McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,075
- Points
- 1,160
By what measure? You still have not explained your rational. Are we just supposed to assume you are correct because you exude greatness as you sit and type at your keyboard?skater021 said:
If there is error in my comments, please point it out.skater021 said:
I provided a counter point to each of your points. In one case, I even invited you to provide more arguments to support your position so that discourse could continue … your first sentence shows you have chosen not to engage this opportunity.skater021 said:
Pot, this is Kettle. Radio Check, Over.skater021 said:
skater021 said:
So what is the price of an F35?
So what is the price of the "single engine overpriced" you are so concerned about.
What is the price of a Super Hornet - a number not 1/3 the imaginary price of an F35?
Numbers please.
And sources.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,105
- Points
- 1,160
I'm actually in favour of the F-35 purchase (although frankly the cost bloat that seems to infect virtually every major US military hardware program scares me), but this one line from the article posted by G2G frustrates me...
Canada doesn't have a clear and current Foreign Policy White Paper which lays out exactly what our Foreign Policy goals are how we plan to achieve them. Therefore can't have a clear and current Defence White Paper which clearly defines our military needs.
Without that kind of clear guidance for the CF any statement of our aircraft's "mandatory requirements" will have to be pretty darned broad in order to cover EVERY potential role to which the aircraft MAY be called upon to fill.
This being the case the F-35 makes perfect sense as the choice for the CF. It is the most modern technology available and will have a long service life in line with what Canada typically demands from it's equipment. It can fill a broad range of roles and will be totally interoperable with the fleets of our major allies.
IF we were to have much clearer roles defined for how we intend to use our aircraft then we MIGHT have a different list of "mandatory requirements" to fill. Even then we might still decide that the F-35 is the best choice of aircraft for the CF.
We don't have a different list of mandatory requirements however so if the CF experts have decided that the F-35 is the only (or even best) aircraft that does what we currently need our fighters to do then we should accept their decision.
If we as a nation decide that we're not willing to pay the price required to get what the experts say we need then we at least have to be honest and openly say that we're making the choice to select an inferior aircraft (to our stated needs) in order to save money (and be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice).
Good2Golf said:
Canada doesn't have a clear and current Foreign Policy White Paper which lays out exactly what our Foreign Policy goals are how we plan to achieve them. Therefore can't have a clear and current Defence White Paper which clearly defines our military needs.
Without that kind of clear guidance for the CF any statement of our aircraft's "mandatory requirements" will have to be pretty darned broad in order to cover EVERY potential role to which the aircraft MAY be called upon to fill.
This being the case the F-35 makes perfect sense as the choice for the CF. It is the most modern technology available and will have a long service life in line with what Canada typically demands from it's equipment. It can fill a broad range of roles and will be totally interoperable with the fleets of our major allies.
IF we were to have much clearer roles defined for how we intend to use our aircraft then we MIGHT have a different list of "mandatory requirements" to fill. Even then we might still decide that the F-35 is the best choice of aircraft for the CF.
We don't have a different list of mandatory requirements however so if the CF experts have decided that the F-35 is the only (or even best) aircraft that does what we currently need our fighters to do then we should accept their decision.
If we as a nation decide that we're not willing to pay the price required to get what the experts say we need then we at least have to be honest and openly say that we're making the choice to select an inferior aircraft (to our stated needs) in order to save money (and be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice).
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,312
- Points
- 1,260
Skater, you might want to post your bona fides ie are you a pilot? An aircraft maintainer? Air Weapons?Jim Seggie said:
Read what I wrote. Have a nice day.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GR66 said:
I think that this in fact supports the notion of buying F-35s. With no clear directives from above, the CF needs to be prepared for a much broader scope of potential future operations. Including shooting wars against peer or near-peer opponents.
Personally, I think that the sheer amount of time we're anticipating having this aircraft in service dictates this anyways, regardless of whether or not there is a current policy paper in place. Too much can change in 50 years.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,326
- Points
- 1,010
Any new technology we buy into is going to be costly, period. The F35 is in its infancy/pre-natal stage, the technology still being refined. As far as cost, we are talking future top of the line fighter aircraft. This is not something thats going to be cheap.
It would be similar to me saying I want a really good 4 bedroom house with large backyard but I only have 50,000 to spend. I would be laughed out of the agent's office.
You want quality and performance, its going to cost. IMO we need quality and performance.
As Jim said, unless your a fighter pilot/aircraft engineer/ something of a GENUINE expert on aircraft, keep in mind who opinions matter.
Here is another thought. How much money did we spend developing the LAVIII? I will bet it was a fair chunk of change and it certainly has performed very well for us and gave rise to the Stryker family of vehicles.
It would be similar to me saying I want a really good 4 bedroom house with large backyard but I only have 50,000 to spend. I would be laughed out of the agent's office.
You want quality and performance, its going to cost. IMO we need quality and performance.
As Jim said, unless your a fighter pilot/aircraft engineer/ something of a GENUINE expert on aircraft, keep in mind who opinions matter.
Here is another thought. How much money did we spend developing the LAVIII? I will bet it was a fair chunk of change and it certainly has performed very well for us and gave rise to the Stryker family of vehicles.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,227
- Points
- 1,010
FoverF said:
Lets think back a bit: 1987:Mulroney's White Paper on Defence: Extreme cold war scenario - 1989: Fall on the Berlin Wall: White Paper obsolete.
Having a policy in place NOW is not a proper military planning basis in view of the length of time over which military equipment and results panning from the policy must remain effective. The only valid military purchasing policy is buy what is most current and cutting edge, every time.
A
aesop081
Guest
MCG said:
I missed this one.......
"production runs" is misleading. The aircraft that were delivered are Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 1 aircraft. These are not final configuration aircraft. The aircrafts have joined the testing and evaluation that must be completed before LRIP can be ceased and full production begins. As i have posted before, LRIP status limits the number of aircraft that can be manufactured.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts
Cites that 2 production aircraft have been delivered to Edwards AFB while an additional 6 have been delivered for flight testing.
Also of interest in the link above:
2010 Estimated Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost
F-35A CTOL $65 million
Cites that 2 production aircraft have been delivered to Edwards AFB while an additional 6 have been delivered for flight testing.
Also of interest in the link above:
2010 Estimated Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost
F-35A CTOL $65 million
A
aesop081
Guest
WingsofFury said:
These are AF-6 (BuNo 07-0744) and AF-7 (BuNo 07-0745) and are both LRIP Lot 1 aircraft.
CDN Aviator said:
Perhaps, but true.
These LRIP aircraft are/will become the property of USAF/USM/USMC as they are delivered. They are/will be in DoD inventory, will be flown in Squadron service and will go into combat if required.
They are production aircraft as much as aircraft #1000 to come off the line.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
WOW, new Lockheed Martin F-35 website:
http://www.f35.com/
http://www.f35.com/
They just don't give up.....
Report: F-35 is an ‘expensive mistake’ for Canada
Article Link
By Philip Ewing Wednesday, July 6th, 2011 Posted in International
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs doesn’t pull any punches in a new report about Canada’s membership in the F-35 club: It doesn’t belong, the study concludes.
In addition to the many questions about how much the CF-35 will ultimately cost — just like Washington, Ottawa has competing sets of numbers that come from different sides of the political spectrum — the Council’s study argues that Canada should wave off because it just doesn’t need the kind of capability the F-35 offers.
The Lightning II, as Buzz readers know, is designed to drop the first ordnance of the war or have the first dogfight — that’s why it needs to be stealthy, agile, networked, etc. But let’s be honest, the Council’s report says: Canada shouldn’t be committing itself to an aircraft based on this kind of strategy: It’s a bad idea in principle and practically speaking, Canada doesn’t have the firepower to follow through on the kinds of major campaigns for which the U.S. designed this aircraft. “The F-35 is unsuitable for Canadian military operations and marks an unfortunate shift in Canadian foreign policy towards single-mindedly backing the U.S. military,” wrote the Council’s lead author.
He concludes:
Canada’s foreign policy should not be tied closely to that of the U.S., especially when conducting Canadian military operations. The goals and orientations of these two militaries are completely different. The F-35’s fundamental role is a day-one stealth bomber used to penetrate enemy air defense, which later secures air cover and provides the opportunity to bomb important military targets. Therefore, the F-35 purchase suggests that the Conservative government is willing to conduct further NATO operations in bombing or suppression of air defense. However, Canada lacks the capacity to follow through with this type of invasion or large-scale operation.
The Canadian government should have instead used its resources to invest in areas that would benefit Canada overseas, such as the land forces. Steven Staples points out, “as the second largest country in the world, a significant portion of [Canada’s] military spending should be dedicated to disaster relief, search-and-rescue, and constabulary patrols along [Canada’s] three coasts. [Canada’s] potential military contribution to expeditionary missions will be neither necessary nor sufficient for the success of operations involving significant use of force.”
With the current budget deficit and Canada’s historical role in peacekeeping missions, the Canadian Forces should focus on missions sanctioned by the United Nations. Canada could make a greater contribution to UN missions by having the Canadian Forces specialize in general use capabilities. General specialization will allow Canada to offer greater support for humanitarian missions – an option that investing in concepts such as “first-strike capabilities” renders impossible. However, even though these UN missions are very important, Canada has dramatically reduced its contributions to UN operations since 1997, partly because of the NATO-led mission in Bosnia. By 2005, Canada committed only 83 military personnel to UN peacekeeping missions, in comparison 500 Canadian soldiers participated in stabilizing Haiti from 1993 to 1996. Once again, Staples recognizes that Canada stopped operating strategic bombers after the end of the Second World War, and retired the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonadventure forty years ago. Until recently, previous administrations reoriented the Canadian Forces to conduct smaller peace-keeping operations. Its critics say that the F-35 purchase marks a grave mistake by the Conservatives, as Canada does not need the F-35 in any shape or capacity in its inventory. Instead, Canada’s scarce resources should be invested in existing sectors of their armed forces.
The is only the latest shot fired in what has been a long, public battle over the CF-35, but at the moment, the jet’s backers in Ottawa appear to have the upper hand. There’s every indication that despite the long controversy, Canada will keep its membership in the F-35 club and move forward with its planned buy of 65.
end
Report: F-35 is an ‘expensive mistake’ for Canada
Article Link
By Philip Ewing Wednesday, July 6th, 2011 Posted in International
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs doesn’t pull any punches in a new report about Canada’s membership in the F-35 club: It doesn’t belong, the study concludes.
In addition to the many questions about how much the CF-35 will ultimately cost — just like Washington, Ottawa has competing sets of numbers that come from different sides of the political spectrum — the Council’s study argues that Canada should wave off because it just doesn’t need the kind of capability the F-35 offers.
The Lightning II, as Buzz readers know, is designed to drop the first ordnance of the war or have the first dogfight — that’s why it needs to be stealthy, agile, networked, etc. But let’s be honest, the Council’s report says: Canada shouldn’t be committing itself to an aircraft based on this kind of strategy: It’s a bad idea in principle and practically speaking, Canada doesn’t have the firepower to follow through on the kinds of major campaigns for which the U.S. designed this aircraft. “The F-35 is unsuitable for Canadian military operations and marks an unfortunate shift in Canadian foreign policy towards single-mindedly backing the U.S. military,” wrote the Council’s lead author.
He concludes:
Canada’s foreign policy should not be tied closely to that of the U.S., especially when conducting Canadian military operations. The goals and orientations of these two militaries are completely different. The F-35’s fundamental role is a day-one stealth bomber used to penetrate enemy air defense, which later secures air cover and provides the opportunity to bomb important military targets. Therefore, the F-35 purchase suggests that the Conservative government is willing to conduct further NATO operations in bombing or suppression of air defense. However, Canada lacks the capacity to follow through with this type of invasion or large-scale operation.
The Canadian government should have instead used its resources to invest in areas that would benefit Canada overseas, such as the land forces. Steven Staples points out, “as the second largest country in the world, a significant portion of [Canada’s] military spending should be dedicated to disaster relief, search-and-rescue, and constabulary patrols along [Canada’s] three coasts. [Canada’s] potential military contribution to expeditionary missions will be neither necessary nor sufficient for the success of operations involving significant use of force.”
With the current budget deficit and Canada’s historical role in peacekeeping missions, the Canadian Forces should focus on missions sanctioned by the United Nations. Canada could make a greater contribution to UN missions by having the Canadian Forces specialize in general use capabilities. General specialization will allow Canada to offer greater support for humanitarian missions – an option that investing in concepts such as “first-strike capabilities” renders impossible. However, even though these UN missions are very important, Canada has dramatically reduced its contributions to UN operations since 1997, partly because of the NATO-led mission in Bosnia. By 2005, Canada committed only 83 military personnel to UN peacekeeping missions, in comparison 500 Canadian soldiers participated in stabilizing Haiti from 1993 to 1996. Once again, Staples recognizes that Canada stopped operating strategic bombers after the end of the Second World War, and retired the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonadventure forty years ago. Until recently, previous administrations reoriented the Canadian Forces to conduct smaller peace-keeping operations. Its critics say that the F-35 purchase marks a grave mistake by the Conservatives, as Canada does not need the F-35 in any shape or capacity in its inventory. Instead, Canada’s scarce resources should be invested in existing sectors of their armed forces.
The is only the latest shot fired in what has been a long, public battle over the CF-35, but at the moment, the jet’s backers in Ottawa appear to have the upper hand. There’s every indication that despite the long controversy, Canada will keep its membership in the F-35 club and move forward with its planned buy of 65.
end
A
aesop081
Guest
GAP said:
Tired old line. Canada's history also includes world war 1, world war 2, the Korean war, the 91 Gulf war, The air war in Kosovo in 99, the war in Afghanistan and now, in Libya.
We still are. Both missions in Afghanistan and Libya are directed by the UN.
Let us think about this comment from an English language point of view.........
Rubbish argument. A "first strike" fighter aircraft can do many things, just like a "second strike" fighter could. That fighter is designed to be able to handle "first strike" tasks doesn't mean thats all it can do.
Fighter aircraft are a "sector" of the armed forces and one that needs attention.
I'm not on the "supporter" side of the F-35 issue but i don't like BS arguments like this.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
http://www.f35.com/news-events/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Has this been decided? I understand the desire for an internal gun, but I was under the impression that the more robust landing gear, tail hook, and folding wings were advantageous for how we operate our fighter fleet, and I believe there's an advantage in range as well, based on both more fuel and larger wing area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Variants
Granted, I'm very uneducated on the finer points of fighter ops, I'd love to hear from anyone in the Fast Air community.
