Canada may become the first country to ditch the F-35 fighter jet

[Tyrianth]

Ive only seen a report on Canada once in the news in the last years. It was about the PM hooking that lady in the face >.<

To be fair, a governmental leader doesn't need to be known by random people in a random country to be well respected on the world stage. What you hear or don't hear about a foreign leader means nothing. You mean nothing on the world stage, none of us mean anything on the world stage.

A better judge of what makes a country well respected on the world stage would be the amount of International Organizations they participate in, in which Canada participates in quite a few.

[zEmini]

This is a great example of military waste spending. Exactly why I will refuse or accept any tax increases.

[Gheld]

I mean yeah the cost over-runs were abhorrent. I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. I'm just worried that Trudeau is going to abondon our sunk costs there and drop us in another similar boondoggle.

[Tyrianth]

I mean yeah the cost over-runs were abhorrent. I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. I'm just worried that Trudeau is going to abondon our sunk costs there and drop us in another similar boondoggle.

We need to upgrade our jets either way. Either we continue investing in the F-35's and continue to waste more money, or we suck it up cut our ties with the program realizing our money will be lost, but reinvest in cheaper alternative.

[Yvaelle]

We need to upgrade our jets either way. Either we continue investing in the F-35's and continue to waste more money, or we suck it up cut our ties with the program realizing our money will be lost, but reinvest in cheaper alternative.

^ Pretty much, or we just wait awhile and see what the future brings - unless we see a reason we need next gen aircraft in the next 5-10 years.

[Gheld]

^ Pretty much, or we just wait awhile and see what the future brings - unless we see a reason we need next gen aircraft in the next 5-10 years.

Problem is it usually takes about 30+ years to get a fighter jet from the planning stage onto the tarmac.

Like the JSF program started in the 1990s. There were flight sim computer games in the mid-late 1990s where you could "fly" in an F35. So we basically have no choice if we dump the F-35 to go for something that is already well underway.

[Yvaelle]

Problem is it usually takes about 30+ years to get a fighter jet from the planning stage onto the tarmac.

Like the JSF program started in the 1990s. There were flight sim computer games in the mid-late 1990s where you could "fly" in an F35. So we basically have no choice if we dump the F-35 to go for something that is already well underway.

How does that prevent us from waiting 10 years and deciding if we want F-35s then?

[Shakadam]

The Eurofighter is a great dogfighter, but most air battles won't be dogfights.

I'm skeptical about that really. Countermeasures have improved at pretty much the same rate as offensive weapons have. And the fact is that the world hasn't been in a situation where there have actually been any air battles between opposing forces with (technologically) similar equipment since, what, the Vietnam War?

When opposing air squadrons have exhausted all their long/medium BVR missiles and their countermeasures, what's left except close quarters dogfighting with short range missiles and cannons?
I just don't buy a scenario where you just show up in your ultra-modern stealth plane, fire the missiles, and watch all enemies plummet to the ground. It didn't work in the Vietnam War (which the US military belatedly realized and started equipping fighters with internal cannons again) and we haven't been in a situation where it's been tested since then.

[Gheld]

How does that prevent us from waiting 10 years and deciding if we want F-35s then?

Because 10 years from now it might take another 5 or 10 years to manufacture a full fleet of F-35s. Because obviously a lot of the things in these planes are A. highly proprietary, and B. Top Secret C. requires a lot of custom tooling to meet the users exact needs. D. Requires years of training to get pilots up to speed on how to best operate them.

So you can't just go up to a drive through box and order 69 F-35s and then they'll take a bunch out from the back and stamp maple leafs on them.

There needs to be all kinds of national security briefings, and pilot training programs put into place. Local contractors have to be retooled to deal with it up to and including dealing with top secret information surrounding them.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm skeptical about that really. Countermeasures have improved at pretty much the same rate as offensive weapons have. And the fact is that the world hasn't been in a situation where there have actually been any air battles between opposing forces with (technologically) similar equipment since, what, the Vietnam War?

When opposing air squadrons have exhausted all their long/medium BVR missiles and their countermeasures, what's left except close quarters dogfighting with short range missiles and cannons?
I just don't buy a scenario where you just show up in your ultra-modern stealth plane, fire the missiles, and watch all enemies plummet to the ground. It didn't work in the Vietnam War (which the US military belatedly realized and started equipping fighters with internal cannons again) and we haven't been in a situation where it's been tested since then.

Covert Typhoon salesman detected.

But seriously. the F-35's capabilities for what it's designed to do are perfectly adequate. People draw too many unfair comparisons for it's performance figures. It's not an interceptor, so of course it's top speed is lower than an interceptors. It's not a bomber, so of course it carries less ordinance than a bomber.

That said though it's a strike fighter. Whereas Canada is replacing multi-role fighters. Slightly different jobs.

[Yvaelle]

Because 10 years from now it might take another 5 or 10 years to manufacture a full fleet of F-35s. Because obviously a lot of the things in these planes are A. highly proprietary, and B. Top Secret C. requires a lot of custom tooling to meet the users exact needs. D. Requires years of training to get pilots up to speed on how to best operate them.

So you can't just go up to a drive through box and order 69 F-35s and then they'll take a bunch out from the back and stamp maple leafs on them.

There needs to be all kinds of national security briefings, and pilot training programs put into place. Local contractors have to be retooled to deal with it up to and including dealing with top secret information surrounding them.

Right, but all of that could not start until 10 years from now, yes?

I think people get so caught up in all the peripheral requirements to a completed project - that they become committed to, "we must start now if we want them operational in 10 years!" - when what I'm saying is, "we could decide to start in 10 years, and have them operational in 20".

It seems to be a shitty program today that we shouldn't be a part of. In 10 years, we will know if it's good or not - and then can decide if that's the right path to go down.

More importantly, as I said some pages back - doing this at the expense of virtually all our other military spending seems like catastrophic folly: we don't need jets.

Edit:

I do a bit of advising on whether projects should go forward or not - and the way the discussion is too often phrased is, "What is the cost/benefit?" - instead the question I'm asking is - "Is this the right timing?".

So for example, a telecom startup many years ago developed proprietary technology that massively increased the potential bandwidth of fibreoptic networks - it overshadowed the requirements at the time by at least an order of magnitude - so they set about building global fibre networks using this new technology. The cost was the same as their competitors, and the benefit was something like 8-10 times the bandwidth. The potential was huge.

The reason you have probably never heard of this company, is because they went under shortly after - not due to the quality of their product - all of the infrastructure they built is actively used today, and their technology is still the gold standard in telecom. Instead, they went under because the timing was bad - it was right during the tech crash - and they were perceived as a tech company - and they were building capacity for a market that didn't exist yet: because this was before YouTube / Netflix normalizing streaming 1080p for the masses. The cost/benefit was so good it was hard to believe, but the timing? The timing couldn't have been worse.

Another big advocate of this way of thinking is Ray Kurzweil, who predicts technological breakthroughs not so much by when he anticipates the tech will get there - but when the timing will be right - when the masses will be normalized to such tech, and when they will demand it.

Put aside whether the F-35 is more beneficial than its cost for a moment, and consider the timing here. We're talking about making an enormous investment into uncertain technology, for which we have no foreseeable demand, when we don't exactly have spare billions burning a hole in our pockets, which could better be used for virtually any other program spend in our budget, and even if it were directed to the military - could be better spent on doing more of what we already know works well: our armed forces.

[Shakadam]

Covert Typhoon salesman detected.

Heh :P Nah if anything I'm rooting for the Saab Gripen New Generation (E/F models) because it's good enough, highly customizable, and by far the cheapest option. Finland has a recently started program to find a replacement for our current F/A-18 C/D Hornets by 2025 and I'm hoping the Gripen wins this time.

[Gheld]

Heh :P Nah if anything I'm rooting for the Saab Gripen New Generation (E/F models) because it's good enough, highly customizable, and by far the cheapest option. Finland has a recently started program to find a replacement for our current F/A-18 C/D Hornets by 2025 and I'm hoping the Gripen wins this time.

Hmm, unit cost 30-60million US each. Could replace Canada's entire fighter program for under 10 billion dollars.

[stabetha]

Who?

Who?

when tenniselbow says "the world" they mean the voices in their head.

[Altrec]

Right, but all of that could not start until 10 years from now, yes?

I think people get so caught up in all the peripheral requirements to a completed project - that they become committed to, "we must start now if we want them operational in 10 years!" - when what I'm saying is, "we could decide to start in 10 years, and have them operational in 20".

It seems to be a shitty program today that we shouldn't be a part of. In 10 years, we will know if it's good or not - and then can decide if that's the right path to go down.

More importantly, as I said some pages back - doing this at the expense of virtually all our other military spending seems like catastrophic folly: we don't need jets.

Edit:

I do a bit of advising on whether projects should go forward or not - and the way the discussion is too often phrased is, "What is the cost/benefit?" - instead the question I'm asking is - "Is this the right timing?".

So for example, a telecom startup many years ago developed proprietary technology that massively increased the potential bandwidth of fibreoptic networks - it overshadowed the requirements at the time by at least an order of magnitude - so they set about building global fibre networks using this new technology. The cost was the same as their competitors, and the benefit was something like 8-10 times the bandwidth. The potential was huge.

The reason you have probably never heard of this company, is because they went under shortly after - not due to the quality of their product - all of the infrastructure they built is actively used today, and their technology is still the gold standard in telecom. Instead, they went under because the timing was bad - it was right during the tech crash - and they were perceived as a tech company - and they were building capacity for a market that didn't exist yet: because this was before YouTube / Netflix normalizing streaming 1080p for the masses. The cost/benefit was so good it was hard to believe, but the timing? The timing couldn't have been worse.

Another big advocate of this way of thinking is Ray Kurzweil, who predicts technological breakthroughs not so much by when he anticipates the tech will get there - but when the timing will be right - when the masses will be normalized to such tech, and when they will demand it.

Put aside whether the F-35 is more beneficial than its cost for a moment, and consider the timing here. We're talking about making an enormous investment into uncertain technology, for which we have no foreseeable demand, when we don't exactly have spare billions burning a hole in our pockets, which could better be used for virtually any other program spend in our budget, and even if it were directed to the military - could be better spent on doing more of what we already know works well: our armed forces.

The problem with that line of thinking is that if something major were to happen you can't wait that extra 10 years to get things done. Civilian tech is fine to take a wait and see approach because peoples lives and national security are not generally on the line. If major conflict were to break out you don't get to ask everyone to wait 10 years while you get ready because you decided it was a better idea to wait and see.

[Yvaelle]

The problem with that line of thinking is that if something major were to happen you can't wait that extra 10 years to get things done. Civilian tech is fine to take a wait and see approach because peoples lives and national security are not generally on the line. If major conflict were to break out you don't get to ask everyone to wait 10 years while you get ready because you decided it was a better idea to wait and see.

Describe the foreseeable scenario in which a global conflict breaks out - and it all hinges on whether Canada is flying CF-18's or F-35's out of Cold Lake?

If China & Russia team up to battle the US, and they want to conquer Baffin Island as a staging ground in North America - our airforce is basically meaningless in that fight regardless. Our best strategy to deter this would be to build more runways in the NWT so US planes have somewhere to land between Cold Lake / Alaska, and Baffin Island. And that is like, the most realistic scenario I can think of where our choice of F-35's in the next few years could make some sliver of difference.

[omfgreally]

This one is cheaper.

[Yvaelle]

This one is cheaper.

Given the cost difference it probably would be cheaper to buy so many of those that we can build a land bridge across the Pacific and march our troops to war - to greater effect - than the handful of F35's it would buy us instead.

[Kalador]

i'm not a big fan of buying f-35 as they are really expensive aircraft and the program is a giant money sinkhole... but we need some aircraft and the f-18 are really starting to be to old...

i've heard the one of the big problem with f-35 and other single engine plane was that they were not really made for artics. also the fact that the f-35 relly so much on electronics to function made it less good to start in *> -50C temperature you can have in the winter in artics canada... tho it's hard to find good source of information on this...

we could bring back the legendary avro CF-105 Arrow XD!!

[Altrec]

Describe the foreseeable scenario in which a global conflict breaks out - and it all hinges on whether Canada is flying CF-18's or F-35's out of Cold Lake?

If China & Russia team up to battle the US, and they want to conquer Baffin Island as a staging ground in North America - our airforce is basically meaningless in that fight regardless. Our best strategy to deter this would be to build more runways in the NWT so US planes have somewhere to land between Cold Lake / Alaska, and Baffin Island. And that is like, the most realistic scenario I can think of where our choice of F-35's in the next few years could make some sliver of difference.

I don't make military scenarios as that is the job of each countries military command to determine and prepare for. The point is you don't have the luxury of waiting until the last second to purchase equipment and train your personnel should something actually happen. Si vis pacem, para bellum is the idea.

[squashdouche]

Good stuff. No need for these overpriced jets. I trust PM Trudeau to make the wrong decision.

I fixed that for you