F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[OldSolduer]

As a taxpayer, let alone a service member, no one has yet explained to me why we need a fitfth generation fighter, other than the hackneyed "our troops deserve the best equipment" line.

As a non expert, I have to agree.

 

[The Bread Guy]

As a taxpayer, let alone a service member, no one has yet explained to me why we need a fitfth generation fighter, other than the hackneyed "our troops deserve the best equipment" line.

C'mon, you KNOW this is more about the sizzle than the steak, right? 

 

[HB_Pencil]

As a taxpayer, let alone a service member, no one has yet explained to me why we need a fitfth generation fighter, other than the hackneyed "our troops deserve the best equipment" line.

This report lays out much of the operational basis behind Canada's purchase of the F-35... if you're interested.

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Canadian%20Security.pdf

 

[dapaterson]

This report lays out much of the operational basis behind Canada's purchase of the F-35... if you're interested.

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Canadian%20Security.pdf

Executive summary states that Canada should not commit to purchasing before 2016.

Do you agree?

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report lays out much of the operational basis behind Canada's purchase of the F-35... if you're interested.

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Canadian%20Security.pdf

So as I read pps 5,6 and 7 we need the F-35 because we will face a coalition of China and Russia in a shooting war in the next 35 years.

Maybe.

But unlikely for reasons upon which I have elaborated at length over the past few years: China has no strategic interests in a war against the West, it fact such a war makes no, zero, zilch strategic sense for China. China and Russia are more likely potential enemies than allies - they do not share many (any?) strategic interests, especially not viz a viz the West. China and Russia might go to war but if they do the chances are very, very good that it will be against one another.

So absent a China-Russia enemy coalition: why the F-35?

 

[HB_Pencil]

Executive summary states that Canada should not commit to purchasing before 2016.

Do you agree?

Yes, but that would change nothing from the government's current or previous policy. Canada won't make its final decision to purchase the aircraft until 2016 when it pays LM for its first F-35s. That does not affect its position within the partnership. 

 

[AlexanderM]

So as I read pps 5,6 and 7 we need the F-35 because we will face a coalition of China and Russia in a shooting war in the next 35 years.

Maybe.

But unlikely for reasons upon which I have elaborated at length over the past few years: China has no strategic interests in a war against the West, it fact such a war makes no, zero, zilch strategic sense for China. China and Russia are more likely potential enemies than allies - they do not share many (any?) strategic interests, especially not viz a viz the West. China and Russia might go to war but if they do the chances are very, very good that it will be against one another.

So absent a China-Russia enemy coalition: why the F-35?

Agreed! China will eventually take over the world economically.  They won't require a shooting war, they'd be shooting their customers. lol

 

[HB_Pencil]

So as I read pps 5,6 and 7 we need the F-35 because we will face a coalition of China and Russia in a shooting war in the next 35 years.

That's not what the report says at all. Actually it says on page 6:

Although a direct conflict with any one of these nations  [China and Russia] is exceedingly unlikely, these systems are being exported to their client states around the world. They pose a challenge to the West’s ability to undertake operations against some opponents.

Rather it argues the need for the F-35 is to continue Canada's ability to operate in expeditionary operations. It lists over a dozen countries that possess high end SAM and fighter aircraft that can challenge western air dominance over their airspace. The article is pretty clear about a strategic rationale that is not reliant on the need to challenge Russia or China directly (except for northern sovereignty)

 

[Haletown]

As a taxpayer, let alone a service member, no one has yet explained to me why we need a fitfth generation fighter, other than the hackneyed "our troops deserve the best equipment" line.

Because the other more hackneyed line  "our troops deserve second rate equipment"  is politically unpalatable and really, really upsets the parents of serving troops.

 

[Kirkhill]

So the "enemies" are likely to be proxies, brigands and corporations?

Add in some private security contractors and we are all the way back to the condottieri and Genoese crossbows facing off against Welsh longbows.

I love how the wheel keeps turning. .

The good news is that in that kind of world, I believe, a well-equipped and trained Battle-Group, with good air support, can make a difference.  We can operate where the Chinese and the Americans can't or won't. 

Don't even bother with the Russkis.  Even when they had the numbers they couldn't get their tanks to roll or planes to fly due to the mechanics drinking the vodka they used as hydraulic fluid.  (Victor Suvorov, The Liberators - Czechoslovakia 1968).

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Because the other more hackneyed line  "our troops deserve second rate equipment"  is politically unpalatable and really, really upsets the parents of serving troops.

Nice Manichean thinking.  Very useful.

The opposite of "best" is not second rate - it is "good enough".  The "best" is a nonsensical statement of requirement that can only be met all of the time for all equipment in a completely unconstrained resource environment.  In case you haven't noticed, we don't live in such an environment.  "Good enough" is that required to achieve the mission, even if the mission has to be attenuated in order to match our capability.  As a taxpayer, that is what I am looking for, and as an Army Guy, it is what I have been making do with my entire career.

"Best" does not necessarily mean "most advanced".  Sometimes quantity and / or tactics can overcome quality - see the 60s.

So yes, a very hackneyed phrase, made doubly so by the poison pill "second rate" and "parents" shrill shriek argument.

 

[Good2Golf]

...maybe so that the F-35 will be "good enough" in 2050, after a third of a century of service without any updates?

 

[dapaterson]

Yes, but that would change nothing from the government's current or previous policy. Canada won't make its final decision to purchase the aircraft until 2016 when it pays LM for its first F-35s. That does not affect its position within the partnership.

That may be current policy, but was not the original intent.


Of course, that pre-supposes that Canada will remain in the partnership; at a time when defence dollars are shrinking, is investing in a developmental aircraft that we may not even purchase the optimal use of resources?

 

[Jungle]

...maybe so that the F-35 will be "good enough" in 2050, after a third of a century of service without any updates?

That sells it for me; we may not need "all" of the F-35 in 2020, but chances are we will in 2045. Something that may be "good enough" in 2020 may be out-of-the-game in 2045.

If we go to the "good enough" now, will we be able to afford to change the type again after 20 or 25 years if necessary? A lot of today's F-35 detractors would ask why the govt did not choose the F-35 in 2013, as it should have known it was the best choice...

 

[HB_Pencil]

That may be current policy, but was not the original intent.

Maybe, it depends on who you're talk about.  The 2010 "selection" it really didn't do much to change Canada's situation in the program; It could have backed out afterwards, like we're considering now. I think the decision really was more for political consideration for a photo op, rather than any policy need. It may have had an indirect affect on reassuring LM about our commitment... but even that is questionable.

Of course, that pre-supposes that Canada will remain in the partnership; at a time when defence dollars are shrinking, is investing in a developmental aircraft that we may not even purchase the optimal use of resources?

Well for your purposes, I think that's why we're in this process. Depending on how phase two goes, then we're going to either move ahead with the F-35, or re-tender the contract. Probably a year and a half there will be clarity in the latter scenario. However if we do chose the F-35, the partnership is critical for receiving the best price and the best industrial benefits plan. Now because we're purchasing 65, the price is a wash... 8% off of $6.0 billion, is around $480 million. Then again, the MOU fees are mostly sunk costs now.

I would point to the Dutch court of audit recent report suggesting it would be folly to withdraw from the F-35 partnership at this point:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/dutch-fighter-f-idUSL5E8LO8P320121024

The Partnership basically ensures Canadian industries remain able to obtain future contracts, if we're going to purchase the aircraft. My personal view is that we will go with the F-35, particularly after the KPMG findings, but this just keeps our options open for now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Off the shelf buys:

CC-144
CC-130
CC-150
CC-177
CH-146
CH-147 (virtually)
CH-149
CF-188

Developmental Programmes:
MHP 1 - EH-101 (purchased as an of the shelf item once our "partners" sorted the bugs)
MHP 2 - CH-148
NGF - F35

The developmental programmes are as much civvy projects as they are military projects.  They are designed to keep Canadian Aerospace firing on all cylinders: keeping it abreast of new technologies, supplying jobs for Canadians and providing outlets for real success stories like CAE's simulators.  How much money do you reckon CAE will make selling simulators which are designed to offset wear and tear on real life aircraft due to hours "wasted" in training flights?  How many simulators would CAE sell if Canada wasn't a partner in the project and offering to buy the product it was assisting in developing?

Consider:

I go into partnership to develop a new bucket to take to the market place.
Just about the time the partners are going to launch the product I get cold feet and decide that I don't need the new bucket after all.
I re-equip my factories with leather buckets -  They still work.

What is likely to be the reaction of my partners competitors?
What is likely to be the reaction of my partners?
What are the odds of being invited to the Christmas Dinner?


For all that the Air Force wants the F35, just like the Navy wants the SCSC and the JSS (I'll leave the AOPS and the BHS out of it), the real political driver in the F35 project and the NSPS project is Industry Canada and Human Resources.

Keeping 5000 sailors, or 5000 airmen, or 5000 infanteers, or even all 60,000 of you put together, keeping you equipped and happy is not the priority of the government.  They have 30,000,000 other folks to keep healthy and employed.

Now having said that:  IF these development projects are increasing costs that do not benefit DND, an in fact benefit other departments, then the government should be either taking those costs off of DND's books or at least defraying DND's costs with supplemental funding to cover them.

Unfortunately supplemental funding through DND doesn't wash with the Taxpayer who only understands "Billions for Defence, No Soup for Supper".
Equally unfortunately direct subsidies to the civvy industries are frowned upon by our international trading partners and international trade agreements.

Stick! You are cleft.  And you hold the PM's jewels.

 

[Haletown]

The voices of sanity start to emerge from the noise generated by the "we don't need a military" crew.

"Our political decision-makers should also be mindful that those who oppose this purchase will never have to fly a combat aircraft into harm’s way. They will not have to defend their claims whenever Canada faces domestic or international adversity. They will not be held accountable if the Canadian Forces fail to meet their mission objectives because this nation purchased an inferior aircraft with inadequate capabilities to achieve the mission aims and provide pilot survivability."

Do read it all.

http://f-35.ca/2013/the-chronicle-herald-rcaf-aircraft-debate-missing-key-point/

 

[Journeyman]

The voices of sanity start to emerge from the noise....

I have no dog in this acquisition fight....but really?!....an opinion piece written by a retired CF Public Affairs officer, posted on the website "F-35.ca"? -- no bias there.

But I guess if the voices you're hearing are agreeing with you, they're the voices of sanity.

 

[Haletown]

I have no dog in this acquisition fight....but really?!....an opinion piece written by a retired CF Public Affairs officer, posted on the website "F-35.ca"? -- no bias there.

Published in The Chronicle Herald  linked at F-35.ca. 

 

[Journeyman]

"I have no dog in this acquisition fight"

But you just keep banging that drum.....over and over and over -- it gives credibility. Honest.  :nod: