Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crablezworth wrote:
We'll invest the savings into education.

What savings? If we don't buy the F-35, we'd just have to design something else.

The 35 billion we're not spending on f35's. And I'm talking about Canada here.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The 35 billion we're not spending on f35's. And I'm talking about Canada here.

You'd also have to design/buy something else.

 Seaward wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The 35 billion we're not spending on f35's. And I'm talking about Canada here.

You'd also have to design/buy something else.

feth that, health care, education and tacos for all.

To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.

So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?

 Ketara wrote:
To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.

So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1335735

It is worth noting that the US has a large part of the responsibility for the original cancellation of Canada's original attack aircraft, the Avro Arrow (one of the most advanced fighters of its era).

 Fafnir wrote:
It is worth noting that the US has a large part of the responsibility for the original cancellation of Canada's original attack aircraft, the Avro Arrow (one of the most advanced fighters of its era).

You're bringing up an issue with something from 50 year ago? Well, I'm sorry our air industry produced 3 comparable aircraft at the same time, and we didn't buy yours. Businesses don't always succeed though. Avro tried to butt in on a business that already had several giants, and it got squashed. Happens all the time.

It wasn't a matter of aircrafts being bought or sold. It's a matter of the US pushing for their own military presence in Canada, as opposed to our own. The mindset of "America will protect us if someone gives us a strange look" is one that America itself has opted to encourage from over 5 decades ago.

It's hardly as simple as that. Canada and the US created NORAD, and with it came standardized nuclear defense systems. The budget associated with this cut into the Arrows production, and then the Arrow was unable to work with the new nuclear missile system to be used. That is why your Defense Minister made the decision to cancel the project and go with cheaper US aircraft.

It was hardly a "US didn't want Canada not buying our stuff." thing.

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.

I'm not really sure having all of your best hockey players entertain the twenty or so of us who actually like hockey is really a fair trade for covering your air defense.

Hey now, we also provide employment for your football players who aren't good enough for your NFL!

Speaking of that, when do you want us to ship Tebow over?

If you promise to keep Celine Dion, we'll take him. We could always use mediocre players elevated to celebrity by embarrassing displays of faith.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.

So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1335735

A 4 year old article about russian planes entering our airspace? They can enter all they want, I don't give a feth. Hell they can have the north, nothing but a barren hellscape up there anyway.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.

So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1335735

A 4 year old article about russian planes entering our airspace? They can enter all they want, I don't give a feth. Hell they can have the north, nothing but a barren hellscape up there anyway.

Well of course you'd say you don't care. You don't even feel the need for a military, so why would you care? Others do though.

I don't feel the need for the "royal" canadian airforce. We still need an army, who else is gonna shovel snow in toronto?

Guys, we are allies. Lets not bicker and argue about stupid ego-centric "my country is better than yours" crap. Lets stick to the subject. The F-35 is the classic case of trying to do too much. Every service branch and every country involved in the project keeps adding design specifications that not only balloon the costs but delay it further and further. With our glorious leader effectively shutting down the F-22, the F-35 was our only hope to replace the airframes we are currently using...that were designed during the Vietnam war. Somebody mentioned changing horses. The problem is there are no other horses to change to. If we scrap the F-35, it will be another decade before another design is even considered. I hate to say it, but its the F-35 or keep having our current planes fall out of the sky due to fatigue.

 Musashi363 wrote:
If we scrap the F-35, it will be another decade before another design is even considered.

And that matters why? Who's intent on invading?



This is what the cockpit of the future looks like. There's no way in hell you can justify a plane the costs 200 million dollars a piece.

I suppose the opposition to this plane comes from the belief there will be no more war between developed nations. I mean, a drone can annihilate a goatherder with an AK just as easily as an F-35 can, and a lot more cheaply and safely, too.

As long as there is no more war between developed nations.

feeder wrote:
I suppose the opposition to this plane comes from the belief there will be no more war between developed nations. I mean, a drone can annihilate a goatherder with an AK just as easily as an F-35 can, and a lot more cheaply and safely, too.

As long as there is no more war between developed nations.

We had the war to end all wars already. It was shortly followed by the largest war in history.

And from vietnam onwards the us has been fething the dog, what's your point? That whole mutually assured destruction thing keeps the big boys from playing in eachother's sandbox.

Who's going to invade us? By that extremely flawed logic, why have a military at all...especially since the world is at peace? An air force is vital for a combined arms. The real world is not like WH40K, you can't do anything with just a ground force.

It's also the one thing you really can't get more of quickly. You can raise infantry regiments in a matter of months with a draft, ditto armor and artillery with preset stockpiles, but pilots and complex aircraft are things that take years to train and build. Same deal with a Navy. Blue forces are not something to be cut or ignored lightly.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's also the one thing you really can't get more of quickly. You can raise infantry regiments in a matter of months with a draft, ditto armor and artillery with preset stockpiles, but pilots and complex aircraft are things that take years to train and build. Same deal with a Navy. Blue forces are not something to be cut or ignored lightly.

Unless you want to show the world that you don't know your a** from a hole in the ground

 djones520 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
To those commenting about Canada 'leeching' off the defence budget of the States, well.....Out of the entire populace of the world, only two nations spring to mind as having the capability to invade Canada. One being the Brits, and the other being the US.

So I guess this must mean that they're leeching off the US to defend themselves from...the US?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1335735

Note the use of the word 'invade' in my original statement.

And the Russians do flyby's of just about everyone from time to time. I have a sneaky suspicion half the time it's just the pilot leaning on the joystick whilst reaching for another crisp, and jerking the plane over the airspace border by accident.


Seriously, Canada doesn't currently need armed forces, unless the US is planning on subsuming them. Which wouldn't be the first time I suppose.

The reason they keep them is because a) armed force is a Government's final resort to impose its will on the population in case of civil unrest, b) because it lets them join in on our commonwealth and UN excursions from time to time, and c) because everyone else has one and you don't look like a proper country if you choose to pass.

 Seaward wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
You mean like the fact that the naval variant can't successfully land on an aircraft carrier?

The aircraft is a victim of trying to do too much with a single airframe. Some peanut counter thought it would be a great savings...it was a terrible idea.

The C's certainly in bad shape, but last I heard the hook problem's still pretty much been fixed. It's still likely to be a pain in the ass to land on a deck, simply due to how close the hook is to the main gear, but we've had ensign eliminators before and done alright.

Plus, we're the only ones even considering purchasing the C; Canada would be picking up the A.

The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.

Should have just bought an ass load of these http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/tech/innovation/new-scorpion-attack-jet/index.html

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.

No, the F-35's shortcomings are extant, but widely misunderstood by the general public. There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.

What's going on with the F-35 is, to use an analogy, a little like what would happen if you tried to show a B-29 to a World War I pilot. He'd go, "You idiots! You forgot to allow the canopy to open so the pilot can throw bombs out!" because, hey, that's the way they were used to doing it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.

No, the F-35's shortcomings are extant, but widely misunderstood by the general public. There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.

What's going on with the F-35 is, to use an analogy, a little like what would happen if you tried to show a B-29 to a World War I pilot. He'd go, "You idiots! You forgot to allow the canopy to open so the pilot can throw bombs out!"

I like that analogy.

 Seaward wrote:
So it's a giant piece of gak, but you can't explain why?

Fair enough, I guess.

The F-35 program has received an enormous amount of bad press up here, for reasons I and most likely all the other canadians here aren't exactly capable of evaluating. It could be nothing else than ''Cons spending that much money on the military while in recession/bad economy'' is just such an easy target for Libs and everyone else. Of course, the fact that the bill more than doubled since the start of the program doesn't help. I also recall that for the longest time it was doubtful weither the F-35 electronics could sustain some of the low temperatures we have up north. From what I've read, a cold temperature upgrade package would be rolled out a couple of years after the plane.

One of my best friends works in research for the opposition party, and did a document to summarize the negative aspects of the program. I'm not sure he'll be allowed to release it, and most of it will be about the economic side of things anyway, but I'll ask him.

As far as the 'we just don't need an airforce' argument, well, I sometimes feel that sadly, there's a point to it. At home, our airforce has one purpose ; to enforce the canadian sovereignty over the North and oppose the Ruskies. Maybe you'll be able to tell me ; how long do you suppose our measly fleet of 103 CF-18 could hold on against the 355 SU-27 variants, 14 SU-30, 15 SU-35 and 275ish MiG-29 variants (to only count their fighters) they have on the commie side? How long after we add, what, 10 F-35 (and they add 46 SU-30 and 30 SU-35)?

To all those saying we were fine with the CF-18, all I have to say is ; 17 crashes since 1984. 17 crashes. Not a single one in combat situations too!

Still, got to wonder if those 71 billions (worst case scenario) would've been better spent on the Rafale? Given the risk of the program, the small number of planes added to our fleet, wouldn't we have gained more bang for our buck?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Still, got to wonder if those 71 billions (worst case scenario) would've been better spent on the Rafale? Given the risk of the program, the small number of planes added to our fleet, wouldn't we have gained more bang for our buck?

Eh. I doubt you'd save much if any money, really. F-35 cost is going to come down as production gets on track, and the Rafale doesn't carry a lot of what's in your arsenal. You'd either need to buy enough French weapon systems to replace what you've got, or else pay out for some pricey reconfiguration. You'd also be getting a 4.5 gen jet instead of a 5th.