Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Hoser360

Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 12:14 AM, Zeitgeist said:

90 million seems reasonable actually.  I think it’s worth it.  We have some good naval ships and infantry vehicles.  We already blew it with subs.  Let’s get top flight gear for the Air Force, which is doing most of the combat these days. 

I'd be interested in what you think is so good about our naval ships , can't be talking about our destroyers which are either sunk or sold for scrap, with no replacement in the near future...could it be the AOP's that are getting built , the ships the navy did not want....maybe it is our Frigates , first one built in 1987, the last one built in 1995....have already been through one refit, first one starting in 2007 and the last one completed in 2016, not all the refit items were completed due to lack of funding....and our ships do not hold a candle todays modern naval ships being produce today.....Talk to some navy guys, ...

Infantry vehs not sure what ones, not the TLAV a M113 built in the 50"s and still being used , here and in Afghanistan.....the new LAV 6, they cut the LAV III in half , discarded the bottom half, welded the old top half on to a new chassis, some new paint and poof its new ….....because there was not enough funds to purchase enough new ones, remember the Saudis spent 15 bil on 750, LAV 700, we only had 4.5 bil .....not to mention they did not replace any of the lost LAV III we suffered in Afghanistan,  no to make up those numbers they purchased the new TPAV, the troops call it the boat, because soldiers constantly get movement sickness from them, when it is in forward motion....ya it's funney....it was the cheapest veh on the market , that the soldiers did not pick it was chosen by highly qualified politicians....cause they know best right....

To top off all that , the army has a critical shortage of wheeled vehs, most more than 50 % are sitting in compounds because they are to rusted to drive. most of what is left is restricted to the training areas...with orders ""do not drive on public streets", the regular army has stripped most of the reserve forces of their wheeled vehs to make up some of the lost numbers....that was in 2012....and still today there are no vehs being delivered.....The Army can not move troops or supplies in large numbers...not to mention all the other shitty vehs we have or the out of date vehs we drive such as the Leo IIA4,some 25 years old, which we bought used....already in long term storage by the Dutch, I bet they are still laughing . to put that in prospective   Germany is working on producing the leo II A8. we still don't have a modern tracked IFV, forcing us to repurpose M113 made in the 50's....    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly no surprise here...Airbus has declined to bid on Canada's replacement strike fighter program.    Bye-bye Eurofighter Typhoon.....which leaves three contenders:

  • F-18 E/F/G Super Hornet   (Boeing - USA)
  • F-35A Lightning II JSF  (Lockheed-Martin - USA)
  • JAS 39 Gripen E (Saab - Sweden)

 

Quote

One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid.

The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airbus-canada-fighters-1.5265665

 

Remember, Justin Trudeau promised to never buy the F-35 just to spite Harper !

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airbus pulling out of the contract does not mean Canada will go with the F-35.

But that's not how BC2004 wants to frame it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada doesn't need F-35, but if Canada insists on buying a next generation fighter, F-35 is the only way to go.

Full disclosure, I am a Lockheed Martin shareholder, but that's because I believe in the company and its products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada also doesn't need the Type 26 Global Combat Ship Canadian Surface Combatant, also a Lockheed Martin product.

But again, if Canada insists on buying a guided missile surface combatant, Type 26 is the way to go.

Just on the fact that the UK and Australia are buying twenty of them, so Canada will benefit from that logistical economies of scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2018 at 7:38 PM, Army Guy said:

I'd be interested in what you think is so good about our naval ships

There's nothing wrong per se with the FFH-330 Halifax Class (Modernized) Patrol Frigates.

The problem is more that Canada has twelve frigates and not much else.   Diminishing returns after the first six Frigates or so, while the rest of the RCN collapses.

They were actually acquired to fight World War Three, escorting the CAST to bring 1st Canadian Division (Mechanized) to reinforce 4 CMBG upon the Balloon going up.

So that's how Canada ended up with all frigates and nothing else, as other than the NATO tasking Western Approaches, the RCN didn't have much of a mission.

Operationally the weakness of the FFH-330 is simply that it is very lightly armed, and so really just a glorified corvette rather than a true Ship o' the Line.

Problem being that in the event of war, the defenses of the FFH-330 would be easily overwhelmed by even a modest anti-shipping attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Airbus pulling out of the contract does not mean Canada will go with the F-35.

But that's not how BC2004 wants to frame it.

Realistically, the F-35 was the only aircraft we were going to buy from the start. None of the others is in its class. I like the Gripen, but mostly because it can take off and land from shorter, rougher runways, and requires far, far less maintenance. It would be nice as a plane for the reserves, but it isn't a match for the F-35 head to head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-35 is the cheapest option, because of economies of scale.

It's like the F-16, Canada bought the F/A-18 instead, it's not more capable, but because so many fewer of them were built, it is more expensive, and harder to upgrade.

F-16 for example is still in production, while Canada was reduced to buying old as dirt Aussie F/A-18's to fill the gap created by punting the F-35

In terms of sending Canadian boys into harms way, F-35 is exponentially the most survivable, so if you are going to expend pilots down range, I would give their families the best chance of getting them back.

Canada may be a Post National State la la land, but the pilots shouldn't have to die for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has been a LM F-35 JSF program partner (Tier 3) from the beginning, with contracts and jobs worth more than the membership dues paid.

...and despite Trudeau's political bluster about Boeing, Canada still needs Boeing for C-17 and F-18 support.

So it will be LM's F-35A or Boeing's Super Hornet, and the last time Canada chose a U.S. Navy aircraft (F/A-18).

Gripen E already uses an American engine and other parts/systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason Canada chose F/A-18 is because it had two engines under the auspices that two is redundant in terms of engine failure.

This was however based on a myth, statistically both F404 engines fail together at the same rate as a single F100/F110 does.

The reason the F/A-18 has two engines is simply to boost power, tho F-16 still have better thrust to weight with its single engine, and it's much cheaper to run single engine vs twin.

Once again, the Nabobs up at DND are not actually military geniuses, they are in fact prone to all sorts of incompetence, they don't call it the Puzzle Palace for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada really could just buy F-16 now, again, still in production.

If Canada sends them into a war against the latest missiles, more of them will be shot down, whereas unlikely even one F-35 would be shot down.

On the other hand, they are fine and dandy for the defence of Canadian airspace, both for ADIZ and Air Policing.

My CEO Marillyn Hewson however,  would obviously prefer to get Canada to uphold its JSF commitments, to include Canada continuing to receive the associated IRB's

So she's not going to enter the F-16 in the competition actively, tho I'm sure she would accept orders for F-16 if Canada insisted.

As a shareholder, I don't care either way, I'm long on LMT, recession proof defensive equity, whether Canada buys from us or not.

Everyone else is going to buy F-35 in the end, wouldn't surprise me if basket case Canada makes itself the odd duck out, that's usually how Canada rolls.

Again, not going to effect the share price to any noticeable degree.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats to bad other than the F-35 the only aircraft worth a spit is the Typhoon, although much more expensive to buy and maintain....This will be kicked down the road once again, until there is only one option left ….more F-18's from Australia LOL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Argus said:

 I like the Gripen, but mostly because it can take off and land from shorter, rougher runways, and requires far, far less maintenance. It would be nice as a plane for the reserves, but it isn't a match for the F-35 head to head.

That's not how the RCAF reserve works, reserve personnel serve with regular force squadrons, there are no flying reserve units and no infrastructure in the reserves at all.

The Reserves in Canada are just pool of personnel to be plugged into higher formations as Augmentees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-35A demonstration at Davis-Monthan AFB, Tuscon Arizona.

 

F-35A demonstration at Lockheed Martin Skunkworks, Palmdale California.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many F-35’s do you think we need?  We’re getting a number of coast guard patrol ships and I’m not sure where we are with ice breakers in the Arctic.  We had too few of them and they’re aging.  We need to be able to monitor our coasts and scramble quickly with aircraft.  It’s a mix of satellite surveillance, drones, ships and aircraft.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How many F-35’s do you think we need?  We’re getting a number of coast guard patrol ships and I’m not sure where we are with ice breakers in the Arctic.  We had too few of them and they’re aging.  We need to be able to monitor our coasts and scramble quickly with aircraft.  It’s a mix of satellite surveillance, drones, ships and aircraft.  

Canada doesn't need any, Canada doesn't need to be at the tip of the spear, Canada is safe and secure inside the perimeter of Fortress America.

For example New Zealand got rid of its fighter jets altogether, the RNZAF doesn't have any tactical air combat wings anymore.

The only thing pushing Canada to buy F-35 is to keep up its NORAD committment.   The NATO tasking is optional, World Police is optional.

But that's why it can only be one of the American fighters, the requirements for the bilateral NORAD alliance are higher than NATO"s in terms of Five Eyes security.

None of the European competitors are going to spend the money to meet the NORAD requirements.

NORAD is Canada's main mission, NATO is secondary, World Police is tertiary.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way RCAF 1st Canadian Air Division has it set up now, is in its late Cold War configuration.

Four "Guns" Squadrons operational; two in Cold Lake (401 Sqn & 409 Sqn) and two in Bagotville (425 Esq & 433 Esq)

Then one operational training squadron in reserve at Cold Lake (410 Sqn)

These squadrons are all under strength, they are smaller than American Sqn's, Canada simply split two of its "Guns" Squadrons into four.

Three of these Squadrons are tasked to NORAD, with one of the Quebec squadrons tasked on stand by to NATO in Europe.

It's 72 to 84 CF-18's. depending on availability in terms of maintenance and upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important thing to understand tho, is that how CF-18 fights and how F-35 fights are very different.

F-35 is an Information Weapon for Information Warfare, the F-35 wins by denying information to the adversary while having much more information about the adversary.

When it comes to offense, the strike role, this is a war winner.

When it comes to defense though, this is not as important.

So Canada doesn't actually need F-35, unless Canada is buying them to strike with the Americans.

Which is what the RCAF wants, that's what the air force thinks it role should be, that's what the air force wants to do, so this why the air force is lobbying for F-35

In fairness to the RCAF, this is what Canada did with the CF-18's, the RCAF knows Canada will be World Policing, so they want the best tool for that.

They also want to be in the big leagues with the Americans, the RCAF doesn't want to be relegated to the little leagues.

This is not to say that F-35 is not capable air to air, it's more capable air to air as well, but the NORAD tasking is not actually air superiority.

The NORAD tasking is actually an Interceptor mission, just fly out there and challenge intruders, either Russian bombers or a 9-11 scenario,

Airspace Defence and Air Policing.   Defence of the Realm and Aid to the Civil Power.

So you don't need bleeding edge tip of the spear for that.  Super Hornet can do that.  Super Hornet is already old though.

So buying Super Hornet is like Canada buying the old CF-101 Voodoo, which was fine for NORAD but useless for NATO.

The RCAF corrected that with CF-18.   Now they are simply trying to reproduce that, with the new version, but that is not actually Super Hornet

F-35 is the NATO first weapon now, the RCAF is NATO first NORAD second. 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, as Canada didn't have enough operational tactical aircraft to meet both NORAD and NATO commitments which is why "previously owned" F/A-18s were purchased from the Aussies (with Trump's permission/approval, as they were built/exported by the USA).  It got so bad, Canada could only deploy a single squadron of CF-18s along with Aurora patrol aircraft and tanker, as NORAD is the primary mission.  Now even the NORAD mission is suffering, and more importantly, RCAF pilots are not getting enough hours to remain proficient. 

But the Australian Band-Aid® will only last so long and requires more spending that could have gone to other military/capital projects.   Some of those will only be used for parts/spares to keep what is left flying.   Canada even raids the American boneyards for spare parts (e.g. Davis-Monthan AFB near Tucson, Arizona) to keep the remaining CF-18s airworthy.

 

1280px-thumbnail.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is just the POTUS, there is Separation of Powers, the Commander-in-Chief is not King of America, the Washington National Security Consensus is both bipartisan and bicameral.

America is a religion, Free all the Slaves Everywhere is the central tenet of the faith, this is the Glorious Union, born at the foot of Cemetery Ridge.

America F*ck Yeah.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In purely Canadian terms, F-35 plays like Wayne Gretzky, everybody else is two or three steps behind, so the Wayner is controlling the play by seeing more while giving away less about what he is going to do, so rather than crashing the net, you make the stealthy and deceptive play, or as me ol' pappy used to say when he was coaching "don't try harder, try easier"

The CF-18 is crashing the net, the CF-18 goes straight at them, launches its hit, hopes it doesn't get hit, but in the end somebody might get through to score the goal, if you crash enough CF-18's into the crease, that crease being an Integrated Air Defense System (IADS)

IADS is the some total of all the adversary air warfare assets, flying air forces and sea/land based air defenses combined, and the sensors and communications which direct them.

With the F-35 it's all about stealth and sensor fusion, see more, while hiding in the weeds, like a flying sniper.

CF-18 is line infantry of yore,  hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle over the top into the teeth of the enemies defenses.

F-35 is like Special Forces, flying Delta Force, CF-18 is like Shock Troops, with CF-18 you are fighting a war of attrition, F-35 bypasses the trenches to go for the coup de main.

Again, full disclosure, I am an LMT shareholder, I believe in the product, but note that I said Canada doesn't need it per se, I'm just explaining how it works, whether you want to buy that product or not,  makes no difference to me either way, LockMart is a big company, Canada is a valued customer, but not make or break.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't trash the Super Hornet, the Super Hornet is the only other realistic option, but it would meet Canada's ostensible if not actual needs.

The only caveat I would say, is that once larded up with tech as it is now, Advanced Super Hornet will end up being more expensive than F-35

For what is just a souped of version of what Canada has now,  It's buying old tech,  just like when Canada bought the CF-101 Voodoo,

As an agnostic servant of the Crown and not DND nor the RCAF, I say Canada is not  actually an Australia, but rather a Giant New Zealand

With an even safer locale than New Zealand right in the petticoats of the Americans.

So like New Zealand, Canada doesn't need any jet fighters at all. 

It's a combination vanity project of the RCAF and boondoggle for the MICC,  for Canada to even continue to perpetuate this Boutique Military Air Force

Instead of just doing what Canadians are actually willing to fund with their taxes.

Because Canadians are not actually willing to fund it, it just lurches around in a boom and bust cycle of plans made and then quickly cancelled.

It is so pennywise and pound foolish, that the operationally capable Canadian Forces already collapsed, back in the 90's

What you see now is pure boondoggle, it's a zombie legacy project reanimated solely to funnel money to Canadian entrenched interests

Corporate welfare and nothing else.  No national defence, corporate welfare for its own sake, the national defence be damned, that's the Americans job.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Lockheed Martin; We Never Forget Who We Are Working For.

What we mean when we say that, is that we are not just out to make money, we are out to defend America First.

Making money is what that is all about, none the less,  if America falls, LMT and we go with it.

So we're not trying to scam anybody, F-35 is what Congress asked us to build, what they asked for was the Moon, we are working diligently to deliver the Moon.

America F*ck Yeah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Surprised Trump has not canceled NATO or NORAD.

Such a fickle partner makes the idea of investing even less tempting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...