSF seemed able to find people who's suffering was consistent with chemical weapon attacks so maybe they just didn't look very hard. There are a lot of displaced people in Syria.

Re: Russia

[LordLimecat]

Oh right. Because an aircraft carrier wont have any air defense, or any aircraft.

Oh wait, it does-- and we have some of the best of both. Seriously, attack an aircraft carrier, 1800 miles out into the ocean (from russia), with a bomber? How, exactly, is that gonna work when we launch our air superiority fighters?

Launching missiles generally seems like a phenomenally bad idea, as it might result in about 10 headed the other way. It also has the slight problem that it needs a launch platform; if its coming from the ocean, you once again have to deal with our carrier's escorts; if its coming from the land, we have 1800 miles to see it coming.

Re: Russia

[Shakrai]

Im also not sure what world you live in where they have the capability to destroy one of our carriers.

The Russians spent the better part of the Cold War developing weapons and tactics to do exactly that. Google AS-4 Kitchen, Tu-22 Backfire, Oscar Class Submarine, SS-N-19 Shipwreck, Type 65 Torpedo, etc. Russia is probably the best equipped country in the world when it comes to taking on a USN CVBG. They've let a lot of their capability atrophy over the years, but then so has the USN (no more F-14, AIM-54C, fewer mid-air refueling assets, fewer ECM assets, less emphasis on AAW and ASW, etc.) so it's probably a wash. In the Arctic region, within range of Russian airbases? I wouldn't take the threat lightly, if I was commanding the CVBG.

Of course, pulling it off might be seen as a Pyrrhic victory, since it would enrage the American body politic to levels unseen since Pearl Harbor or 9/11. I can't think of a faster way to unite my squabbling countrymen than to sink a few USN warships on the high seas while killing a few thousand American sons and daughters. Can you?

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada's number one rival in the North isn't Russia. It's another country called the USA. There is a conflict over a part of the sea near the boundary between Alaska and Yukon.
Canada's number two rival isn't Russia either. It's Denmark. Canada and Denmark both claim a tiny island which is on the border between the two countries.

Russia does not claim any territory claimed by Canada.

Most large countries that border other large countries have unresolved border disputes due to the nature of international norms in determining boundaries. The ones between Canada and the USA are good faith disagreements. The other end of the spectrum is Russia, or China's comical claims to the South China Sea

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

*meeses

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

[ insert beach volley-ball montage here ]

Re: Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations to being completely clueless as well as having absolutely no concept of range, action radius and how these concepts work on the area you have to cover with your fancy fighters, or how this relates to time...

Simple facts; A cruise missile have a *far* longer range than any fighter. It can be fired from a bomber, submarine or surface vessel far, far, far beyond any form of detection range. Best case, you might send your interceptors against the missiles. And and your "air defense" is *useless* when it gets *swamped*. It's called a "saturation attack". The soviets used to do it with infantry, but missiles works just as well. And an Aegis cruiser is pretty dangerous, as long as it has missiles.. when they run dry, because you *will* not hit with every single one.. not so much. CIWS only goes so far.

Stop fantasizing so much, war isn't a game where the enemy does exactly like you want them to, and your own propaganda is just that, propaganda. Carriers are nothing but expensive modern day gunboats.

Re:Russia

[OneAhead]

Any country that has nuclear reactors can be safely assumed to have a few strategic nuclear bombs stashed down a deep mine shaft. Plutonium has a 25000 year half life, so once you have them you have them.

Did you really not know that ordinary nuclear reactors don't produce useful quantities of plutonium? Breeders do, but they're less convenient to operate commercially. People are working on fixing that because breeders consume far less uranium and produce far less waste. This effort is somewhat controversial precisely because of proliferation fears; using breeders to produce electricity would probably even require important changes to the finer print of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As for your plethora of other mistakes, see here

Re:Russia

[c6gunner]

F-35 has crap combat range and Canada has a large airspace to cover. That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

The F-35 has a significantly greater combat range than our current fighters, so we can pretty much dismiss that argument right away. But combat range is a shit indicator anyway if what you care about is covering our own airspace. What we need is intercept capability, not combat radius. We need to get there quickly, blow the invader away, and head home - possibly meeting an air-to-air refueller along the way. And the F-35 is MUCH better at that because of supercruise.

With the F-18 you either go subsonic in order to have greater range, or you fire up the afterburners to get there fast, but only over short distances or you'll run out of fuel way too soon. With the F-35 that equation becomes much more balanced because you can go supersonic with a much lower fuel cost. You also have the advantage of being able to fire from farther away, but that's a lesser consideration.

Re:Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about it, and it shows. Please peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

Re:Russia

[lsatenstein]

With conservative government wanting that pipline to the USA, the planes were meant to sway the deal. Just think, the original bill was for under 10 billion for the planes. Now it is closer to 35.

Harper likes to kiss ass with Obama. Canada does not need those planes. We need vehicles to protect our North and to keep Russia out from claiming our lands. (our ice).

f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

the plane is still in beta. nowadays beta seems to mean ready to ship.

something sucking less is not a reason to be grateful.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

Lockheed can always patch it later. If it's really bad, they can just issue a recall. It's the way business is done in the 21st century.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[roc97007]

My opinion, the F-35 will always be in beta. The design and procurement process is fundamentally broken. That being the case, they might as well buy now; it's not gonna get any better.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't called the Joke Strike Freighter without reason.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[jd2112]

My opinion, the F-35 will always be in beta. The design and procurement process is fundamentally broken. That being the case, they might as well buy now; it's not gonna get any better.

So, beta as in Slashdot beta as opposed to beta as in Google beta.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[currently_awake]

Or you could buy 250 super hornets at the same price. The ONLY advantage of the f-35 is stealth, and given that a stealth fighter was shot down I'd not put much faith in the stealth capabilities of these things.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealth only decreases the distance the plane can be spotted at. That means that the radar stations that are supposed to overlap a country no longer do, and the airplane can fly in without being spotted. With enough radar overlap, stealth airplanes don't stand a chance.

Re: f-35, beta feature set

[O('_')O_Bush]

The cost of these F-35s are 124m/ea. The cost of a previous generation Super Hornet is almost 70m/ea, with older electronics packages and no stealth.

Where you are going from 65->250, I have no idea.

Now, the F-16 is much cheaper and still in use, so maybe you are confusing the F/A-18 with that?

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Sir_Sri]

Cute, but they aren't really buying them right now. It's agreeing to buy from one of the tranches in future.

The issue is whether or not they were going to (re)open the bidding process and under what terms. We could buy aircraft right now if we wanted to buy used, or we could buy Eurofighters or modernized F18's reasonably quickly. F18's and F35's would come with industrial guarantees (we buy x billion in aircraft we get some fraction of x in guaranteed production of boeing or F35 parts in canada). Or a couple of other options that have various features (the rafaeles from France or the Gripen from Saab or F16's etc.).

But of course we already agreed to be part of the R&D for the F35 and the point of that was to be in on the programme from the beginning and to buy aircraft, so we could withdraw but that would likely make more than a few people angry, and all of the other options entail different risks. I'm not sure in the end that it makes a great deal of difference, countries fly all of the potential aircraft on the list, and the F35 is slated for significant production, and really any of them would mix some sort of industrial, combat capabilities and strategic interests in a reasonable way.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

Lockheed can always patch it later. If it's really bad, they can just issue a recall. It's the way business is done in the 21st century.

Hmmm, Elon Musk's companies produce solar energy systems, electric cars, and spacecraft. I wonder if he'd be interested in making jet fighters.

Of course the US government would have to be -willing- to buy his planes. Even if his planes were clearly the best, Musk would have to contend with ignorance and prejudice, and with entrenched interests.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the paragraph "Lockheed can always patch it later. If it's really bad, they can just issue a recall. It's the way business is done in the 21st century."

Sorry, I meant to indicate that the first paragraph was a quote from the parent. That indication got lost somehow.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[flyingfsck]

No not really. The high price tag of the F5 includes the whole logistical support package, training, bases, repair facilities and more. Buying a hundred planes with no spares or maintenance means that you can fly only 100 missions - at most - then they are all parked on the runway forever after.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadians already have the bases, most of the training and repair facilities required for the Super Hornet, and the Super Hornet comes with the logistical support package and more for the 65 million per. Tell me again why we are buying a plane that does not fit the mission profile for the air defence of Canada but only fits the mission profiles for aid the American's in invasions?

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia: 12 billion for planes
12 billion for maintenance over 10 years.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[rwise2112]

I'm not so sure it's even that stealthy.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[NicBenjamin]

I don't think you understand the role Harper wants the RCAF to play. Moreover I don't think you understand how aerial combat works.

Harper doesn't want to be a happy little rich country that never helps anyone because it only buys defensive weapons. He doesn't think of Canada as Ireland without the economic turmoil (you'll note that during WW2 the Irish saved roughly zero Jews, and then during the Cold War they were nuetral with a large helping of hoping the commies would win because the British were in NATO), he thinks of Canada as the country that responded to Fascism by building the fourth-largest Navy in the world. The Hornet is useless to the second Canada because modern military interventions tend to be aerial bombardments, and non-stealth aircraft are very difficult to use in those situations. Moreover they are led by NATO Air Force officers, which will know precisely how to use a US or RAF F-35 squadron but will have no clue what to do with a bunch of CF-18s. They will probably spend most of their time on the phone with retired USN guys trying to figure out what the fuck to do with the obsolete pieces of shit Canada is foisting on them.

And they're obsolete because a stealth aircraft has a huge advantage over a non-stealth one. It can see the enemy. It has missiles, which it can shoot at the enemy. If that doesn't work, when the enemy is getting close it can run away. Even in circumstances where you have a bunch of Mk. 1 eyeballs on the ground, radioing your non-stealth pilot to say "Dude, he's right over Winnipeg heading west at Mach 1.2," your missiles can't lock onto his ass so you need to get to visual range, and then you need to close to cannon range. This is why the Stealth Fighter, which is by every spec except Stealth the shittiest combat aircraft any NATO country has flown since WW2, only lost one plane to enemy fire. Ever.

In other words 65 F-35s are, even if every word the critics say is true, likely to beat a force with 250 CF-18s. Each F-35 has a bunch of hard points, so the first battle is gonna be the CF-18s dealing with 200 or so missiles while the F-35s run away. Then the second battle is gonna be fewer then 250 CF-18s dealing with 200 or missiles while the F-35s run away. Repeat until there are no CF-18s.

Re: f-35, beta feature set

[NicBenjamin]

Even 250 CF-18s would need some really exceptional to beat 65 F-35s. You don't have to be good when you're invisible. I suspect the OP is using the price from Wikipedia, which was for the 1977 version of the CF-18.

Since the real cost is double, it's more like 125 to 65, and the 65 get 200 free shots at the 125 before every battle. Then they get to try to run away.

And the 125 CF-18s can;t really be used by NATO in coalition warfare missions because a) they're not stealth, so they're a lot easier to shoot down then F-35s, and b) since nobody but the Canadians will be using them the people in charge of said operations will not know how to use the damn things properly.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[thogard]

If Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea got together, they could get the F-15 Silent Eagle built to the appropriate specs. It can be more stealthy than the F-35, it would be cheaper, faster, it is a proven air frame and it would meet the internal defense roles as well as the role of supporting allies. The F-15 Silent Eagle (or F15 Advanced as that might be its current name) is an more modern F-15E Strike Eagle air frame with modifications taken from the failed F-23 prototypes.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so freaking wrong it hurts, mostly because the Super Hornet is not the CF-18 ( the CF-18 is the original Hornet). The Super Hornet is a newer stealth plane that can do both aerial interception and bombing missions.

The Super Hornets will chase down and destroy the F-35 in aerial dogfights even with the stupid multi-missle salvo you are advocating. The F-35 can not outrun the Super Hornet and stealth is not the mythical power you seem to believe only the F-35 has. Oh and your assumption no other fighter jet can beat the F-35 because they can't be found nor hit is wrong. Get close enough for radar overlapping and you will find and track the F-35 and update the Super Horents in near real time; pro-tip - newer missles will lock onto the F-35 and no you don't need to be in cannon range. Oh and the Super Hornets can load up on missles as well. 250 Super Hornets versus 65 F-35 mean lots of dead F-35 pilots and very few losses for the Super Hornets. Equal numbers in aerial combat for smaller groups still gives the Super Hornets the edge. The F-35 has an edge in bombing runs but not in aerial combat.

You obviously know little about the real issues so stop posting drivel until you understand the technical capabiliites of the Super Hornet versus the F-35. Oh and read up on why stealth aircraft can still be hit by missles as well. In other words - do all of us a favour and go read up on the jet the Canadian government should have read up on as well.

Oh and I advocate a mixture of fighter jets for the RCAF - Super Horent and F-35. with a 60-40 % leaning towards the Super Hornet.

9 Billion at 60-40% mean 5.4s billion on Super Hornets and 4.6 billion on F-35 so given the nubers 80 or so Super Hornets and 35 or so F-35

Re: f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

Super Hornet is not the CF-18. Get your head out of your ass and read the specs on the Super Hornet

Re: f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

The US navy and the Australians are using and or buying more of the Advanced Super Hornet. Please note for fracks sake: the CF-18 is the grandparent of the Advanced Super Hornet that Canada should be looking at buying.

Re:f-35, beta feature set

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's fix the design and procurement process.

USA

[Anonymous Coward]

world class bully and corrupting agent.

Re:USA

[Gothmolly]

OR - a place to outsource your defense development to. Canada has money, the US has the jets. The US population (face it, Boeing is kept alive by taxes) pays for all the endless R&D and other countries can just buy what they need.

Re:USA

[Anonymous Coward]

face it, Boeing is kept alive by taxes

The F-35 is a Lockheed/Martin product. In the trials, the LockMart prototype out-performed the Boeing prototype. But I'll always wonder if Boeing would have executed better and actually produced the plane with fewer problems, had Boeing won this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program#Outcome

Re:USA

[viperidaenz]

Lockheed has a cooler sounding name that Boeing.

Re:USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Northrop beats them all with a 25 year old plane...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...

Suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Suckers

It's all

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a kickback scheme from the beginning. Someone somewhere is getting a big secret bank account in Switzerland.

lawl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought to you by the fiscal conservative party of Canada.

Re:lawl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. We have the same thing in Australia. Conservative government increasing defence spending - its so they don't have to be diplomatic...

Re:lawl.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called having a backbone. You ought to try it sometime. Oh wait, you think that's obsolete. If somebody came and brutally raped your wife you would sing koombaya to him.

Re:lawl.

[TapeCutter]

If somebody came and brutally raped your wife you would sing koombaya to him.

No, but the point is that it would be a lot cheaper and cause a lot less collateral damage to simply whack him with a $20 cricket bat.

Re:lawl.

[qeveren]

Yep. Cut those social services, but boy do we need some new, untested, and buggy-as-hell jet fighters.

Re:lawl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the size of the armed forces of the country to your south?

Re:lawl.

[Phrogman]

Because you know, its always just a choice between being a spineless pathetic guy or supporting stupidly expensive military hardware purchases that the country probably cannot afford but which get the PM some political cred in the US. Its black or white, there can't possibly be a different solution right? /sarcasm off

What a fucking moron

Re:lawl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the size of the armed forces of the country to your south?

Irrelevant. We have always and will always defend our own sovereignty.

Re:lawl.

[dryeo]

It's an article on Canada so $20 hockey stick would be more appropriate. I don't think that I've ever seen a cricket bat in a store though I do regularly drive past a field where there are often cricket matches.
There's always the old fallback of an axe.

Re:lawl.

[Hamsterdan]

Sure. 65 new planes will make us last 20 minutes instead of 11 if they decide to invade us.

Re:lawl.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that makes buying OVERPRICED UNDER-PERFORMING fighter planes from them a good idea?

Re:lawl.

[Sarten-X]

Alright, let's run with this.

A cricket bat is an option, but much like the fighters from WWI, it's really only good with repeated blows against an unarmored target in a particular small area.

Unfortunately, if the rapist has planned this attack, he probably knows you have a cricket bat, and knows its weaknesses. He comes wearing a helmet and a thick shirt, so your bat will hurt, but it won't be too serious of a threat. Similarly, by WWII fighters had progressed to having better maneuverability, so earlier aircraft would be unable to hit them.

Naturally, you must improve your own weaponry to compensate, moving up to a bladed weapon, like the aforementioned axe or a knife. For fighters, that means jet engines and more guns, so the enemy can't just absorb all the damage.

The attacker evolves again. Knowing that you carry a blade, the rapist arms himself with a bicycle. It sounds ridiculous, but if he can evade your defense long enough to get up to speed, the rapist can escape without harm. Your axe, knife, sword, or ridiculously overelaborate ninja weapon are all useless because he's just too fast. Your old weapons, if you'll pardon the pun, just won't cut it any more... and neither will machine guns in the age of supersonic jet fighters.

Now you have to change your tactics. The rapist can come and go so quickly that landing blows just isn't going to be an effective countermeasure. You move up to protecting yourself with firearms. Now his bicycle is meaningless, because his speed isn't an issue any more, until he can outrun bullets. For aircraft, the parallel is the shift to missile combat.

Now, though, armor matters again. The rapist can drive a car, so you'll switch to a higher-powered weapon. Then he can add light armor to the vehicle, and you'll need armor-piercing rounds. Then he can add heavy armor, and you'll need a rocket-propelled grenade. If he gets his hands on an armored personnel carrier, he can plow into your living room, grab your wife, and drive off, and unless you have some anti-tank weaponry handy, you'll be unable to protect your wife. That $20 cricket bat won't even scratch the paint.

That's the modern state of air warfare. Long before the fighters are within visual range of each other, the pilots deploy countermeasures and break through their enemy's countermeasures, until one of them can get its missile to hit the other. Then the battle's over. None of the earlier fighter planes will be effective against such a long-range and powerful modern fighter. They wouldn't even get the chance to scratch the stealth-supporting paint.

Re:lawl.

[The Grim Reefer]

Just how hot do you think his wife is? I can't say I've ever heard of a rapist employing an armored personnel carrier to commit rape. Nor needing a RPG to protect protect ones wife.

Re:lawl.

[NicBenjamin]

There are more then 30 million Canadians. $9 Billion Canadian Dollars is under $300 per person. That's a cost that's well within the reasonable range for an industrialized country.

You do realize that guys who quibble over a few hundred bucks per person in defense spending are pretty much the entire reason the NSA is gonna continue to get away with spying on you? Between them NATO countries besides the US have zero strategic transports, zero strategic bombers, carrier programs that are clearly designed to check the "we're a great power with a carrier" box rather then the "we have an effective Navy" box, etc. This means that no NATO country which fears any non-NATO country can ever piss off the US Security establishment, which in turn means you'll get plenty of BS press releases about how pissed the Danes are that they're being hacked and precisely zero effective action to stop said hacking.

Re:lawl.

[rioki]

You mean like France that totally does not have nuclear ICBMs and of the fiercest special forces or the UK with still entertains one for the largest navies of the world and operates one of the few VTOL aircraft with lot's of operational flexibility or Germany with Tank battalions few can rival technologically and operates sizable air defense force. Just because European nations don't hang out their military dong all the time does not mean they can't be reckoned with. The US military primarily only serves as pork barrel spending and has only little real geopolitical meaning. Sure the US invaded two countries in the last decade, but on a political scale that rather backfired. Also putting 300 $ more in education of civil infrastructure would not hurt either.

Re:lawl.

[NicBenjamin]

This post sums up the problem.

European leaders generally have one very sexy, cool-looking, military toy they can point to and say "we are a force to be reckoned with". They don't buy non-sexy things that are actually needed to fight a war.

For example, you mention Germany's tank battalions. Let's say that Chancellor Merkel had decided to deploy them to Ukraine to stop further Russian encroachment. Could she have done the job on short notice? Hell no, her entire Air Force has exactly one Strategic Transport, which means they can only send in the tanks two at a time.

You also mention helicopter carriers. Why have a helicopter carrier? Seriously. Why, in God's name, would you ever buy such a thing? If your opponent has an air force the choppers are sitting ducks. Which means the carrier is already sunk. If he doesn't have an air force it's cheaper to send in special forces to set up/seize an airbase. Of course, for the air base to actually be useful you need some strategic transports. The only reason to buy a helicopter carrier is that you're too cheap to buy the real thing, and your people are too dumb to know it's useless.

There's a reason that Obama's "Leading from behind" campaign in Libya required the USAF to fight alone for a couple days despite strong support from two large countries that actually have military capabilities: France and the UK. They are more capable then the Germans, but they simply don't spend enough on defense to afford the boring but useful shit you need if you're gonna support a rebel movement in a country that can afford anti-aircraft defenses.

As for the point of the other things that money can be used for, you do realize that Canada's budget is not set by God? If $300 a person in planes, and $300 a person in textbooks, are both logical things for Canada to spend money the country can raise taxes.

No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's absolutely buy the jets that can't stay up in the air and cost ridiculous amounts to purchase and maintain when they do manage not to crash!
In rougher climates than they're designed for! Instead of something cheaper and more rugged that would be just fine for our purposes!

This is the greatest idea ever!

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Voodoo!

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of something cheaper and more rugged that would be just fine for our purposes!

You really think the purpose of buying these jets are for fighting someone? Wrong. Who would be dogfighting Canadian jets in the air anyway?

This is called "protection money". The sole purpose of buying these jets is to give money to corporate overloads of the MI-complex, so the important points of this deal are (1) the dollar amount and (2) the recipient of the money.

If the jets can actually DO something, well, that's just an added bonus that no one in the decision chain cared about much.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be a trade for that pipeline.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[AmiMoJo]

I'm wondering what the US is offering countries buying these aircraft. Japan was looking at both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being obviously a better fit for them in pretty much every way. Yet they went with the much more expensive and still not debugged F-35. Now Canada too.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan was looking at both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being obviously a better fit for them in pretty much every way.

I get what you're saying (since they asked for, and couldn't have the Raptor), but this is politics. The EU is not going to back Japan against China. The US, maybe. They're just cementing those ties.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Ost99]

Partly right, but still wrong.

You're right about them not being for dogfighting over Canadian territories, the F35 is not that kind of aircraft.
The F35 is a bomber that can run bombing missions without an escort (when not expecting to meet state of the art interceptors).

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[davecb]

I fear that corruption is starting to set in: the ex-Reform members who lead the current federal government used to hatewasting money. Now they're pissing it away it like drunken sailors.

Time for a change: either the party replaces the PM, or the voters replace the party.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Partly right, but still wrong.

You're right about them not being for dogfighting over Canadian territories, the F35 is not that kind of aircraft.
The F35 is a bomber that can run bombing missions without an escort (when not expecting to meet state of the art interceptors).

That's correct. So with all aircraft being replaced with F-35 who it going to keep the interceptors at bay?

Conclusion: F-35 is not a very capable plane. Dropping bombs without escort on the premise that you will 'not meet state of the art interceptors' is not a very hard thing is it? I'm sure that all of the competition for the F-35 can do that. And most of them can do the dog fighting too...

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget, which one is which. Between the F-22 and F-35 I recall one was actually worse than the other. And that one (or both?) had almost weird failures like they keep trying to kill their own pilots.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it has to do with supply chain, the reasonable thought that the US may maintain the platform longer (afterall, we still maintain WWII era aircraft), and that they can benefit from the massive amount of money the US will spend on the future to increase capabilities.

V1.0 of most US aircraft kind of stink, but by V10, or V20 they are very capable, and very mature. If you buy into the platform from the US you are almost guaranteed an upgrade path, easy logistics for parts/service, and of course the quid-pro-quo of US aid in exchange for buying our products.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear that corruption is starting to set in: the ex-Reform members who lead the current federal government used to hatewasting money.

Most the members of the Conservative Party are not a majority of former Reform Party members any more. The current crop of members of parliament (MPs) are from the old Progressive Conservative Party which was 100% in the pocket of the corporatists just as they are today. The abysmal treatment of the military in the aftermath of Afghanistan and World War II veterans has exposed their true allegiance.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep spreading your misinformed ignorance.. the people who actually *know* can't say enough good things about the technology and stats of this jet

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget, which one is which. Between the F-22 and F-35 I recall one was actually worse than the other. And that one (or both?) had almost weird failures like they keep trying to kill their own pilots.

They've developed HAL9000?

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[davecb]

Most the members of the Conservative Party are not a majority of former Reform Party members any more....

I don't think they ever were: it's the leadership that's ex-Reform, and who has been acting in direct contradiction to what they espouse to their electors.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[luis_a_espinal]

Japan was looking at both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being obviously a better fit for them in pretty much every way.

I get what you're saying (since they asked for, and couldn't have the Raptor), but this is politics. The EU is not going to back Japan against China. The US, maybe. They're just cementing those ties.

Bingo. I would suspect that Canada is doing the same since it might be enforcing its rights in the Arctic.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a beta tester for the NSA's new sarcasm detector?

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Hamsterdan]

Replace them with what party? Liberals?

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[davecb]

I was thinking about replacing the leaders, actually. Their party need to choose a new PM, real soon!

--dave
[How about the Pirate party?]

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Rixel]

Don't you sass talk about Winnipeg like that! Next year we will get into the playoffs for sure!

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's probably the most convincing argument I've ever heard.. Do you know what else could "run bombing missions without an escort (when not expecting to meet state of the art interceptors)"?

A damned B-29. Or to be more modern, a B-52 -- which carries a metric shit-ton more stuff than your F-35..

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe an informal promise not to invade?

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering what the US is offering countries buying these aircraft.

Canada and many other countries are 'owned/controlled by American money/corporations. They manipulate currency values to buy companies cheap, and sell for greater profit. The Prime Minister 'writes off' 5 billion owed in 'softwood lumber dispute' and purchases all sorts of crap that is tantamount to 'paying taxes to our American masters'. 10 minutes across the border at everyday retail stores like walmart, Lowes prices are HALF as much as they are in most of Canada. I'm 6 hours from the border, $150 in fuel return and it's still worthwhile to spend 12 hours on the road once your buying more than a few hundred in goods.

Canada sucks the big one... I'd beg that the US invade/annex us, but why would they when it's so much more profitable this way.

Take it from a Canadian who has traveled a bit;

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[NicBenjamin]

What are "your purposes"?

If you intend to defend Canada's borders then you really shouldn't buy any planes, because the only state that shares a land border with you will always be able to buy a better air force then you. Give the Rangers a bunch more explosives training, and then destroy all records with their names so the occupation. The RCAF, the Army, and the Navy are useless so they get fired.

If you intend to participate in any international missions at all a bunch of CF-18s aren't much use, because they're not stealth, which means that commanders will be reluctant to send them into dangerous situations, and they're not standard, which means that non-Canadian commanders will probably not know precisely when it is safe to send them in because said non-Canadians have never used the damn things before. You'll be Iceland, sending Major Herdis to Iraq.

Grippen or Raffelle would be ok if you really needed cheap, because they are common enough that even the densest Air Marshall could figure out how to use the damn things without spending three hours going over their specs. EuroFighter would be good option, as it's cheaper, un-American, and has a better operational record then F-35.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[NicBenjamin]

It's standard because it's American, and we a) spends money on the military, b) use our military abroad, and c) are just so very very big.

It's new.

It's American, and we have a much better aerial war record then any other country. Except perhaps the Brits, who are buying both F-35 and Eurofighter. You remember that old phrase "you don't get fired for buying IBM"? In military aircraft terms you don;t get fired for buying American.

If Obama says he's gonna spend money to work the bugs out they damn well know that money will be spent until the bugs are dead.

The "standard" argument is much more important then you'd think. High performance aircraft don't really have interchangeable parts, and the Japanese know that if the shit hit the fan they'd definitely have to share airfields with the US, and Australia; both of whom use the F-35. None of the Eurofighter customers are active in the Far East currently. The next most likely tier of combatants are Canada (pure F-35), the UK (both Eurofighter and F-35), and a bunch of states with extremely non-standard Air Forces. The Japanese probably figure that if they get the F-35 their squadrons will be interchangeable with all the other big/rich country squadrons, which will make getting spares to the place a lot simpler.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

The F35 is a multirole aircraft. I don't know why you think its limited to bombing the only aircraft I'd say is definitely an outright better superiority fighter is the F-22.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadian fuel companies must be slacking in their donations!

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Sarten-X]

A B-52 also lights up a radar like a Christmas tree.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Sarten-X]

That's correct. So with all aircraft being replaced with F-35 who it going to keep the interceptors at bay?

The F-22s, since they're not planned for replacement.

Dropping bombs without escort on the premise that you will 'not meet state of the art interceptors' is not a very hard thing is it?

No, it's not, and that's the whole point of "air superiority". An F-22-escorted bombing run can take out the airstrips and air capabilities of the enemy, then the F-35s can run missions to disrupt repairs. Those "state-of-the-art interceptors" won't be able to get off the ground. Even if they did, they wouldn't be able to dogfight, since they'd be shot down long before getting the F-35's into weapons range.

That's assuming, of course, that we're fighting in a place that even has state-of-the-art interceptors. At the moment, that's just the United States, since the F-22 isn't being exported and Russian and Chinese programs are still catching up to that.

I'm sure that all of the competition for the F-35 can do that. And most of them can do the dog fighting too...

Dogfighting is obsolete. Modern air warfare is now a dance of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, until one aircraft can get a missile locked on the other. That's the part that the older aircraft can't really do. Sure, F-18s are versatile, but they can't carry much payload. The A-10 is great for air support, but it flies like a brick. The Harriers are great for working on short and damaged runways, as long as you don't need to get anywhere else quickly.

Maybe if you took all of the good parts from older aircraft, mixed them together, and threw in modern stealth, missile, and countermeasure technology, then you'd have a good plane. Let's also not forget that by having only a single airframe design, it's easier to move parts and technicians around for maintenance. After all that... hey, look! It's the F-35!

The F-35 is designed to be a single replacement for all of the single-role craft that are becoming obsolete, with the latest stealth and warfare equipment added. It is not replacing the F-22, so it doesn't have to be a fantastic dogfighter. It's meant to deal with long-range threats are either too far away to hit it, or sitting on the ground. It's perfectly capable for that.

Re:No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the sneaking suspiscon that we're being fooled into buying this. Along the lines of a scalper though there is no resale...

Simple and correct

[Anonymous Coward]

What? No squirming around with half-assed alternatives?

Grats. Nice to witness a grown-up decision once or twice a lifetime.

REALLY STUPID Canada

[dltaylor]

What's wrong with a few SuperHornets? Extra survivability in case of an engine failure; both interception and ground attack (unlike the attack-only F35); easier to maintain; larger fuel capacity than the original Hornet; they actually FLY.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be too SENSIBLE !!! You're talking about Harper here .... :-(

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Best part is the acquisition process was just as criminal.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[jklovanc]

You mean the Superhornets that will be replaced by the F-35 leaving Canada yet again unable to us the US supply chain?

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Tablizer]

Canada can buy both. Because they largely avoided the mortgage crash due to sufficient buyer screening regulations, and because of oil profits, they have some shoppin' money.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of funny.

Canada was very lax for long time there when it came to housing (e.g., 0% down, 40 years amortization mortgages; bridge loans; etc.). Interest rates are still at record lows. Though inflation is only 3%, a lot of areas are seeing a 6-10% cost of living increase each year. Too many Canadians are overleveraged, though. At some point, we are going to have to decide between many bankruptcies and massive inflation.

Regarding oil, there is not a lot of revenue there. Companies can deduct capital expenses from the royalties they have to pay and the royalties were greatly decreased after the 2008 downturn, when oil hit around $45 a barrel. Alberta should be seeing a lot of benefit from the oilsands but, in reality, the province is not doing so well because it's not levying any taxes. On the federal level, premature tax cuts in 2006 put the country in a bad spot for the 2008 recession.

When the retail contraction is in full swing in the US, Canada will resemble the US in 2008.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

psst - the reason they had sufficient buyer screening is they don't have a large third-world population that are to be given loans they don't qualify for as affirmative action

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

As a yank who thinks a lot of our northern neighbors, I completely agree.

In addition, why couldn't they have requested a Super Hornet with the latest technology. I mean hell, the industry managed to whip up an F-16 'Super Viper' in an attempt to secure a contract with the Indian Air Force, so why not bolt some of the latest toys onto the Super Hornet?

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[johnnnyboy]

A lot of us Canadians agree.
The choice to keep it is purely political and I think we're locked in (trapped) after spending billions already. The billions spent already could have gotten us super hornets now and they would be already in service if we bought them. Why couldn't our prime minister just accept defeat on this issue?

The Superhornet is a much better sensible choice, it's more practical, cheaper and doesn't require much "retraining" of the staff. Already familiar with the aircraft.
It also meets more the the requirements than the F-35 does.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

You also forgot: not only easier maintenance generally, but a natural replacement in terms of training and maintenance for the regular CF-18A aircraft we already own (i.e. familiarity), and at easily half the price.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

> (unlike the attack-only F35)

Where are you coming up with that? The F-35 can carry the same AIM-120s the F-18's do and does so with a much more capable radar, greater range and higher speed.

The F-18E/F is a great aircraft but it was desinged to live on carrier decks and is lugging around a lot of extra landing gear and airframe the Canadians are never going to use. Given the ranges they want to fly and a desire to, you know, not get shot down the F-35 is actually a reasonable aircraft.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[schlachter]

what need does Canada have for F35s?
only thing I can think of is to jointly train with the US, and to interoperate with the US on joint missions.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[c]

What's wrong with a few SuperHornets?

Nothing. At this point it's got nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft.

I'm guessing that the people who originally pushed for the F-35 still haven't retired/been voted out, and hence any choice except the F-35 would mean they'd look like idiots.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[s122604]

The F35 is not ground-attack-only. I don't know why this keeps getting parroted.
This is not a comment on the issues surrounding its development/procurement process, it certainly has had its share, but if/when the platform reaches a mature state, it will be able to perform air-to-air missions just fine

Also the super-hornet is not "just as good"... no.. it is isn't...

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[schnell]

what need does Canada have for F35s?

My guess would be maintaining a credible ability to deter Russia from claiming disputedly Canadian Arctic territories and their associated mineral and gas resources. Russia has shown no compunctions about annexing new territories from countries which are unable to project force into them.

Or very aggressive moose hunting.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

hell yeah for the cost of one joke strike fighter we could upgrade the hornets,,,remember the a-10 is still dead

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[NicBenjamin]

"More of the requirements?" It doesn't really work like that.

For a Canadian nationalist like Harper the most important requirement is that it be useful for coalition military operations. Historically this has meant with the UK, but now it means NATO in general and the US in particular. Superhornets would be unique to the Canadian military, which would mean a coalition commander (who wouldn't be Canadian, because there's no way a guy whose only commanded Superhornets gets to command Eurofighters and F-35s) would have no idea the quirks of the aircraft. He'd either have to take a day out of his war planning to get really in depth with his Canadian squadron leaders, or he'd have to shuttle them off to some duty that is boring, necessary, and highly unlikely to get anyone killed. A country whose contribution to the coalition is "boring, necessary, and highly unlikely to result in anyone getting killed" does not get to sit with the President at the victory dinner.

Moreover it's really hard to imagine a modern air force, in an industrialized country, purposefully buying an aircraft without stealth capabilities. F-35 can kill a Superhornet before the Superhornet knows it's there. Who gives a shit about acceleration? You might as well be asking about turning speed, which was a highly critical design spec for a fighter aircraft in the 30s.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[NicBenjamin]

what need does Canada have for F35s?
only thing I can think of is to jointly train with the US, and to interoperate with the US on joint missions.

Which is kinda the entire point of the Canadian Air Force.

If you're in NATO you probably don't have the money to buy an effective military because you're too small. If you're large enough to afford said military (ie: the UK, Italy, etc.) you probably don;t bother because you've got Uncle Sam in your corner.

I could see a point in the Canadians buying Eurogfighters or even Grippens, but not a totally unique aircraft.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Tablizer]

That's a myth.

Re:REALLY STUPID Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-35 isn't going to replace Super Hornets. They're going to replace older F/A-18 models. Super Hornets will continue to be actively used by the U.S. military, and we might even see a few more orders by the Navy. Australia has ordered more Super Hornets, and Boeing is pushing for a large export market.

If you're a believer in UAVs (I'm not necessarily sold), then the F-35 is a dead-end anyway. The development time on UAVs is shorter, with fewer constraints, and the production cheaper, so it's entirely possible that in 15-20 years there will be UAVs with performance far greater than the F-35 in every respect. So arguably all we need is a fighter good enough to get us to the age of UAVs, and realistically the Super Hornet and successors will be able to out-class anything the Chinese and Russians can put in the air for at least 15 years.

Canada following Australia

[Neo-Rio-101]

Only recently in Australia did the government suggest that it was going to purchase the F-35 as well. This all became clear in the same budget that suggested raising the pension age to 70 and an increase in taxes, and prompted much outrage.

Despite the flaws in the F-35, this purchase seems to be more of a five-eyes strategic thing, than it is any burning need to buy these planes.

Re:Canada following Australia

[jonwil]

No, the Australians bought into (and bought) the F-35 under previous governments. The announcement from Abbot was that they were going to buy MORE F-35s.

Re:Canada following Australia

[khallow]

This all became clear in the same budget that suggested raising the pension age to 70 and an increase in taxes, and prompted much outrage.

It's pretty much a universal developed world problem that pensions pay out too much and governments run large deficits. Everyone will need to raise their pension ages and raise their taxes/cut spending.

Re:Canada following Australia

[epine]

Everyone will need to raise their pension ages and raise their taxes/cut spending.

Alternatively, we could roll back our immense gains in life-expectancy. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The problem seems to be that human nature is willing to work very hard for $20 (if that pays for breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or for a $20 million xmas bonus (if that's your second vacation home) but we're all pretty slack-assed when motivated by any sum in between.

Re:Canada following Australia

[ColdWetDog]

Alternatively, we could roll back our immense gains in life-expectancy.

I suppose we could start using all of those F-35s.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Neo-Rio-101]

Yes, the RAAF have had a long working history with Lockheed.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

this purchase seems to be more of a five-eyes strategic thing, than it is any burning need to buy these planes.

There IS a burning need to give protection money to the corporate overlords though.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit sherlock.
Somebody has to pay for Lockheed's R&D bill to cover them for their collossol fuckup on the f35 project.
I'm certain that the democratic interests of the citizenry is going to be overlooked and ignored.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Harlequin80]

Absolutely right. You simply cannot have more of your life spent not working then you do working. Think about it. You work from age 21* to 65 or 45 years. During that time you average paying 30% of your income in tax. You then live to 90. That means you spend 46 years not working. That 46 years needs to be funded in some way and the maths simply doesn't work. That 30% tax had to cover all those things we like, such as roads. There isn't much of it left. So unless you saved 50% of your take home during your working life you are a net cost across your life.

The whole idea of retirement was introduced by a German called Otto von Bismark. When it was introduced at the age of 65 it was ABOVE the current life expectancy. However we have extended our lives but not extended the retirement age. It is just plain dumb.

I am 34, by the time I get to retirement it should be at least 70.....

* assuming tertiary education

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right. You simply cannot have more of your life spent not working then you do working. Think about it. You work from age 21* to 65 or 45 years. During that time you average paying 30% of your income in tax. You then live to 90. That means you spend 46 years not working. That 46 years needs to be funded in some way and the maths simply doesn't work. That 30% tax had to cover all those things we like, such as roads. There isn't much of it left. So unless you saved 50% of your take home during your working life you are a net cost across your life.

The whole idea of retirement was introduced by a German called Otto von Bismark. When it was introduced at the age of 65 it was ABOVE the current life expectancy. However we have extended our lives but not extended the retirement age. It is just plain dumb.

I am 34, by the time I get to retirement it should be at least 70.....

* assuming tertiary education

What you're missing is that we didn't get an extra 45 healthy years. We got 45 years of steady decline into a rickety medical monstrousity. Most people aren't fit to work at 60 and no one wants to hire anyone over 50. So your solution is very much "let them eat cake" only instead of cake it's excrement - "let the old people work like young and fit"

In any case by your reasoning if you don't work till the day you die you're a slacker. Would you like an 80 year old surgeon operating on you? Or an 80 year old mechanic fixing your brakes?

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

That 46 years needs to be funded in some way ...

That increase in longevity was meant to be a general increase in vitality. Unfortunately, the slowdown of aging hasn't occurred and body is still wasted by 35-45 years of labour. If anything, we are now suffering diseases of affluence like diabetes and heart attack. The prediction that a working week would have fewer hours hasn't materialized. In most employment sectors, working hours have actually increased. Which means the option of increasing the working week to fund retirement isn't available.

In my country there was the pension tax as part of income tax. Then the government added superannuation, after the government takes their cut, of course. Then the mandatory superannuation rate was frozen at 9% by the pro-business government instead of being 12% like the previous government planned. It has stayed like that for a few decades. I think a report recently said a superannuation rate of (something like) 25% was needed to maintain an employee's current lifestyle for predicted life expectancy. Now the government is trying to gut the superannuation scheme. The problem being the scheme has generous caps. So if one can afford to sink $55,000 a year (which should be 9% of one's annual income, remember,) into retirement, one can actually have more money by retiring than by going to work. Plus one gets all the pensioner discounts. But for the rest of us, taxes and inflation turn a nest egg into chicken feed.

Re:Canada following Australia

[flyingfsck]

"I am 34, by the time I get to retirement it should be at least 70....."
Spoken like a true optimist.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Royal Australian Air Farce, then?

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people aren't fit to work at 60

Yes they are. They might not be doing the most physical of work but there's plenty of work that doesn't involve going down pit or the equivalent.

and no one wants to hire anyone over 50.

Probably because of ignorance like the first comment. This is a big problem but it will have to change (assuming we want the economy to work).

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct that pensions cost money.

Incorrect running a budget defecit is not bad. Its not even inflationary in a non-capacity constrained 'fiat' currency system.
You do actually know the 'money' to pay for these things in Australia will be created as part of a 'foward estimates' cycle. Hence the currency issuing mechanism the Australian central bank will type a number in a keyboard for that money and it is created.

Why governments choose to label a 'defecit' as bad is all rubbish they ARE the currency issuing entity and are NOT constrained like the private sector they cannot go bankrupt and their 'fiat' currency has value because they are modern economies with efficient / high GDP's. (no gold standard here)

But better to actually understand history properly for example the 'new deal' which got the world out of the 1930's depression or the 'marshall plan' to rebuild europe than go with tryingto kill old people and increasing the number of unemployed (an output gap) but not believing this if it involves buying some questionable fighter jets!

Re:Canada following Australia

[camperdave]

Absolutely right. You simply cannot have more of your life spent not working then you do working.

Nonsense. You're thinking like a peasant. There are other ways to earn money than working for it.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

who failed math?

65 + 46 != 91

Re:Canada following Australia

[khallow]

Life's too short to mess with economic quackery. For example, if the New Deal were enough to get the world out of the 1930's Depression then why didn't the world actually get out of that Depression until the rebuilding (of the Marshall plan era) after the Second World War well after the New Deal ended? The Marshall plan worked, but don't confuse it with the New Deal.

And if the Australian central bank actually is creating money by typing numbers into keyboards, then that is inflationary. You just don't happen to notice that it is.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

You simply cannot have more of your life spent not working then you do working.

There's no theoretical reason why not. Consider a hypothetical world where robots do almost all the work with humans just flicking a few switches overseeing the robots.

Re:Canada following Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

The RAAF has not even shot an aircraft down since the Korean War. RCAF??

Re:Canada following Australia

[mjwx]

Only recently in Australia did the government suggest that it was going to purchase the F-35 as well. This all became clear in the same budget that suggested raising the pension age to 70 and an increase in taxes, and prompted much outrage.

Despite the flaws in the F-35, this purchase seems to be more of a five-eyes strategic thing, than it is any burning need to buy these planes.

Yes, but the increase in taxes and the pension age was to pay for Abbott's parental leave system and tax cut to his corporate friends.

The F35 purchase isn't a bad thing considering the way we use our military. Small policing actions in the Pacific. We dont expect to have to face anything stronger than the air force of Tonga and the possibility of operating the F35 off the new Canberra class assault ships.

If it comes to a real shooting war with someone who can fight back (I.E. China or India) then it will be up to the planes we build, not the planes we have... and those planes will likely be drones.

Re:Canada following Australia

[mjwx]

No, the Australians bought into (and bought) the F-35 under previous governments. The announcement from Abbot was that they were going to buy MORE F-35s.

The original process goes all the way back to the Howard govt prior to 2006.

But this is not really a political decision. It's been pushed by the military and both Liberal and Labor politicians have just rubber stamped it.

Wow, I'm so proud

[Anonymous Coward]

While Harper's cock, pushed by his corporate puppet masters, goes deeper into the average Joe's rectum, I'm super happy that my taxes are going to China via tar sands AND corporate welfare in the USA.

OHHH!!! CANADAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

The USA - biggest arms dealer in the world

[mwu]

http://www.globalissues.org/ar...

but hey, they are trying to be more ethical ...

http://lubbockonline.com/world...

What a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

The wrong plane for the wrong war in the wrong hands. Canada needs a low observable first strike aircraft like the NSA needs another scandal.

I'll say it again, the Super Hornet is the perfect aircraft for us. Sort of similar, cheaper and it's good enough for the US Navy...

The real question is who is behind the F35 welfare program that the Canadian government is gleefully embarking on and where are the kick backs?

Re:What a mistake

[AHuxley]

Yes what Canada needs is a cheap aircraft. Cheap to work on, cheap to fly and cheap to buy many more.
The crews can then get many more hours in and work well as a team.
Why play with one jet ready to fly per location when Canada could have its crews getting lots of real flight time on many more aircraft.
Real flight time as a team is what builds any airforce. Not simulators, not rationed hours only for the very best.
Day, night, low level, complex mission over a longer time without the stress of having to return to save on parts costs, give another pilot a share.
As for US exporting sensors, weapons systems, and advanced networking - Canada and Australia should know better by now.
They will get computer help to take off, fly, land and a system to help with next gen missiles - all US export grade and as limited as any past systems where for their generation.
As for stealth, if the other nation has a good spread of Russian, Chinese and EU radars - one will see the expensive jets at some setting.
The US hope that the act of turning radar on is never going to be an issue. Many nations have had years to consider that very complex problem :)

And a HAPPY 70th D-DAY ANNIVERSARY to a!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And especially to you Frau Merkel. You did look awful funny walking on stage with the Allies.

You don't have to attack the American Empire

[plopez]

Just sit back and wait for it to bankrupt itself. Than after it collapses move in and pick up the pieces.

Re:You don't have to attack the American Empire

[currently_awake]

And where will all the Republicans move to once that happens? Bad enough having to listen to them on TV without them buying the house next door.

Re:You don't have to attack the American Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

How do Obama's balls taste today, fruity?

Re:You don't have to attack the American Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicians seem rather fixated on Obama. Now they're focusing on his genitals. Closet homolust hypothesis confirmed.

Re:You don't have to attack the American Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you trying to turn what is fundamentally a non-partisan problem into a partisan one? I'm not claiming the Republicans are blameless, as they're certainly at fault. But things will never improve as long as people like you put all fault on them. You are quite literally ignoring half the problem.

But hey, anything to try to get up modded, right?

P.S. You aren't clever.

I think its a conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

They want everyone to think the F35's suck but secrete classified tests show them shooting down alien ships in low earth orbit and shooting the fly's off a cows arse at mach 10 all while syncing your ipod and massaging your balls

Re:I think its a conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

They want everyone to think the F35's suck but secrete classified tests show them shooting down alien ships in low earth orbit and shooting the fly's off a cows arse at mach 10 all while syncing your ipod and massaging your balls

I was going to get it, but if its ipod only I don't know :(

Really stupid Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding what the F-35 is doing and where the 'can't fly' comments are coming from. Basically, your average current F-16 and F/A-18 are still very maneuverable jets. They're relatively light when flown clean and so they are still competitive in this configuration. In order for these planes to go to war effectively, you need to hang a whole pile of mission equipment off of them. IR and laser designator pods, weapons, extra fuel. This makes them heavy, draggy, and slow.

F-35s carry a lot of fuel and all of their mission equipment internally to preserve stealth. It also means it is less heavy, draggy and slow because the jet is aerodynamically clean when it is flown operationally.

For a very narrow suite of missions, this means you are carrying some stuff you don't need. For America, these missions will typically be F-15/F-22 territory. For every other set of missions it is much more efficient than any other strike fighter out there because it won't have as much reliance on external tanks or airborne tankers.

I'm not saying it doesn't have it's problems. It's stealth is only refined in the forward hemisphere. It is expensive and I feel it is forcing countries to adopt smaller fleet sizes to buy it. It does IMO feature design compromises that are forced upon it from being a close to common a tri-service, VTOL capable jet. But, the politicians did that, not the designers.

Re:Really stupid Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a very narrow suite of missions, this means you are carrying some stuff you don't need. For America, these missions will typically be F-15/F-22 territory. For every other set of missions it is much more efficient than any other strike fighter out there because it won't have as much reliance on external tanks or airborne tankers.

The recently developed "Advanced" variant of the Super Hornet has "a 50% reduction in frontal radar cross-section (RCS), conformal fuel tanks (CFT), and an enclosed weapons pod" (last paragraph of the section):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Improvements_and_changes

At about half the price, I think it's a value-for-money proposition. Canada could probably buy 100 F-18Es, and still have money left over compared to buying 65 F-35s.

Re:Really stupid Canada?

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Oops. Lots of mistakes.

I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding what the F-35 is doing and where the 'can't fly' comments are coming from. Basically, your average current F-16 and F/A-18 are still very maneuverable jets. They're relatively light when flown clean and so they are still competitive in this configuration. In order for these planes to go to war effectively, you need to hang a whole pile of mission equipment off of them. IR and laser designator pods, weapons, extra fuel. This makes them heavy, draggy, and slow.

Most modern competion (Typhoon, Rafale just to name two) have IR on board. Remark that not all versions of the F-35 have a gun standard on board, for some it must be mounted externally. As for fuel: the typhoon e.g. can do more on it's internal tanks than the F-35.

F-35s carry a lot of fuel and all of their mission equipment internally to preserve stealth. It also means it is less heavy, draggy and slow because the jet is aerodynamically clean when it is flown operationally.

No. Even in full combat mode the competition like Typhoon and Rafale (I refer to these since I know them best) are faster, more manouverable and have a better thrust to weight ratio (by a considerable margin). This translates in better acceleration and much higher top speeds (your 'clean' F-35 can reach only mach 1.6 because it is quite draggy).

I'm not saying it doesn't have it's problems. It's stealth is only refined in the forward hemisphere. It is expensive and I feel it is forcing countries to adopt smaller fleet sizes to buy it. It does IMO feature design compromises that are forced upon it from being a close to common a tri-service, VTOL capable jet. But, the politicians did that, not the designers.

I think the biggest problem is this: the internal weaponsbay has only 4 internal weapons points in 2 internal bays. So if one bay if filled with a bomb you 1) expect to hit your target from the first time and you are betting your mission on that and 2) you have only 2 (that's two. One two) missiles to defend yourself.
If that's not sufficient? Then you will need the external pylons.

There goes your stealth. There goes your 'clean configuration'. There goes your 'first shot' and 'we don't need to be agile' attitude.

Re:Really stupid Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect: this figher does not have 'range' compare this to an SU-27 for example. This fighter is slow and needs its stealth to get in close range to deliver its weapons. And it needs as much support as non stealth 4th generation aircraft. If all goes well it STILL needs a lot of support for missions even if its missiles and fuel is internal.

Now thats all very well until the next generation of missiles are available to shoot it out of the sky. The effectiveness of theis fighter at astronomical cost was supposed to be its avionics system which still doesnt work. As we all know 'stealth' is relative to the type of radar system and all stealth planes can be detected by the correct type of radar. Eg: radar that reflects down of the isonisphere detects all stealth aircraft.

Meanwhile the russian/chinese next gen aircraft are only 'foward' stealth but will have longer range/ higher altitude/faster and if the missiles work well will be superior to the f22.

Re:Really stupid Canada?

[schlachter]

it's only got a 600 mile mission range w/ out a refuel.
it can carry external fuel and weapons, and will likely do so for many missions.

Re:Really stupid Canada?

[AC15]

Yes you can cram all the mission hardware in the fuselage but that makes it fat which also increases drag and enormously increases complexity. There's no free lunch. It also means that hardware upgrades will be orders of magnitude more expensive. It will destroy their Air Force by eventually sucking up all of their available training and operational resources. But that's no surprise.

The primary mission of the F-35 is to spend money. Anyone who has thought about trying to combine a Corvette with a pickup truck with a front loader understands what an utterly ridiculous idea this airplane represents. It can be shredded by a 50's era dog fighter and is way too expensive and has way too little capacity as a bomb truck. Beyond visual range engagements will stop the second you down a friendly radar blip rather than an enemy one. All summarized with professional clarity and detail here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The only mission this plane excels at is funneling money to Lockheed and their sub-contractors. Canada is probably buying it because that's the price of staying under the US nuclear umbrella. And, go figure, they have corrupt politicians too.

Re:Really stupid Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's not sufficient? Then you will need the external pylons.

Or extra planes. I believe they don't tend to operate alone.

As many problems as the F35 has

[Ecuador]

It is probably better than the crap the Canadians got after scrapping the Avro Arrow. Of course the F35 is very expensive as well... Oh, well...

Re:As many problems as the F35 has

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you stunned? The CF-18 is an excellent fighter plane and the Super Hornet would have been a much better purchase than the F-35 for Canadian defence needs.

Re:As many problems as the F35 has

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you stunned? The CF-18 is an excellent fighter plane and the Super Hornet would have been a much better purchase than the F-35 for Canadian defence needs.

But the F-35 is the replacement for the Super Hornet. How does Canada keep their Super Hornets flying after everyone else retires them?

Re:As many problems as the F35 has

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no and just Fuck no! The was intended as a replacement for the Hornet the Super Hornet is a newer and much improved version of the Hornet.

Re:As many problems as the F35 has

[Ecuador]

What are you talking about? The CF-18 Hornet is an 80's plane. I was talking about 1959 when Canada canceled their homegrown and quite advanced Avro Arrow and ended up paying dearly a fleet of US planes which were obsolete shortly after they were bought (McDonnel "Voodoo").

How will history judge the F-35?

[steveha]

Sometimes a new thing looks like a disaster for a while, but in the long run proves itself. The M-16 rifle is a tremendously successful design, but there were issues with the first models that made it look like a huge mistake.

So I am watching the F-35 and I am wondering: will this be as big a disaster as the nay-sayers claim, or will this work out in the long run?

I'm guessing it will limp along as a middle-of-the-road thing: not a complete horrible disaster, just a really expensive airplane that doesn't live up to its expectations.

Also, I have read that it is intended that a bunch of F-35s will share data with each other, and help each other detect and deal with threats; but the giant costs of the program have made it much less likely that enough F-35s will fly together at one time for this to work out.

One thing I am certain about: It's a mistake to try to replace the A-10 Warthog with F-35s. I don't even understand how the F-35 is supposed to do the same mission.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Sycraft-fu]

Probably a little of both. In the long run, it is likely to be an amazing jet. Pilots say the thing is just amazingly capable, and near impossible to fight against. So while it is expensive, it pays for itself in terms of a force multiplier. Like say it could take enemy jets 11:1 which cost 10% of the price (I'm not saying it can, just say). It is actually superior then, since you spend less on it. Even more so because you keep your people safe and that has all kinds of repercussions.

However, it isn't very likely to be needed. A major conflict against another large power is pretty much out of the question and barring that, the jets already available are more than fine. So it is going to be a big pricey powerful toy, that does a job expensively that something else could do much cheaper.

Also the cost could potentially equalize out a bit in the long run if everybody uses them. If lots of services from lots of nations use them, that'll help reduce the over all cost.

So my guess is it'll be seen as just another jet in the long run, nothing particularly disastrous, or particularly great.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-16 was lambasted when it was first introduced, and it turned out well. Also, the USAF is going to buy almost 1800 of the things, I think they will have enough to make the data link useful.

As for the A-10 thing, it basically comes down to them asking, "what the hell are we going to do when the A-10 retires, since we have no replacement for it". They might have to use the F-35 just because there wont be anything else.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[timeOday]

One thing I am certain about: It's a mistake to try to replace the A-10 Warthog with F-35s. I don't even understand how the F-35 is supposed to do the same mission.

That's like asking how a rifle can possibly replace a pike, since it can't do the same thing. The F35's sensors and guided munitions are multiple generations more advanced, so it does the same mission from well outside of gun/eyeball range.

All these posts comparing the F35 to much older aircraft like the F18 on the basis of airframe are clueless. It's all about the sensors, weapons, and comms. The part you can see from the outside is just to get you there. (Of course, stealth and mach 1+ without afterburners helps with getting there, too).

Having a fly-off of the F35 against (what exactly?) is like having a race between a Corvette and a Ford Torus. That doesn't necessarily mean the Corvette is a better solution for your needs, and it may well not be a better value. But the differences are big enough to be obvious. Weigh them and make a choice.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[mirix]

Canadian jets don't use weapons though, so more advanced ones don't provide any improvement.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-35s suffer a fundamental design flaw: the wide body. The wide body is needed to accommodate the VTOL that the marines wanted but it really fucks up performance. Most any 4.5 gen craft should be able to outperform it handily, and at a much reduced price.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why the M-16 is still in use to be honest. It's a rather boring weapon, and a pretty old design too. I appreciate that it's stood the test of time kinda like the AK-47 and I appreciate good design, plus I'm sure it's still capable of putting holes in Arabs with good accuracy and range, but come on - we've got newer firearms like the FN SCAR designed with modern techniques and firearms understanding and are just plain cooler looking (which I know doesn't mean much for military procurement reasons but it's a bonus at least when you're out killing brown people for politicians). /sidetrack

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[AHuxley]

The last of the gold plated, profit earning, export winners before the first good drones.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[purpledinoz]

There's no reason why the F-35 shouldn't work well. Just drop that stupid vertical takeoff requirement and tell the US Marine Corps to work together with the Air Force. That would have dropped the development costs significantly.

The real question is, what are actually the Canadian Air Force requirements? I seriously doubt that Canada needs stealth strike fighters to patrol the remote north. Who's radar do they want to evade? What really irks me is that the so called conservative government wants to blow a shit load of tax payer's money for some military toys, and without properly evaluating all the options. I'm pretty sure the Super Hornet is better suited for the Canadian Air Force, and is half the price! Win win right? I thought the conservatives were supposed to be conservative with money too? I guess conservative now means, cut spending on social programs and science, cut taxes for the rich, reduce environmental regulation, increase military spending, increase the deficit. I do realize there might be some political pressure from the US to buy into this disaster. Harper should just grow some balls and tell them to fuck off.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[aliquis]

" I guess conservative now means, cut spending on social programs and science, cut taxes for the rich, reduce environmental regulation, increase military spending, increase the deficit."

What have it meant before really?

The same + be a religious idiot?

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[NoKaOi]

One thing I am certain about: It's a mistake to try to replace the A-10 Warthog with F-35s. I don't even understand how the F-35 is supposed to do the same mission.

The F-35's primary mission is to make Lockheed Martin shitloads of money (the secondary missions being to make its subcontractors shitloads of money, and get politicians shitloads of campaign contributions). Since the A-10 is not made by Lockheed Martin (or anybody else anymore), the F-35 will be infinitely more successful at its mission.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[WinstonWolfIT]

Do you really think China's ambitions are going to end well? Honestly?

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not going to beat 11:1 odds unless they neatly line up, even 5 J-10's jumping a F-35 would be disastrous for the JSF, if it would engage it wouldnt have enough missles to take them on, whilst in gun-range it would get bagged quickly if it again wouldnt run.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest upgrades for the A-10(C version) gave it all those capabilities, target and data sharing between flights, long range sensor pods with multiple displays in the cockpit, almost 360 target retention, longer standoff range, and a excellent loiter time, which really is what you need in a ground pounder. The F-35 will have a role like the F-16, come in with 2 MK-84 bombs, drop them and burn away. A F-16 doesnt loiter at all.

The A-10 on top of this has a gun designed to scratch tanks, fighters dont have this at all.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The replacement for the A-10 better be a drone. The Warthog is flying around with a literally a ton of armor to protect the pilot, none of which would be necessary if the pilot was 100+ miles away. The point of CAS is to fly weapons close to a heavily armed opponent, and you really don't want your soldiers to do so. Same reason we use guns instead of swords, really.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[BadDreamer]

There is rather a huge difference with a low unit cost assault rifle, which can be retooled or replaced with ease, and a modern fighter aircraft in general.

And the F35 is not in the middle lane of complexity of modern fighter aircrafts, it is leading the pack, both mechanically and electronically.

Further, the M16 core design was good (apart from the still present problem of direct gas actuation of the receiver bolt) and implementations details were the problem. The F35 is by design a compromise between competing demands. It is by design built, from the ground up, to not do any task well.

It has a body designed to accept the fan the Marines want to get sort-of VTOL capacity. This cripples it in other roles.

It has a half-baked stealth system, because of the fan and other trade-offs, and when in stealth it can't carry more load than an F15 rebuilt for stealth - an airplane costing much, much less in acquisition and operation.

And a pointy-nose in general is horrible for CAS. Almost no time over target, too little armor to go low and use direct fire weapons efficiently and too high speed to perform observation and guidance. The F35 solves none of those problems, except the speed one in the Marine version, but that plane is even more fragile than the non-fan version making it terrible for a CAS role.

There is no way to change that downstream on aircraft which are already built. The F35 will cripple US air capability, not directly because of its own problems directly, but because it removes aircraft more suited for the roles due to eating up their budget.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[BadDreamer]

Avionics can be - and constantly are - upgraded. The block 60 F16 is just as advanced in the sensors and guided munitions as the F35 at a fraction of the cost, and with a superior airframe.

The point of the F35 is not advanced avionics - those are easy to replace and upgrade - but to lower cost through more common parts in the aircrafts while retaining airframe capability. And that is not what they're getting anymore.

So now the F35 is all about generating jobs in various states so the senators will keep the budget for it going. There are no technical advantages of the F35 program left.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The f35 cannot do the mission the a-10 does. It can take out some ground targets, sure. But it can't do CAS. It's not designed for it. They could upgrade the A-10 or it's munitions, but they won't. The chair force is far more concerned with the feelings of the pilots and how having to do something as mundane as protect ground troops makes them feel when others are screaming around dogfighting. Think of the poor bruised pilot egos!

The army really should just seize the A-10s and maintain them themselves. No on in the air-force wants them or wants to do that job.

As for the sensor package on the 35. Do some googling. I think Boeing showed how they could take that same package and shove it into a 15-e for something like a third the price. Plus, the airframe is already proven.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

So full of dumb propaganda... Poor guy. Just think on this little piece of information: How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)? And that IF he can avoid the missiles of 11 enemies, who assuming Flankers, will be better armed and far more able to maneuver than the F-35. But keep thinking so, exchange all your fighters for F-35's. Will be much easier to kick the ass of the the U.S. in a war if that happens.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

The A-10 can fly slowly enough to stay for a long period at the site of action, can continue flying even being heavily damaged and have a cannon capable of destroying tanks. Put an F-35 in the same scenario and it would be a fireball in the sky in a few minutes.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

A major conflict against another large power is pretty much out of the question

Lets hope Russia and China agree with you.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[NJRoadfan]

The problem with the A-10 is that its already built and flying. That doesn't generate tons of money for defense contractors and politicians like developing a new aircraft does. The F-35 has the same compromise that every "one size fits all" design has. It does everything "OK", but not as well as a purpose built aircraft could and costs a ton of money to achieve it.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I believe its the UK that wants VTOL, I think the US marines wanted STOL.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

>One thing I am certain about: It's a mistake to try to replace the A-10 Warthog with F-35s. I don't even understand how the F-35 is supposed to do the same mission.

The A10 can't do that mission either, at least not without sustaining losses the US public won't tolerate (or the logistical cost of keeping them in the air). The truth is that CAS these days takes place at 20k AGL and up because manpads are scary and no one wants to see downed airmen on CNN getting the crap beat out of them.

The F35 is, in many ways, more survivable and better equipped for the CAS and interdiction missions we're likely to face then the A-10.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The A-10 flys low and slowly enough to make it susceptible to ground fire to begin with, even from unguided guns and RPGs, and that's assuming that it can make it to the action in time to matter. A B1 at fl40 can cover a hell of a lot more ground in a hurry.

The GAU-8's anti-tank capabilities are pretty dubious against quasi-modern tank. F-16's carry mavericks just as well as A10s.

The A-10 is subject to much myth and legend about it's capabilities. It's not the wonder CAS asset it's made out to be. In contested airspace it's lifespan is going to be a hell of a lot shorter then an F-35.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Royal Navy plans to only use them for STOL. It's the US Marines who are having to upgrade their ships' decks to withstand the pounding of VTOL usage.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the armour is only about two thirds of a ton, not counting structural or airfoil elements that are built heavier than necessary to add to protection.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then the US Navy is sure buying a lot of "Ford Torus": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Operators

The best part is the end where you shoot your own argument in the head. Price and mission profile.

Yes the F35 is a big shiny toy with top of the line "might work someday" instruments...Here is the problem...wait for it...Canada is a big country with the Arctic and three oceans to patrol in peace time and the F35 is a single engine short range aircraft. We bought the original F18 Hornets the F35 would replace BECAUSE they were larger, dual engine, longer range. Ever have a flame out over the high arctic? Want that to be your only engine? Didn't think so. FYI the F16 was considered when we were looking at the F18 Hornet and it lost. See any similarities there? F18 vs F16 then and F18E/F vs F35 now (the F22 is just out of our price range like the F15 would have been then)?

I won't even go into price and the fact that Canada will never be first in needing low observable first strike capability. We fly over the high arctic and north a LOT. That should be enough reason to pick a different aircraft. People go to the Super Hornet first simply because it is what we would be most familiar with having operated the Hornet for 30 years.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[darkmeridian]

The wild card with the F-35 is whether or not its avionics will be outstanding enough to make up for a relatively crappy jet. The self-defense detection packages are integrated into the body of the aircraft, and is more advanced than even its F-22 counterpart. The stealth and flight performance may be lacking, but earlier detection and evasion of enemy threats along with earlier lock-on/launch may prove a decisive encounter in air-to-air or air-to-ground fights. If the data-link works as promised, then shooting at a flight of F-35s might prove to be a stupid idea because the wingman can lock on without emitting any radiation using data provided by another aircraft.

So it depends. On the other hand, we'll probably be fighting countries without air forces or only rudimentary air defense systems. The star of the show in a denied area will probably be drones carrying jamming systems or even anti-radiation missiles. Sure, you can turn on your radar to try to detect stealth aircraft, but this undetectable stealth drone is floating around ready to pop you if you do so.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know next to nothing about this, but are you saying that the F-35 won't carry munitions which could take out a tank? I'm assuming that the slowly flying over an area part of the job is better done by small cheap (relatively) drones, while the F-35 would take out the tank from a distance. At least that's what the GP seems to suggest.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[camperdave]

True, but one could also devise a scenario that favours the F-35's capabilities over the A-10's and it will be the A-10 that will be the fireball.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[s122604]

If the A-10 ever flies in a combat mission with an enemy well supplied with the latest generation MANPADS (greatly enhanced warheads that can easily penetrate its armor, counter-countermeasures, etc) it is Toast.
the Airforce knows this, even if its fanboys do not
A faster, stealthier design at least has a fighting chance.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[hey!]

Well, if you look at the initial failures if the M16 and F35 as black boxes, this seems like a reasonable analogy. On the other hand if you open up the black boxes to see what actually happened, the analogy falls apart.

The M16 rifle's initial failure was due to deploying it with different ammunition than it was designed for. The ammunition used powder that was incompatible. Also, soldiers were told (incorrectly) that the M16 was self-cleaning. If the F35 were failing for an analogous reasons, those reasons would be something like using the wrong jet fuel and telling crews to skip normal maintenance.

If you open up the the F35 failure box, you see something different. You see difficulties getting all the critical features working on the most complex weapons system ever devised. You also see a program that is by design too bit to fail or even scale back much. A program whose cancellation would be the single largest economic and technical failure in military procurement history. From an engineering standpoint this is all "here be dragons" territory. We're off the map, and that means estimates of when we will get where we intend to go are mere speculation.

So this isn't like the M16, in which the introduction of a demonstrably sound design was bungled. We're talking about committing the defense of a nation to a weapon that has never successfully demonstrated the capabilities it needs to have. We're even retiring critical, proven weapon systems in order to make way for this thing. When have we ever done anything like that before?

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[MouseR]

Still way more expensive than a EuroFighter. But Canada's close ties with US Gov would have made a EuroFighter awkward for our relations. Despite NATO.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

You are this dumb? Oh, a AC, sorry. Flying low and slow in a close air support mission is a requirement dude, not a choice of chance. If you fly too fast you have only 1 or 2 seconds (maybe not even that) to aim at the target before passing over it and having to maneuver to have another chance to shoot (which consumes time, fuel and leaves you vulnerable to counterattacks).

And a conventional fighter can not fly close to the ground because any small gun well pointed can bring him down from the sky. That's what you put armor on a A10. Does not make it "indestructible" of course, but it increases your chances considerably against antiaircraft fire. Finally, an A-10 have wings build to be highly maneuverable at low speeds (which also helps to avoid enemy fire), something that you simply can't put in a fighter made for speed as an F-35.

But, the point: The point is that is stupid to exchange specialized aircraft that do very well their missions by an aircraft that is not capable of doing well none of these missions. A F35 would not be able to face a Flanker on an air-to-air mission and also would not be able survive a mission of close support, because he is a jack of all trades and master of none.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably won't kill 11 enemies in one run, true. But the stealth and maneuverability of the F-35 should mean that it can avoid the other missiles, and it is more maneuverable than the enemy planes.

It's also not supposed to be a dogfighter; that's what the F-22 is for.

Ha - no country on the planet will beat the US in a large-scale conflict in the foreseeable future. Don't kid yourself.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

An F-35 (and any fighter aircraft) can evade a MANPAD using speed of course, but will not be able to do the close support mission exactly because of the speed. And as a footnote, radar invisibility will not be any good if you are flying close to the ground (to successfully fulfill the mission of close support) and be hit by a well placed shot from light gunfire.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

He could carry the necessary armament of course, the problem is to survive the mission. Fighters were made to face other fighters well far from the ground, were not made for go into a hell of antiaircraft fire near the ground.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

You missed the point. For a close air support mission, the A10 is ideal. But of course it would be stupid to put a A10 to face fighters, for a air-to-air mission you would use F18 or F22. You should use the best tool for each job, rather than trying to use a hammer for everything.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

Coooff!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laughs :-)

Serious, are you this dumb too? You managed to contradict himself in your own commentary! How it would be more maneuverable than the enemy fighters if it is not a dogfighter?

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[joe_frisch]

Is it a race between a Corvette and a Taurus, or is it a comparison of two different designs of battleships? I don't think the problem with the F35 is that it is a bad plane, but that it may not be a good weapon for 21st century wars.

  It might be a great weapon if China decides to invade Taiwan with thousand of troop ships, but that doesn't seem likely. Far more likely that China would use a combination of economic pressure, support of internal rebellions, cyber warfare, and possibly drones if they wanted control of Taiwan. Iraq has shown that while a technological advanced country can easily defeat the armed forces of a less advanced, less powerful country, the real difficulty is to actually extract any sort of lasting value from that victory.

Improved weapons would not have improve the US position in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or the Ukraine. War is different in the 21st century.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, an A-10 have wings build to be highly maneuverable at low speeds (which also helps to avoid enemy fire), something that you simply can't put in a fighter made for speed as an F-35.

Swing wing designs can manage slower speeds but have there own problems.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reminded of the WW2 doctrinal decision by the USA that tanks shouldn't fight tanks leading to their tanks being unnecessarily vulnerable to enemy tanks when they didn't share the USA's doctrinal approach. Its nice when things work how you want but you have to be able to deal with an enemy doing what you don't want.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[NicBenjamin]

Do you really think China's ambitions are going to end well? Honestly?

If we actually keep buying so much hardware they think not fighting us is cheaper then fighting us? Probably.

If we cut back to the level most critics of American military power think is appropriate, then hell no.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[NicBenjamin]

So full of dumb propaganda... Poor guy. Just think on this little piece of information: How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)? And that IF he can avoid the missiles of 11 enemies, who assuming Flankers, will be better armed and far more able to maneuver than the F-35. But keep thinking so, exchange all your fighters for F-35's. Will be much easier to kick the ass of the the U.S. in a war if that happens.

Dude, that's four missiles per sorty.

You lock onto a target who can't see you. You fire all four. Then you run like hell. His buddies can see where you were ten seconds ago because they can back-trace your missiles, but you've been running at Mach 1.6. You get away, he'll be lucky to survive.

You do that every day, and in a couple weeks there are no flankers.

Your argument is exactly like the numerous Italian pilots who swore to Il Duce that they didn't need a monoplane because they were so skillful they could destroy a 350 MPH monoplane in a 250 MPH biplane.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[NicBenjamin]

In quite a few wars historically the side with the worse weapons won. Weapons quality is generally only a factor in conventional wars, and the unconventional kind tend to outnumber the conventional kind.

The thing about good weapons is the deter really big conventional wars. If the Chinese thing F-35 will eat their troopships for lunch they're forced to resort to the political tactics you mentioned. Which means we get to respond with similar political tactics. Since we are their biggest market we can screw their manufacturing sector with a similar embargo. they've got a multi-ethnic state so they don;t necessarily want to be the guys fomenting armed rebellions.

But if we don't have F-35, or some similar weapon they don't think they can beat, they can try a quick invasion and fait accompli like Crimea.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[TheDarkMaster]

You have two problems with your argument. The first is that you assume as true what is just cheap propaganda, Lockheed can claim that their fighter is invincible and perfect it, but one can say that only after actual combat, and the data collected so far suggest that the F-35 is rubbish as a fighter. And second, you also assumes a perfect ability to attack where all their missiles always hit the target and where the enemy will always be too stupid to react. That only happens in fairy tales and in the minds of advertisers.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[NicBenjamin]

According to all the data anyone used about fighters in 1930 the original Mustang sucked. Shitty turning radius, terrible turning speed, low service ceiling, etc. But that was because in 1930 everyone thought that fighters needed to be maneuverable, which means a lot of wing area, and a lot of control surface area, which means Biplanes. 1930 biplanes were also a lot easier to make, and cheaper to maintain, because they were typiccally covered by fabric. Some asshole punches a .22 in hole in your plane, and you can generally fix it with a needle and thread. Getting a hole out of sheet metal is a lot harder. Then WW2 happened and everyone realized that the faster fighter could simply run like a little bitch if it got out-maneuvered. Which in turn meant biplanes were death traps.

If the Stealth works, and I'm inclined to think it will because the US Military is not in the habit of sending it's guys out in death traps, then F-35 is damn nigh unbeatable by a non-stealth opponent. All the numbers you're using to support your "terrible fighter" claim are simply irrelevant.

Reread my post. I'm not assuming a 100% kill rate per missile. I'm assuming four missiles per Flanker have a better then even chance of killing it. That's a 15-16% kill rate.

And yes, the Flanker commander could do something but what? Any formation designed to maximize his pilot's odds of a visual id means his pilots are alone, and the F-35 sees the formation because Flanker is a derivative of a cold war, pre-Stealth design. He'll get to the edge, pick off one guy, and run away at invisible mach 1.5 while the one dude who could reach him dodges like a motherfucker to avoid four missiles. A formation designed to maximize his guys ability to support each-other means they're really close together, and the F-35 can simply avoid them until it's got an advantageous angle to fire at them from. then it runs away invisibly.

Pretty much the only thing the flanker commander can do that would work is track down F-35's airbase so the infantry can track it down. And in the era of combined arms warfare, that means that the F-35 has nuetralized a full squadron of Flankers.

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really the correct argument. Since this is slashdot, let's use cars and grandma.

Yes, a bentley is a very nice car. Probably even better than [other car]. But does it make sense to purchase bentley's when grandma's food is being downgraded to catfood?

Re:How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like asking how a rifle can possibly replace a pike, since it can't do the same thing. The F35's sensors and guided munitions are multiple generations more advanced, so it does the same mission from well outside of gun/eyeball range.

How? Do you honestly think that sensor fusion is sufficiently advanced to actually achieve that in complex combat environments? The A-10's advantage is that allows a pilot to fly low and slow enough with survivability to make an assessment for themselves. For the sensors which are essentially extending the range of human vision, do you honestly think that the A-10 couldn't be upgraded (as it has been before) to use the newer sensors? Why do you think sensors and airframe are related (except in regards to sensor fusion, which, again, will be as useless in CAS roles)? They're even using sensors to make up for major shortcomings like extremely poor rear visibility which pilots who have flown the F-35 themselves say will "get pilots killed".

All these posts comparing the F35 to much older aircraft like the F18 on the basis of airframe are clueless. It's all about the sensors, weapons, and comms. The part you can see from the outside is just to get you there.

Again, sensors, weapons, and comms are unrelated to the airframe and are therefore useful in any airframe, are the minority of costs, and have nothing to do with the major, crippling weaknesses of the F-35 (except for, again, the overblown expectations of sensor fusion). All of that could be made to work with any airframe. Since the US is a NATO partner, its weapons/weapon bus should be STANAG compliant and therefore easily work with any NATO member's compliant aircraft. They would actually be hurting operational ability to do anything else.

(Of course, stealth and mach 1+ without afterburners helps with getting there, too).

Um, if you're trying to replace the role of the A-10, you're using the F-35's six measly external hardpoints for that. Which means you lose stealth. Which means the F-35 loses the only thing that gives it a semblance of survivability. You do realize that, right? No? Oh, okay.

Having a fly-off of the F35 against (what exactly?) is like having a race between a Corvette and a Ford Torus.

First off, it's "Taurus". Second, comparing a bloated, unmaneuverable aircraft like the F-35 to a Corvette is a joke. Regarding the CAS role, It's a dirty, brutal job - so it's more like a comparison between an El Camino and a dump truck. An El Camino where you put anything in the back, it bottoms out and becomes useless. An El Camino which is extremely easy to damage, WILL get damaged in this role, and will cost an arm, and a leg, and some other guy's arm and leg every time to repair it and get the stealth coating reformed to spec. No thanks.

universal

[Anonymous Coward]

as the basic common sense peaked with an f15 that never made it to every country. This f35 is a long time coming. I remember canadian planes flying in to maine where I worked.. way behind, stone age... like t37 old, and those were the fighters. The more that buy the given level of fighter, the more input there will be to make it even better and cheaper. Way to go canada, and any country that dives in.

F35

[hackus]

is currently not even a finished aircraft, with multiple problems with its airframe durability, pilot survivability and software and avionics that haven't been fully tested yet.

Just the maintance costs to maintain more than 30 of these aircraft in wartime could exceed the total tax revenue for the united states at 2 trillion.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

heard that before

[Tablizer]

rekindle criticism that the RCAF's requirements seem to have been written after the fact to match the F-35's capabilities (or lack thereof).

Like an H1B job ad, eh.

It's not that complicated.

[wonderboss]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

F35 aint that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I know its trendy and all to trash the F35 but its a pretty good piece of technology. Sure its expensive, sure its not perfect. No aircraft is.
It does fly vertical, it is stealth, etc. thought.

Its a bit like the F22 story in many ways. Yet good luck defeating the F22 - and I'm not american - and my country does not purchase american planes even. I just like planes.

As for the "planes are useless today" it'd be real fun to see what happens if the US air force was removed (not grounded, removed).
Funny fact: some countries have a rule that they must be able to destroy any aircraft in their airspace within 15 to 20min since WWII. Some of them averted hijacks and got a lot of credit for that (like France).

The USA did not have that rule. If it did, there would be no 9/11. You sorta need planes for this. A lot of them.

Summary is disingenuous

[O('_')O_Bush]

Of course there was no fly-off and the requirements were tailored for it... THE ONLY OTHER 5TH GEN FIGHTERS ARE THE F22 AND ONES BY RUSSIA AND CHINA THAT CANADA CAN'T BUY.

This isn't controversial. Canada wanted a modern aircraft, and right now, there are only 4 out there. The F22 isn't for export, the PAK FA isn't for sale, and the J-20 (based on stolen F22 tech) is still light years away, and also not for sale.

If there was another candidate, I am sure Canada would have compared them, but when facing $124m USD/plane versus many tens of billions to develop their own, the F35 is a bargain.

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[dibos]

Why can't Canada buy some of those cheap Russian and Chinese fighter planes? Seems like a good investment to me.

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fifth Generation" is a term that has a million different interpretations and few actual examples. It is military double-speak gobbledygook.

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

The mission profiles for Canadian air defence have been removed from consideration. The Super Hornet fit that profile very well - the F-35 does not. The mission profile for assisting our allies in invasions fits the F-35 like it was written specifically for the F-35. See any problems for this sole-source one fighter plane type purchase now?

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

The mission profiles for Canadian air defence have been removed from consideration.

The mission profile for assisting our allies in invasions fits the F-35

Why isn't that an appropriate mission profile for the Canadian air force? Presumably if you are fighting alongside your allies you wish to assist each other.

There may be other profiles as well that the F-35 doesn't fit, but such is outside my knowledge.

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore me I need to brush up on my reading comprehension.

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[SuiteSisterMary]

Obligatory comment about Avro Arrow goes here.

Re:Summary is disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

No sir, it's not the topic that isn't controversial. It's the fact that you're an absolute, ignorant idiot.

The fact is that there already are several contenders out there that fits the Canadians needs much better than a bomb truck that can hardly carry any bombs and not turn for shit. Only, they are not "Made in the US", and they are neither as untested nor had such a problematic development cycle.

Move out of your mums basement.

Justin Bieber, flying high.

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks like to say that the F-35 is expensive, but compared to what? It costs in the neighborhood of $40 to $60 million (depending on model and options) for the Gulfstream jet that keeps the Biebs in the clouds. The F-35 does, and will do, so much more. No doubt, the current generation of aircraft will continue to serve us for a while longer. But realistically, I don't think anyone can expect the Chinese and Russians to simply throw in the towel. They've got their stealth models in development, and news reports of late don't indicate they're backing down from anything.

Back when the Democrats were allegedly looking for shovel ready jobs, one glaringly obvious option would've been to keep the F-22 factory up and running. Now here we are a few short years later and the Russians want to play top gun. Well, if we had more stealth aircraft, they'd have to think twice. And I for one don't want our pilots to be at a disadvantage in that kind of game.

As another example of how BAD Harper is for Canada

[bussdriver]

I don't care if the F-35 works as planned. It's just another totally corrupt vile thing the Harper government of Canada is doing to lower the nation down to the likes of the USA. (I'm American and I realize we are not #1 at anything. except perhaps the number of literate creationists and global warming deniers.)

Canada could have spent all that $$$$ on robotics and then they could lead the world in the field... plus they could hire China to make a million dumb drones then put in their robotic brains... then maybe we'd have many good robots to battle against Skynet when the USA eventually builds it (which will be tiny because it'll cost 1000x what a robotic overlord should.)

Every single person in Canada just spent $11,365

[Anonymous Coward]

The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.

Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.

If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.

Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.

Talk about world change......

Peacetime designs

[GrahamCox]

Don't buy peacetime designs - they are never great. The urgency of war forces designers and engineers to act quickly, with well-defined briefs and no extraneous "nice to have"s; peacetime designs are the opposite - bloated, every Tom Dick and Harry involved wants his pet add-on, and no pressure to get it out the door.

All the great military aircraft ever built have been produced in wartime for the jobs needed doing right then. And I include Vietnam and the Cold War among them. The post-soviet skirmished the west has got involved in don't seem to need fighter planes at all, and in the meantime, the bloated F-35 slithers along, as unpopular as Jabba the Hut.

Re:Peacetime designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy the best peacetime arms you can so you have time to gear up for war.

Re:Peacetime designs

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supermarine Spitfire?

The designer, Reginald Mitchell, expected war with Germany, but the plane was designed and the first versions flown - the first model was displayed to the publc in 1936 - well before the war.

I think most peple would consider the Spitfire to be a "great military aircraft".

Having said which, the US has been almost continuously at war for over half a century, so the F-16, F-35 etc. were not designed during peacetime...

Re:Russia / Job Creation for Ontario

[flyingfsck]

It is best to look at this as an economic stimulus for Ontario. The $9B price tag is for the whole package, including the new air force bases, repair facilities, training facilities, spares production, and so on, over the next ten years. An existing programme such as the CF18 will always seem cheaper, since a lot of that already exists. Ontario's economy is in the gutter and they need something to get them going again. It is a Federal way to force Alberta to bail out Ontario, without stepping up the transfer payments.

The actual planes are not particularly useful at defending Canada against the occasional rogue polar bear or dead bloated whale...

How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh if we pump enough money into it, maybe another 500 trillion dollars, the plane might work as intended. Sign the check, give us another 30 years, and we'll find out...
As most in congress will say, anything that promises to enable us to kill more people is well worth any pricetag.

Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Several countries buy a number of extremely expensive jet fighters that are not significantly better for the target uses than the much cheaper alternatives, that is developed and built in a country that is known to blackmail and spy on even its closest allies, even though there is no certainty as of yet that the fighters will ever deliver what was once promised and time scales and budgets have gone through the roof.

There is something these governments know or 'have to do' that the voters do not know about. It is very fishy.

This is what you need Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA - the legend is real

what the hell is going on here?

[kiddygrinder]

australia has just committed to buying 12 billion bucks worth of em as well, they much have some fucking slick sales guys

Re:what the hell is going on here?

[Anonymous Coward]

australia has just committed to buying 12 billion bucks worth of em as well, they much have some fucking slick sales guys

The lobbyists just supply "upscale" escorts (ahem prostitutes) and the finest China White and Columbian Snow their clients need to ease the decision-making process and assuage their ethics. It would be a glorious day if all the world leaders were together in a conference room and a drone took them out after "misidentifying the group as a meeting of terrorists." Sweet justice!

Re:what the hell is going on here?

[NicBenjamin]

They don't need sales guys anymore then Microsoft Windows does.

You're in the Western Alliance you buy Western Alliance Aircraft. If you're on the rich end you buy the latest models. Right now that Eurofighter or F-35. If you're likely to get involved in a Pacific War with said alliance you get the American one because that's what everyone else has.

Which means that all your squadrons are interchangeable with everyone else's squadrons, the same spare parts can be used, the commanders don;t need to learn the quirks of a half-dozen different fighters, etc.

Re:Russia / Job Creation for Ontario

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but most money will go to existing entities anyway and the US...

value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Superhornets that will be replaced by the F-35 leaving Canada yet again unable to us the US supply chain?

Yes, the SuperHornet in which the US Navy is hoping to purchased the latest "advanced" variant of:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-pleased-with-quotadvancedquot-super-hornet-tests-wants-more-397927/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/09/boeing-aims-to-keep-building-fa-18-jets-through-2020/

The one that costs half as much, so Canada can buy 65 of each, and still have money left over to buy a few Global Hawks and/or Tritons to help patrol its vast coastline that spans three coastlines, Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic.

If Canada buys the F-35, money will also have to be spent on mid-air tankers, as the current CF-18s (which the tankers are suited for) use a different system than the F-35s (probe-and-drogue vs. boom).

Perhaps throw it a few Growlers to help with comms in NATO excercises as well as for shits and giggles.

buy drones AND fighters

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.

Buy the SuperHornet and then use the extra money to buy Tritons to patrol the coast line instead of manned planes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-4C_Triton

The Extension of Childhood Caused This

[Anonymous Coward]

100 years ago, a man was an adult at 16, and expected to feed himself and start a family. Now, US law requires his parents to care for him until 26, and welfare in the form of parasitic school loans, extends to the early-mid 20's for all but the poorest. Maybe that decade of lost productivity should be repaid at the end of the career. Alternatively, we could accept that when we expect people to act childish, they will, and instead expect people to grow up before they've used a third of their life.

Times changes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, the US air industry had a major finger in that story as well.

When the Avro Arrow project was shit canned by jerk wad diefenbaker, there were two other aircraft on the table:the Grumman F11 tiger and the Lockheed F104.
The Canadian air force at the time wanted the the Tiger but some careful a$$ grea$ing (by Lockheed) got us the F104.

Just who is building the F-35 already?

Re:Russia / Job Creation for ...Alberta

[Maxwell]

Canada's jets are based in Alberta. Ontario gets nothing from this, except some small time manufacturing. The real winners are Quebec and Alberta. Losers are , well, everyone else.

Re:Every single person in Canada just spent $11,36

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately enemy tanks beat cars. Besides I think everyone in Canada suddenly getting another car might be detrimental to the environment so would rather the planes from that point of view as well.

CF-18 is just regular hornet, I think

[Chirs]

I don't think the current CF-18 is the Super Hornet, just a modified regular Hornet.

There have been quite a few people suggesting that the Super Hornet (or maybe the Advanced version) would be a better fit for the RCAF than the F-35.

Re:CF-18 is just regular hornet, I think

[jklovanc]

Canada currently uses the CF-18 Hornet.The problem being that Canadian CF-18's are land based and generally located with US land based squadrons. The US F-18 Hornets are generally ship based. Since they use different aircraft the Canadian squadrons can not use US squadron parts. By going yet again with the US naval aircraft instead of the US land aircraft they will be in the same position. That will be even worse when the Super Hornet is replaced by the F-35 as parts for the Super Hornet will not even be in the US supply chain. By the way, the F-18a/b/c/d Hornet is a very different aircraft than the F-18e/f/g Super Hornet. Few parts are interchangeable.

One of the main reasons many countries are choosing the F-35 is commonality of parts. Say you run out of a part in a combat theater. If everyone uses the same aircraft you can borrow from other squadrons from other nations. Otherwise the aircraft needing the part is grounded and useless.

Re:CF-18 is just regular hornet, I think

[Anonymous Coward]

So much nonsense in your post. You just made up a whole bunch of stuff about the RCAF that anyone can disprove in mere minutes.

Re:CF-18 is just regular hornet, I think

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do so then as nothing leaps out at me but I don't know the RCAF very well.

Re:CF-18 is just regular hornet, I think

[NicBenjamin]

I don't think Slashdot denizens realize how important standardization is to a military commander, especially somebody who commands squadrons of $100+million aircraft. They seem to think of these things the way they do consumer electronics -- just like everybody should have the exact model of phone that perfectly meets their needs, every country should have it's own specialized aircraft.

In college I had a housemate who was an Aeronautical Engineer. She told me that if she was very good someday somebody might let her design an entire strut. A strut is any metal piece that sticks out of the aircraft's skin. Could be a landing gear, could be something a control surface attaches to, could be an antenna. And each one has it's own designer. Which means that every single little metal piece you see sticking out of a plane on a model, or in a photo, is totally non-standard. It can only be used in exactly one place on that exact plane. It may not be compatible with other versions of that plane.

If you're running a civilian airline this is a huge pain. Pretty much every single aircraft you have needs it's own, special, set of spare parts. But you're not going the speed of sound, so a lot of the interior parts can be standardized. With an aircraft that goes Mach 2 it gets even worse, because the aerodynamics are so fucking finicky that the interior space is very constrained, and even bits that would be standard (ie: the metal paneling used as a floor) are specific to specific models of plane. Maybe the Mark I has a different RADAR then the Mark II, so some wire has to go through the cockpit, so there has to be a hole in the floor for said wire, which means the Mark I can;t use the floor paneling from the Mark II. Moreover a civilian airline can baby their planes. They yell at pilots for going all out because that causes unnecessary wear and tear. A good air force WANTS it's pilots going all out, because that way those pilots know what the plane is supposed to fell like when it goes mach 2.

If you're Japan or Canada, and you're likely to be on the same side in any conflict, and you're also likely to be fighting with the US and Australia, then having the exact same plane as the other three countries is great. All of you use the exact same set of spares. Since all of you use the same plane, you all know it's quirks, and you all know whether your squadron should be aggressively attacking a ground position protected by a certain version of Russian RADAR. If the Canadians have some ridiculously antiquated non-stealth CF-18 then nobody's gonna know this shit, which means the Canadians won;t actually get to attack anything as nobody else wants to order them onto suicide missions, and nobody else knows what the CF-18 can actually do, when the Canadians break their planes (which will be all the damn time, because it's fucking combat), they will have to wait for Ottawa to send a new of spares, etc.

Assuming Obama can get the damn F-35s working right having everyone use them will be great.

Re:CF-18 is just regular hornet, I think

[Anonymous Coward]

Issue number one with your post

The Advanced Super Hornet and Super Hornet are not the CF-18, and the Canadians are not being sold the old version of the F-18. So discussions of the F-18a/b/c/d is not part of the issue.

The ASH and Super Hornets are being used by the US Navy and purchased by Australia as well. The US Navy does not want the F-35 because of the lessor survivalbility of any and all current varients of the F-35 versus the Super Hornet.

If the Canadians purchase the new ASH then they will have commanality of parts with at least two signifigant nations.

A "fly-off" competition wouldn't be fair.

[hey!]

The F35 isn't operational yet. It wouldn't be able to compete with aircraft that actually work.

your math is wrong

[schlachter]

$8B Jet Purchase / 35M People = $228.57/Person

I agree that the costs are out of proportion to what Canada should be spending, but it's no where near the number you suggest.

Maybe you can provide a bicycle voucher instead of a car voucher. :)

Re:your math is wrong

[ArmchairGeneral]

Now that would be change, for the better. Although it might make us a larger target, less defence and a healthier slave stock! ;)

Re:your math is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, your bike budget is pretty skimpy. I haven't bought a bike that cheap since the '70s.
 

Re:your math is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, you can spend thousands on a bike. but it's not hard to find a decent one for much much less.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Pola...

Air Superiority fighter

[Art Deco]

Russia is strapped for cash. They would probably sell Canada a fleet of Su-27 fighters cheep. The F-35 is plagued with quality control issues, expensive, fragile and maintenance intensive. Mechanics and pilots candidly admit that there are entire systems on the plane that simply do not work yet. Su-27's carry more armaments, have greater range and can outrun, outclimb, and outmaneuver F-35's.

Re:Air Superiority fighter

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair though, quality control of Russian planes is abysmal, the engines in particular being so variable in performance and lifespan that matching engines in twin engine planes is almost an artform.
Licensing the design, and getting the engines from Rolls Royce would get you a more expensive but far more capable and long lasting machine.

Re:Air Superiority fighter

[NicBenjamin]

You ever heard of "Five Eyes?"

You realize that if the Russians sold a Five Eyes member a fighter aircraft the US would instantly know every single flaw with said aircraft, and since everyone would know this nobody else would ever buy it again?

So no, Russia would not sell Canada any Sukhoi for any price.

Right, "defending" "other slavs" with genocide...

[coder111]

Like they "took care" of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Chechens, Tatars, Hungarians, Germans, Poles, lots of other people who weren't slavs but weren't liked by Stalin. Millions of them ended up dead in Siberia.

Be glad that Russia never reached as far as Western Europe. Not for the lack of trying though... They planned to "bring the communism to Europe on the tips of bayonets" since 1920s, but their hands were too short. Oh, and then there was this guy Hitler who got 20 million of them killed... And then there were nukes.

I agree, do go and read some history books

--Coder

Re:Every single person in Canada just spent $11,36

[luis_a_espinal]

The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.

Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.

If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.

Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.

Talk about world change......

Giving away for free =/= investing. Give a $11K vehicle voucher to every person in the country, and most of it will go down the drain. That is just how human nature and economics are. I understand your sentiment as the whole purchase seems rather wasteful for a country that typically minds its own business and is not looking for opportunities to drop bombs half around the globe.

But your free-for-all vehicle voucher give away analogy is as bad to the economy (and maybe worse) than the purchase above.

wrong thread, sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Re:As another example of how BAD Harper is for Can

[Anonymous Coward]

We're #1 at biomedical research. We spend roughly 80% of the total world's research dollars in that field.

How will history judge the F-35?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this post. Military systems development can get really ugly and predicting outcomes is something of a mug's game. The C-17 program was nearly cancelled it was so scr*wed up. Finally the military put in better oversight, fixed the problems and the result was a great aircraft.

This won't be news to most, but the military is a giant bureaucracy and it has all the weaknesses of such. As a counterbalance, military systems get lots of real-world use and shortcomings become very evident. And underperforming military systems, particularly battle systems, threaten missions. The feedback gets intense.

John Candy invades!

[Anonymous Coward]

How can this happen!? Has no one seen Canadian Bacon!?

sure, for air-to-air...what about other roles?

[Chirs]

I think an argument could be made that it would make more sense to buy fewer F35s and buy a larger fleet of dedicated aircraft for close ground support, long-range recon, etc.

The Canadian gov't is trying to use the F35 for many different roles. It may be a fantastic air superiority fighter, but I'm not convinced it'd be better than something like an A-10 for ground support.

Re:sure, for air-to-air...what about other roles?

[NicBenjamin]

The aircraft of the future for A-10-style close ground support is actually a drone.

It can be a lot cheaper then an A-10, because you don't really really need a drone to come home. Say plane that's half as expensive, but 25% of them get blown up, it's still a great investment. I wouldn't want to be the guy who explained that memo to the grieving widow of the pilot in the 25%.

why do we need 5th gen?

[Chirs]

If you start with the assumption that we need 5th gen aircraft then the F35 is the only option. But I don't think it's valid to start with that assumption--we should start with the missions that need to be fulfilled.

Re:why do we need 5th gen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just define 5th gen. suitably. Its current definitions seem fairly arbitary so shouldn't be too hard to add another.
For instance the F-22 might be the best air superiority fighter but isn't that great as a ground attack aircraft. Make that a necessary role for 5th gen aircraft and the F-22 is no longer a 5th gen aircraft but the typhoon is.

Re:why do we need 5th gen?

[NicBenjamin]

Missions such as?

You ain't gonna beat the Russians if they're determined, without US Aid, therefore defending the north without US Aid is a suicide mission.

All other missions I can think of for the Canadian Air Force involve very close operations with Americans, and Russian aircraft just don't fit the model. They have different parts, are designed for greatly different maintenance styles, etc.

You could make the case for Eurofighter.

Canadian Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the top left and right quadrants of the Canadian flag, you can see the outline of two faces. Some say it is the English and the French yelling at each other.

Don't worry it will never see production

[gelfling]

At best they will dick around with test models for another few years until Obama or Empress Hillary kills it.

$9 Billion?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that we can spend $9 billion on planes that we don't need but we can't afford to pay off the national debt; feed/shelter everyone in Canada or subsidize education.

Saab Gripen JAS 39E

[g8oz]

I think the Swedish Saab Gripen fits the bill nicely. In a cost effective manner to boot.

Brazil went with them, partly out of reaction to the Snowden revelations, but I think the decision stands on the merits of the plane as well.

Re:Saab Gripen JAS 39E

[NicBenjamin]

Gripen is 4th generation, so it actually does not fit the requirements.

Brazil has much different needs then Canada. The Canadians try to influence the world via their military. thus they participated in Korea, Afghanistan, and both World Wars (in the World Wars they fought longer and harder then the US). Brazil is a middle income country trying to become rich, and in the mean-time they're avoiding taking sides. Their Air Force is there partly to prevent insurgents, and partly to show Brazilians their nation is an important country. Grippen is cheap, so it won;t bankrupt a middle income country, it will blow insurgent hideaways (altho not as well as a prop would), and people think it's top-of-the-line.

OTOH, the Canadians have to be ready to operate from the same base as other NATO states (read: mostly America), slot themselves into the same missions, etc. That's a lot easier if you actually have the same plane as the Americans. And it also makes a lot of sense to buy the most expensive one you can afford now, because you're less likely to realize that you need a whole new one in 10 years.

1300 range, 600 mile combat radius without tanks

[raymorris]

For clarity, its RANGE is 1300 miles. Its COMBAT RADIUS is 600 on internal fuel. Which means it can fly 600 miles, maneuver around a a target for a short while, turn around, and fly 600 miles back. Alternatively, it can fly 900 miles to a target, turn, and fly 400 miles to a friendly area to refuel or land.

on the cother hand, the F-150 is popular

[raymorris]

> Anyone who has thought about trying to combine a Corvette with a pickup truck with a front loader understands what an utterly ridiculous idea

In some ways, it makes sense to have dedicated equipment designed for each job. If you're designing a truck for construction industry, build it like a Ford F-350. If you're designing a car to drive to work and back, a Honda Civic. On the other hand, the Ford F-150 is incredibly popular. It's small enough to have reasonable gas mileage as a daily driver AND you can stop at the hardware store on the way home and pick up some 2X4s or plywood. Versatility can be a very good thing.

Many wars have been lost by the side who had prepared to fight the previous war. Jets like this are a long term proposition and the F-35 will probably be flying in 2045. Are you sure that in 2045, (or 2025) you'll want a plane narrowly optimized for the role you needed to fill in the Gulf War of the 1990s? A more generalist platform may well be better suited for the unknown conditions of the next three wars.

Re:on the cother hand, the F-150 is popular

[AC15]

But the F-35 is not a generalist platform. Quite the opposite. It is specification creep taken to the comical extreme. Per your point, imagine what would happen if Ford decided to try really hard to make the F-150 outrace a corvette. It would end up being a far less capable truck and still wouldn't be able to catch the vette. It would be an insanely expensive F-35 like creation that nobody would want to buy. It would be way cheaper and smarter to buy a separate vette and F-150.

The B-52 is a general bomb truck. It carries ordnance cheaply and reliably. It doesn't try to do it using stealth or take off vertically. That's why it is still around and, unlike the stealthy B-2 hangar queen, will continue to be around and serve effectively for years to come. Ditto for the F-16 regarding the air to air mission.

I don't know what war will be like in 2045. So maintaining a hot, proven, and ugradeable fighter like the F-16 and using the trillion dollars left over to develop and sling a photon torpedo or high powered laser under a pylon is a way more future-proof way to go.

by coming home most of the time

[raymorris]

> How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)?

First mission: kill some bad guys
Next mission: kill some bad guys
100 missions later: get shot down

Generally, a pilot doesn't keep flying around after a mission, waiting to get shot. You do your job, then go home. If you do your job 11 times and you're still alive, that's the 11:1 kill ratio.

Re:by coming home most of the time

[TheDarkMaster]

Well... Just remember that the enemy can do the same. And he is better armed per aircraft, their aircraft are more maneuverable, and because your fighter is more expensive then the enemy will also be in greater numbers. You can think what you want, but to me it seems a very bad strategy...

Re:by coming home most of the time

[StuffMaster]

Well, according to the US military, the enemy fighters won't detect the JSF until it's too late. The F-35 will have shot its four missiles and turned around without being detected. In that case, better armed and more maneuverable don't matter much.

No Bid Contracts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian pilots will be allowed only one 15 minute flight per year, so as to maintain certification of qualifications, as the military won't be able to afford any more fuel from their budget to fly the damn things.

Re:Russia / Job Creation for Ontario

[Anonymous Coward]

The only country Canada needs to defend itself against is the US...

Chevy Silverado VHO, GMC Syclone

[raymorris]

The longevity of the B-52 is impressive.

> imagine what would happen if Ford decided to try really hard to make the F-150 outrace a corvette. It would end up being a far less capable truck and still wouldn't be able to catch the vette.

GM DID make a Chevy Silverado VHO and the GMC Syclone, which was in fact faster than a Vette. The Silverado VHO was a pretty good truck, which was a little slower than a Corvette. I don't know how the Syclone was for truck duty, but I do know that a work truck and a fast car both rely on having a powerful engine and stiff suspension.

Re:Chevy Silverado VHO, GMC Syclone

[AC15]

I forgot that you also need to add a front loader to the machine and still maintain your specs. Speed and agility is what a fighter does, hauling cargo is what a bomb truck does. Vertical take-off and landing is a uniquely taxing aerodynamic feat and adding a front loader to a car/truck hybrid is the best analogy I could come up with. Anyone ever build a fleet of those and use them successfully for anything?

Re:Every single person in Canada just spent $11,36

[Anonymous Coward]

>$11,365
Maybe you should learn how to read because it's pretty clear that Canada is not buying $399 G worth of airplanes...

tar sands oil for fighter jets

[Anonymous Coward]

i can understand that

Too few of the wrong aircraft!

[Murray.B]

The F-35 is not the best choice for the RCAF! That would be 206 F-22s with added ground attack capability. The cost would only be about $450 million each making the total come to less than $100 billion. Canada should just get the RCAF what they really need and stop the constant bickering over which economy model to buy.

Pay your way

[Anonymous Coward]

You can debate the choice of jets all day, but you cannot debate the fact that the world is still a dangerous place. The allies of the US have taken the easy road and cut their defense spending to pay for essentially worthless social programs or flawed 'alternative energy' programs. The belief was that the US would defend them, so why spend on military hardware? Defend themsleves? HAH. Two weeks into the Libyan campaign, Norway had to ground their planes, as they ran out of parts. UK and Italy ran out of missiles. US had to 'loan' a few million dollar a shot Cruise missiles.

Imagine what happens if China figures they own the South China Sea, and Russia decides the Baltic States are better under his thumb. How long do you think NATO minus the US would last? America may just not pick up the phone next time. Ask Ukraine.

Re:Right, "defending" "other slavs" with genocide.

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, sorry to carp, but they did reach Western Europe - the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian armies fought the Battle of Paris, March 30-31, 1814, with Tsar Alexander I, and King Friedrich Wilhelm III leading the armies, and they forced Napoleon's abdication.

The stupidest part: F-35s can't fly in the arctic

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least, not very well. It's not uncommon to have an engine go out up there, but when your aircraft only has ONE engine... great, now you're stuck ejecting thousands of miles away from rescue, and lost a $125m plane.

Stealth radar

[Anonymous Coward]

US stealth technology does not work with old HF radars, which many less developed countries still use extensively. They can see the F35 just fine.

Re:Right, "defending" "other slavs" with genocide.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of the 20 Million Russians who died during WWII were killed by Jo Stalin.

Price of the planes

[locke.th]

9 billion was an extremely lowball estimate. Doesn't factor in everything; the real cost is approaching $30 billion.

VTL is rather specialized

[raymorris]

I can't think of a counter-point to vertical takeoff and landing. Sure, it might make sense to have a few VTL planes, but to add that additional weight, complexity, and expense to the nation's primary jet is pretty silly.