It's about time. Liberals take aim at F-35
Bodah @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:31 pm
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Unless you're referring to the so-called "war on terror". Excuse me, the only people 'weve 'bombed' since 2001 are people in Afghanistan, a war where there is no chance of vicotry. The Americans of course have done a lot more bombing than us, they seem to have a predilection for it. Of course most of the middle east despises them , not only for bombing but other such pleasantries as Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. One futile military exercise per century please, Afghanistan was ours and Canadians do not want to go back. Ergo the reason were getting out in less than a year
But again,exactly who do we plan on 'bombing'? The Russians?, the Chinese? when the godless hordes start overrunning the Arctic?
I certainly have been in the CF and i know the mentality, that of having no account of citizens who actually foot the bills for the equipment they use. And it seems you seem to think in the same way, the tax-payer is cash-cow you go to because you think they 'need' this or that. Well we don't need the F-35 because Canadians are not big on foreign adventures anymore, we've lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money in Afghanistan and all for no purpose.
The Eurofighter is a air superiority fighter, which is perfect for the proper defending our airspace. And at about a third of the price of a F-35 is exactly what need. It bolsters our national deference and is easier on tax-payers.
But again,exactly who do we plan on 'bombing'? The Russians?, the Chinese? when the godless hordes start overrunning the Arctic?
I certainly have been in the CF and i know the mentality, that of having no account of citizens who actually foot the bills for the equipment they use. And it seems you seem to think in the same way, the tax-payer is cash-cow you go to because you think they 'need' this or that. Well we don't need the F-35 because Canadians are not big on foreign adventures anymore, we've lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money in Afghanistan and all for no purpose.
The Eurofighter is a air superiority fighter, which is perfect for the proper defending our airspace. And at about a third of the price of a F-35 is exactly what need. It bolsters our national deference and is easier on tax-payers.
If you think its not important that an aircraft have the ability to drop bombs. You're a freaking idiot and I doubt you ever served in the CF. I've never served but I realize the importance of an aircraft not only being able to get into a dogfight and shoot down the enemy but to also provide support to troops on the ground when pinned down under enemy fire.
Since our troops are still dying in Afghanistan and are likely to be there for awhile, even if its not in a forward combat role. I find it pretty ridiculous that you're still harping on this why do we need to drop bombs shit.
You obviously know jack shit about the military.
It's bad form to rely on other countries to provide air to ground support to save our own asses.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:33 pm
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
The rest of us will go on with keeping houses over our kids heads and getting ready for their education.
Thanks to the Canadian Forces, and government Defence spending, you'll be able to keep on doing that.
-J.
Spare me the faux patriotic nonsense, i literally been there and done that so your innuendo's mean less than nothing. The reason we are a prosperous nation is because we have avoided Afghanistan notwithstanding ) pointless , unwinnable wars and massive military speding. If you do desire to get Canadians into another war in the middle east, and every poll suggests Canadians have had enough of war, then say so. Otherwise your opinion is only a platitude
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:48 pm
Bodah Bodah:
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Unless you're referring to the so-called "war on terror". Excuse me, the only people 'weve 'bombed' since 2001 are people in Afghanistan, a war where there is no chance of vicotry. The Americans of course have done a lot more bombing than us, they seem to have a predilection for it. Of course most of the middle east despises them , not only for bombing but other such pleasantries as Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. One futile military exercise per century please, Afghanistan was ours and Canadians do not want to go back. Ergo the reason were getting out in less than a year
But again,exactly who do we plan on 'bombing'? The Russians?, the Chinese? when the godless hordes start overrunning the Arctic?
I certainly have been in the CF and i know the mentality, that of having no account of citizens who actually foot the bills for the equipment they use. And it seems you seem to think in the same way, the tax-payer is cash-cow you go to because you think they 'need' this or that. Well we don't need the F-35 because Canadians are not big on foreign adventures anymore, we've lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money in Afghanistan and all for no purpose.
The Eurofighter is a air superiority fighter, which is perfect for the proper defending our airspace. And at about a third of the price of a F-35 is exactly what need. It bolsters our national deference and is easier on tax-payers.
But again,exactly who do we plan on 'bombing'? The Russians?, the Chinese? when the godless hordes start overrunning the Arctic?
I certainly have been in the CF and i know the mentality, that of having no account of citizens who actually foot the bills for the equipment they use. And it seems you seem to think in the same way, the tax-payer is cash-cow you go to because you think they 'need' this or that. Well we don't need the F-35 because Canadians are not big on foreign adventures anymore, we've lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money in Afghanistan and all for no purpose.
The Eurofighter is a air superiority fighter, which is perfect for the proper defending our airspace. And at about a third of the price of a F-35 is exactly what need. It bolsters our national deference and is easier on tax-payers.
If you think its not important that an aircraft have the ability to drop bombs. You're a freaking idiot and I doubt you ever served in the CF. I've never served but I realize the importance of an aircraft not only being able to get into a dogfight and shoot down the enemy but to also provide support to troops on the ground when pinned down under enemy fire.
Since our troops are still dying in Afghanistan and are likely to be there for awhile, even if its not in a forward combat role. I find it pretty ridiculous that you're still harping on this why do we need to drop bombs shit.
You obviously know jack shit about the military.
It's bad form to rely on other countries to provide air to ground support to save our own asses.
Whether you doubt i served in the CF is immaterial, you seem to think that the CF is this monolithic mind think where people don't have differing opinions. I spent 8 years reg force navy and i'm intimately aware of how they think. The issue with the military is that at all levels you have to keep the military on a tight leash because essentially the "Wish list" never stops. If it's not new fighters, its new tanks, new ships, new guns, new artillery, new this new that. If they had their way the would have every military system under the sun -... twice.
Now as i have said i have no problem, that is ZERO problem with the Eurofighter, because opposed to your insulting insinuation i do believe in defense but i also believe in a defence stature that the Tax-Payer can pay for and can do the job. And the job is protecting Canada, and we can do that just fine with the Eurofighter at a fraction of the cost, and for this sovereignty argument we don't need bombs because the Aircraft in question shouldn't be deployed to anymore fail wars like Afghanistan. Hell, even Americans want out of Afghanistan badly, so why exactly should we dropping almost billion in new military hardware for the type of wars that Canadians have and are rejecting?
So the question is whether it's about 'sovereignty' or having another Afghanistan, you don't get to have your cake and eat it to. Canadians i think would support a national defence progrm that included the Eurofighter but they do not today, or have ever historically supported a peace time massive military build up, especially when Canada has a tremendous national debt to pay off.
And no, our troops are no going to be there for 'sometime' within less than a year they are out and there is absolutely no political will for another engagement like it. So your argument that we would require 'ground support' fails because Canadians simply don't want to be involved in that kind of war again.
herbie @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:23 pm
Did I miss something or didn't the Yanks retire those Warthogs as choppers could even do ground support against armour just as well? Meaning fighter-bombers aren't exactly the platform of choice against a cave or an enemy mortar position?
Maybe they should cross a Predator with a Korean War era Thunderbolt and have an unmanned drone that can only cruise for a few hours but pack one hell of lot of punches.
DerbyX @ Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:54 pm
16 Billion for the wrong planes.
$1:
“It's the sound of freedom!” The head of U.S. Air Combat Command was forced to yell as a pair of F-15 fighter jets roared past his office window.
Sitting on his desk were models of two newer, even more high-tech planes: the twin-engine F-22 and its sister aircraft, the single-engine F-35. The general had test-flown prototypes of both planes, and he chatted happily about them, displaying an obvious preference for the faster, more manoeuvreable and longer-range F-22.
I mentioned that the Canadian government would likely be in the market for new planes, since the CF-18s were beginning to age.
“Yes,” the general said, pointing to the F-35. “They're going to buy some of these.”
That was March 2004 — more than six years ago.
On Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay made it official, publicly committing Canadian taxpayers to a $16 billion deal for the purchase and maintenance of 65 F-35s.
The contract will not be put out for tender because the Harper government has determined that only one plane fits its operational requirements. Or, more accurately, the Harper government has drawn up the operational requirements to exclude everything but the F-35.
The F-35 is a stealth fighter designed to penetrate radar defences on the first day of a war. It's the sort of plane you would use to create “shock and awe” in Baghdad or Tehran. Unless Canada is planning on being the sharp end of the American spear, we don't need stealth technology. The F-35 is designed for short takeoff and landing, with two of the three versions destined for aircraft carriers. Canada, of course, doesn't have aircraft carriers.
And all that stealth technology and short takeoff and landing capacity comes at a cost. In addition to the price tag of about $135 million per plane, the F-35 has a relatively short range. This makes it an odd choice for a large, sparsely populated country.
The short range also makes the F-35 more dependent on mid-air refuelling, which is a challenge in remote locations. In parts of Canada's Arctic, it can take eight hours for a C-135 Hercules tanker to arrive. An honest set of operational requirements would enable tenders for Boeing's new FA-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon and Saab's JAS 39 Gripen.
These other planes are first-rate aircraft. The Super Hornet is already being flown by the U.S. navy and Australian air force; the Typhoon has been chosen by Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Austria and Saudi Arabia; the Gripen has been selected by Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand.
Even then, it's not clear that fighter jets should be at the top of Canada's procurement list. The CF-18s were acquired to intercept Soviet bombers during the Cold War; today, Russia is a member of the G8, the Arctic Council, and a soon-to-be member of the WTO. It's largest trading partner is the European Union, which is made up mostly of NATO states.
Canada's most desperate procurement need is for fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft that could be built in Canada by Bombardier. The Harper government claims that the F-35 program creates opportunities for the Canadian aerospace industry, and that it needs to commit now so that contractors can secure work related to the F-35 orders expected from other countries.
But opportunities for Canadian industry would be created by sourcing search-and-rescue planes here. Or investing some of that $16 billion in another clear need, such as high-speed rail for the Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa corridor.
The fact of the matter is, Friday's F-35 announcement has more to do with supporting U.S. companies than Canadian ones. Back in 2006, the Harper government spent $8.3 billion on four C-17 Globemaster and 17 C-135 Hercules transport aircraft. The contracts were not tendered, making the planes much more expensive than they would otherwise be. But sole-sourcing ensured that the planes would be purchased from American firms rather than Europe's Airbus.
Six months later, the Harper government signed on to the third phase of the F-35 development program. At the time, the Department of National Defence said that Canada's participation would “strengthen relationships and interoperability with our allies.”
Well, some of our allies, at least.
At the end of my 2004 meeting at Air Combat Command, I pointed to the twin-engine model on the desk. “What about those?” I asked. “What if Canada wanted some F-22s?”
The general fixed his fighter-pilot eyes on mine and replied, “I don't think those are for sale.” The cost of developing the F-35 is estimated at an astonishing $276 billion (U.S.). The cost of the F-22, which is based largely on the same technology, is even higher.
The United States is desperate to spread those costs, without selling its very best planes. It needs Canada firmly on board so that other allies — some of whom are wavering — will also commit to buying F-35s. It can't wait for a tendering process. Neither can the Harper government. For opening the procurement to tenders would require revisiting the ridiculously narrow operational requirements, and reveal that we've been sold a pig in a poke — on instructions from the Pentagon.
Sitting on his desk were models of two newer, even more high-tech planes: the twin-engine F-22 and its sister aircraft, the single-engine F-35. The general had test-flown prototypes of both planes, and he chatted happily about them, displaying an obvious preference for the faster, more manoeuvreable and longer-range F-22.
I mentioned that the Canadian government would likely be in the market for new planes, since the CF-18s were beginning to age.
“Yes,” the general said, pointing to the F-35. “They're going to buy some of these.”
That was March 2004 — more than six years ago.
On Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay made it official, publicly committing Canadian taxpayers to a $16 billion deal for the purchase and maintenance of 65 F-35s.
The contract will not be put out for tender because the Harper government has determined that only one plane fits its operational requirements. Or, more accurately, the Harper government has drawn up the operational requirements to exclude everything but the F-35.
The F-35 is a stealth fighter designed to penetrate radar defences on the first day of a war. It's the sort of plane you would use to create “shock and awe” in Baghdad or Tehran. Unless Canada is planning on being the sharp end of the American spear, we don't need stealth technology. The F-35 is designed for short takeoff and landing, with two of the three versions destined for aircraft carriers. Canada, of course, doesn't have aircraft carriers.
And all that stealth technology and short takeoff and landing capacity comes at a cost. In addition to the price tag of about $135 million per plane, the F-35 has a relatively short range. This makes it an odd choice for a large, sparsely populated country.
The short range also makes the F-35 more dependent on mid-air refuelling, which is a challenge in remote locations. In parts of Canada's Arctic, it can take eight hours for a C-135 Hercules tanker to arrive. An honest set of operational requirements would enable tenders for Boeing's new FA-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon and Saab's JAS 39 Gripen.
These other planes are first-rate aircraft. The Super Hornet is already being flown by the U.S. navy and Australian air force; the Typhoon has been chosen by Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Austria and Saudi Arabia; the Gripen has been selected by Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand.
Even then, it's not clear that fighter jets should be at the top of Canada's procurement list. The CF-18s were acquired to intercept Soviet bombers during the Cold War; today, Russia is a member of the G8, the Arctic Council, and a soon-to-be member of the WTO. It's largest trading partner is the European Union, which is made up mostly of NATO states.
Canada's most desperate procurement need is for fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft that could be built in Canada by Bombardier. The Harper government claims that the F-35 program creates opportunities for the Canadian aerospace industry, and that it needs to commit now so that contractors can secure work related to the F-35 orders expected from other countries.
But opportunities for Canadian industry would be created by sourcing search-and-rescue planes here. Or investing some of that $16 billion in another clear need, such as high-speed rail for the Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa corridor.
The fact of the matter is, Friday's F-35 announcement has more to do with supporting U.S. companies than Canadian ones. Back in 2006, the Harper government spent $8.3 billion on four C-17 Globemaster and 17 C-135 Hercules transport aircraft. The contracts were not tendered, making the planes much more expensive than they would otherwise be. But sole-sourcing ensured that the planes would be purchased from American firms rather than Europe's Airbus.
Six months later, the Harper government signed on to the third phase of the F-35 development program. At the time, the Department of National Defence said that Canada's participation would “strengthen relationships and interoperability with our allies.”
Well, some of our allies, at least.
At the end of my 2004 meeting at Air Combat Command, I pointed to the twin-engine model on the desk. “What about those?” I asked. “What if Canada wanted some F-22s?”
The general fixed his fighter-pilot eyes on mine and replied, “I don't think those are for sale.” The cost of developing the F-35 is estimated at an astonishing $276 billion (U.S.). The cost of the F-22, which is based largely on the same technology, is even higher.
The United States is desperate to spread those costs, without selling its very best planes. It needs Canada firmly on board so that other allies — some of whom are wavering — will also commit to buying F-35s. It can't wait for a tendering process. Neither can the Harper government. For opening the procurement to tenders would require revisiting the ridiculously narrow operational requirements, and reveal that we've been sold a pig in a poke — on instructions from the Pentagon.
ASLplease @ Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:58 pm
Thanks Derby, that was a much better Op/Ed....but still an Op/Ed.
DerbyX @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:32 am
So what? You are one of the guys most resistant to government spending and taxes. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best aircraft to suit Canada's specific needs at the best price available. Arguing the purchase of any fighter jets is extraneous isn't the same thing as arguing a different aircraft would have been better, or more suitable, or more cost effective.
This article makes a very reasonable case that we choose the wrong aircraft.
EyeBrock @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:50 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
So what? You are one of the guys most resistant to government spending and taxes. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best aircraft to suit Canada's specific needs at the best price available. Arguing the purchase of any fighter jets is extraneous isn't the same thing as arguing a different aircraft would have been better, or more suitable, or more cost effective.
This article makes a very reasonable case that we choose the wrong aircraft.
This article makes a very reasonable case that we choose the wrong aircraft.
The article gets many things wrong too. I sent mail to the Star on it
The range of the F35 is 2900 kms, twice that of the CF18. That's hardly 'short range'.
He quotes the C135 Hercules tanker. That's like calling a Spitfire a 'Sputfire'.
The Hercules is the C130 and the CF designation is the CC130. I think the author was mixing up the old KC135 and Herk, but its such a basic mistake and detracts from credibility.
The CF doesn't use the C130 as a tanker, we use the the CC150 Polaris (Airbus).
The version Canada has ordered is not the STOVL Version, as in not vertical take -off like the article said, we have the fighter-bomber version on order, its cheaper.
He mentions the Australian F18E/F order but doesn't mention that the Aussies are using it as an interim aircraft until they get their 72 F35's. That's a big exclusion in this article.
So is quoting that the UK and Italy have typhoons and failing to mention that both countries have ordered 135 and 131 F35's respectively.
This was a poorly researched article and gets many things wrong. It fails to look at the facts in a balanced way.
You should be more careful about using this article to support your point derby, it is really shitty, low on facts and far from 'reasonable'.
DerbyX @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:17 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
DerbyX DerbyX:
So what? You are one of the guys most resistant to government spending and taxes. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best aircraft to suit Canada's specific needs at the best price available. Arguing the purchase of any fighter jets is extraneous isn't the same thing as arguing a different aircraft would have been better, or more suitable, or more cost effective.
This article makes a very reasonable case that we choose the wrong aircraft.
This article makes a very reasonable case that we choose the wrong aircraft.
The article gets many things wrong too. I sent mail to the Star on it
The range of the F35 is 2900 kms, twice that of the CF18. That's hardly 'short range'.
He quotes the C135 Hercules tanker. That's like calling a Spitfire a 'Sputfire'.
The Hercules is the C130 and the CF designation is the CC130. I think the author was mixing up the old KC135 and Herk, but its such a basic mistake and detracts from credibility.
The CF doesn't use the C130 as a tanker, we use the the CC150 Polaris (Airbus).
The version Canada has ordered is not the STOVL Version, as in not vertical take -off like the article said, we have the fighter-bomber version on order, its cheaper.
He mentions the Australian F18E/F order but doesn't mention that the Aussies are using it as an interim aircraft until they get their 72 F35's. That's a big exclusion in this article.
So is quoting that the UK and Italy have typhoons and failing to mention that both countries have ordered 135 and 131 F35's respectively.
This was a poorly researched article and gets many things wrong. It fails to look at the facts in a balanced way.
You should be more careful about using this article to support your point derby, it is really shitty, low on facts and far from 'reasonable'.
No. You compared the design to the older f-18 and you got it wrong. The F35A has range of 2220KM (combat: 1100). The super hornet (2346KM) although its lists a mission specific (interdiction) combat radius of 722KMs but the super hornet has a much greater capacity for external fuel tanks and/or a buddy tank system.
Boots made the point about the twin engines vs the single engine. How important that is I'm not sure.
The price comparison is also nothing to sneeze at. 3 times as many (for cheaper) for an aircraft that is in no way half as good. You cited Australia but there has been many criticisms, 2nd guessing, concerns, and the same claims of politics trumping need there as well.
I'm willing to bet the guy writing that article has put exceedingly more research into it then you have and as such his article is more reliable then your assessment unless you can produce a piece by another qualified person refuting it.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:58 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
The CF doesn't use the C130 as a tanker, we use the the CC150 Polaris (Airbus).
Actually...
Guy_Fawkes @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:06 am
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
The CF doesn't use the C130 as a tanker, we use the the CC150 Polaris (Airbus).
Actually...
Aren't those the Blue Angels, the American verson of the Snow Birds?
bootlegga @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:23 am
Canada has both the CC-150 (2) and CC-130 (5) tanker planes. The CC-150 are based out east, and the CC-130s are based in Manitoba.
The op/ed has a number of errors that EB has already pointed out, but the biggest error IMHO is how he writes off the need for planes to patrol the Arctic. In case the author has forgotten, the Russians have been sending long range bombers over the pole for the last couple of years. Our new fighters need to have the capability to patrol the Arctic, even if he sees it as a Cold War era problem. AS longas Russia is run by mobsters and ex-KGB agents, I'll be sceptical of their peaceful intentions. Believe it or not, trading partners go to war all the time. A perfect example is France and Germany (each the other's largest trading partner) and the USA and Japan.
I also think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that the Gripen is the equivalent of the Typhoon or Super Hornet too. He also neglects to mention Viking Air (based in BC) that could also build new SAR planes for us. Finally, his suggestion that the $16 billion be spent instead on a train line in central Canada betrays his 'eastern' bias. All in all, this op/ed is NOT a very good one IMHO.
I do worry about the single engine the F-35 has, simply because the distance between airbases up north is so far and it either means deploying tankers up north with our fighters, or cutting out Arctic patrols altogether. Either option isn't very palatable to me.
Frankly, I think we should be buying a mix of planes, some F-35s and some Super Hornets/Typhoons. That would give us the best mix of options and capabilities.
Edited...
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:24 am
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
The CF doesn't use the C130 as a tanker, we use the the CC150 Polaris (Airbus).
Actually...
Aren't those the Blue Angels, the American verson of the Snow Birds?
Nope. That Herc is not Fat Albert and is the camo pattern sued on some Hercs back in 90's I believe. I think there's still a few Hercs capable of refueling. As for the CF-18's in the photo, if you look closely under the nose you can see our unique "dummy canopy".
DerbyX @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:48 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Canada has both the CC-150 (2) and CC-130 (5) tanker planes. The CC-150 are based out east, and the CC-130s are based in Manitoba.
The op/ed has a number of errors that EB has already pointed out, but the biggest error IMHO is how he writes off the need for planes to patrol the Arctic. In case the author has forgotten, the Russians have been sending long range bombers over the pole for the last couple of years. Our new fighters need to have the capability to patrol the Arctic, even if he sees it as a Cold War era problem. AS longas Russia is run by mobsters and ex-KGB agents, I'll be sceptical of their peaceful intentions. Believe it or not, trading partners go to war all the time. A perfect example is France and Germany (each the other's largest trading partner) and the USA and Japan.
I also think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that the Gripen is the equivalent of the Typhoon or Super Hornet too. He also neglects to mention Viking Air (based in BC) that could also build new SAR planes for us. Finally, his suggestion that the $16 billion be spent instead on a train line in central Canada betrays his 'eastern' bias. All in all, this op/ed is a very good one IMHO.
I do worry about the single engine the F-35 has, simply because the distance between airbases up north is so far and it either means deploying tankers up north with our fighters, or cutting out Arctic patrols altogether. Either option isn't very palatable to me.
Frankly, I think we should be buying a mix of planes, some F-35s and some Super Hornets/Typhoons. That would give us the best mix of options and capabilities.
The op/ed has a number of errors that EB has already pointed out, but the biggest error IMHO is how he writes off the need for planes to patrol the Arctic. In case the author has forgotten, the Russians have been sending long range bombers over the pole for the last couple of years. Our new fighters need to have the capability to patrol the Arctic, even if he sees it as a Cold War era problem. AS longas Russia is run by mobsters and ex-KGB agents, I'll be sceptical of their peaceful intentions. Believe it or not, trading partners go to war all the time. A perfect example is France and Germany (each the other's largest trading partner) and the USA and Japan.
I also think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that the Gripen is the equivalent of the Typhoon or Super Hornet too. He also neglects to mention Viking Air (based in BC) that could also build new SAR planes for us. Finally, his suggestion that the $16 billion be spent instead on a train line in central Canada betrays his 'eastern' bias. All in all, this op/ed is a very good one IMHO.
I do worry about the single engine the F-35 has, simply because the distance between airbases up north is so far and it either means deploying tankers up north with our fighters, or cutting out Arctic patrols altogether. Either option isn't very palatable to me.
Frankly, I think we should be buying a mix of planes, some F-35s and some Super Hornets/Typhoons. That would give us the best mix of options and capabilities.
He does address the need to patrol craft though. Having high tech fighters with no real ability to direct them effectively is a problem. Barts already pointed out the obvious in that department. The F18E has a far greater fuel capacity when you include external capacity and the ability of buddy stores means we could launch an attack at ranges the enemy might not think we could. That seems especially important when you and eyebrock and so many others are saying we need to project power into the arctic. Being able to fly support over whatever arctic vessels we may acquire should be a concern.
Something I have noticed about the F35 in terms or weapon load out. It isn't show to be able to carry the AGM-84 Harpoon, our primary ASM. Given we are concerned about naval incursions that seems important. It fires the AGM-154 and AGM-158 which are air to surface missiles but not anti-ship. I could be wrong though.
Buying a mix of planes sounds reasonable but I'm sure there are problems with that approach lest the government would have done that. The price may be dependent upon numbers.
Frankly its cost that has me leaning the most towards the F18E. At the prices quoted it looks like we could get 3 times as many aircraft for under the price of the F35. We might even get them cheaper if we bought a high number, like 160. We might even be able to get to build it on license.
65 is an awfully small number. I don't hear a lot of complaints against the cons (surprise) over buying a much smaller number of aircraft then the Aussies. They were going to initially buy 100. Now its 75 but they have also already started receiving the Super Hornets they purchased (24 in all). The Libs were criticized to no end for us having such a small airforce and by the time we get the F35s it will be even smaller.
That is the other thing about the F18Es. They are ready to go and have been proven in combat. We could start getting them within a year.
None of this takes into account one of the articles main criticisms in that Harper pulled this crap without tending the contract which might have gotten us a better deal in the long run.
This truly does small like we were conned/forced into buying a jet the US had spent so much money developing. It wouldn't be the first time they conned us into buying into a expensive program we didn't need (bomarc anyone?)
bootlegga @ Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:07 am
The difference between us and the Aussies is that the Super Hornet were purchased to replace bombers they use (F-111s), not as a replacement for the F-18, which they use as a fighter. That's a huge fact that Byers neglects to tell his audience. That doesn't mean we couldn't use them as fighters, but to point out the Aussie purchase in the manner he does seems deliberately deceptive.
The CF-18, to my knowledge never really carried Harpoons, those were used on the Halifaxes and Auroras, while the Cf-18s used weapons like CRV-7s, GBU-12 (smart bomb) and the Mark 83 1000 pound bomb.
I agree that 65 is a small number (my guess is four active squadrons and one training squadron), but by adding in Super Hornets, they would be able to field 100 or more, as the Hornet is much less expensive than the F-35. I would use planes like the Hornet for continental defence (much like the CF-18s now), and use the F-35s for overseas deployments.
I don't care for the tendering process Harper has used over and over while in office, but given that the Libs have been more interested in eco-policies than everything else (including the military), they are forcing people like myself away from supporting them. If I wanted to vote Green, I would. If the Libs want my vote (and that of thousands of other centrists in this country), they have to move back to the centre, not hang out with the Greens and NDP on the left.