The "new" jets..any good???

[Moon The Loon]

...but your question might have been better posed as: why do we need submarines, period. I, and perhaps many others might say we don't, but seeing as how the Navy does have 4 of them, recently acquired (but not yet seaworthy - now there's a story),...

Welll, I'll wade into that one. How many vessels does Canada have that can monitor our coastline year round? None. How many vessels does our navy have that are ice capable? None. How many submarines does our navy have that can punch up through several feet of sea ice? None.

I think you should expand the question Kip should ask to "Why do we have a navy?"

[Kip Powick]

Mic..

Sorry, I will not change my position on the F-35. I know it is early out in the West Coast Tropical Paradise but I just suffered through Harper's mundane answer to a question posed by Terry Milewki CBC as to the cost of the F-35.... Harpers answer was in effect..."We have been assured that the Americans will pay for the R and D and then we will purchase the finished product.......as far as costs go.......have you listed to Mr. "Iggy"......he has made 28 billion dollars worth of promises during this campaign and none of the costing is explained in the Liberal platform......as well the Liberals have condemned the F35 but do not name a replacement.......their phantom aircraft is not to be seen. We need the F-35 for our men and women in uniform, to protect our sovereignty and do our job..End of answer..nestx question from another journalist concerned Harpers flip-flop with respect to aid for farmers..

Yes indeed.....straight shooting from Harper.......(there never was answer to the question of cost).........

However, you say that my position is one that you find hard to accept from me.....Like everyone on this forum, I have an opinion and I am sure you agree that, right or wrong, I am entitled to it. There has never been an acquisition of an aircraft for DND that has not run far above the initial estimate. Personally I feel that the reason that happens is that the "seller" knows he is not dealing with a "company" so a few hundreds of millions here and there added to the bill will entail some screaming from DND and the Feds but in the end the government has no choice but to "buy in" because they have committed to the sale.

( I don't know all the details about the helo deal that was squashed and I will concede that the government did manage to bail out of that boondoggle...but it was costly)

My questions to you are why do we need the F35 and should we get it..........................., will you be upset if the price tag is almost double what was initially estimated???

Naturally You and I are not aware of the backroom deals concerning trickle down jobs with the purchase of any new DND equipment and even Harper alluded to the fact that the F35 will mean more jobs for the aerospace industry in Quebec. ( think he is looking for votes in QC?) I know that the "need" for the aircraft, as far as Canadian military doctrine is concerned, will never be discussed.

Sorry Mic, I will never see the need for such an expensive item in our "arsenal". I will bend..... and accept a twin engine Super Hornet but not something we don't need.

Moon.....I am assuming that your question concerning the Navy was tongue in cheek, to a certain degree...........The Navy is still required and can be utilized, for example, during surface blockades as well as fighting piracy on the seas and of course they do contribute to SAR. Their "on station time" during any water surface conflict far outweighs the Air Element and as such are valuable for interceding during seaborne conflicts.

Submarines.??.....we really don't need that type of vessel in our fleet..IMO

[bluemic]

Geez Kip, even out here in Paradise we have to start the day sometime.  Even when it's raining.

But methinks you misread what I 'said' so I'll try it again...

My comments were NOT directed at whether or not I think the F35 is the be-all and end-all that Canada must have.  My comment was that I thought it was narrow-minded of anyone to say "no one can change my mind."

To put it another way, if one engages in a debate/discussion with an opinion that is already carved in stone then one is no longer debating or discussing.  One is merely pontificating.  And I think of you as someone who is more interested in discussion than in preaching.  

Hopefully I'm not wrong about that.

As for the merits of the F35?  Sorry, but its not for me to try and alter your mind, because other than the bits and pieces (pro and con) that filter my way from ex-CAF friends, I have very little info to make up my OWN mind.  Is it the best fighter for us?  Do we even need fighters?  For me the jury's still out.

But I'd like to think that the 'experts' are considering this purchase carefully and will make the right decision(s).  Unfortunately, I fear it's becoming a political football - akin to the "wage and price controls" debacle of yesteryear - not to mention the helicopter deal you referred to.

And the skeptic in me says that whoever wins, the results will be the same.

mic

[av8tor]

While strictly personal the thing that resonates the most with me is I know people working on the F-35 program who believe it is flawed beyond redemption and would support its cancellation which they consider to be inevitable.

Hi Super 80,

In the interests of providing a little balance, here is something a little different from another person also working on the F-35 program: "There is only one airplane that counts and every pilot knows it. The election drama has nothing to do with the technical merits of the aircraft or what 5th generation fighters bring to the fight. ... The tactical advancements are on par with what the Hornet did to the 104 and 101 era. However the Liberals may yet get a minority government and kill the project. Canada and the fighter force will face an EH-101 type fiasco. ... The Super Hornets are old and not much more than a bigger legacy Hornet. I cannot imagine flying them for 40 more years. However the government has done worse in the past. With or without Canada ... Lockheed Martin's stock won't flinch if a Liberal government cancels the purchase. But Canadians will never recover."

[Super 80]

Might the performance of the "Cormorant" suggest that canceling the EH-101 was the right decision even if it was made for the wrong reasons?

The people I know working on the F-35 are working for BAe in the US. They have no vested interest - or any interest in Canadian politics. The problem they see that will lead to the F-35 being canceled is the runaway costs coming into conflict with the Congressional republican supporters of the F-22 and the bipartisan Boeing Benevolence Society flogging the modernized F-15 and F-18 combined with tepid naval support for the entire program that will disappear when the Marines and British B variant is canceled.

Nobody, not even the NDP to the best of my knowledge is saying the F-18 shouldn't be replaced, but Harper's dogmatic buy-in to the F-35 as the program teeters on the brink of collapse in the US is a little bizarre. Or does Harper's magic F-35 agreement also guarantee delivery of his $75 million dollar F-35's in the event the US Congress cancels the program? It is after-all just as plausible as his claim that Lockheed is going to violate US federal law to sell them to Canada below cost.

[av8tor]

Might the performance of the "Cormorant" suggest that canceling the EH-101 was the right decision even if it was made for the wrong reasons?

Right decision? Hardly. The Cormorant has and is suffering on-going parts shortages that frequently ground the aircraft, it suffers severe rotor downwash hindering its suitability for rescue ops and according to a buddy of mine with 20 years SAR experience flying the Labrador, the Cormorant was the wrong replacement aircraft for the Lab. The government paid a half-billion dollar penalty for the cancellation of the EH-101 and our Navy today is still flying Sea Kings that have been in service since 1963. In my view, the wrong decision for the wrong reasons – and how embarrassing!

[boestar]

The door may have cost 88.98 but the certification that allows it to be installed on tha aircraft was worth 1421.02.

I have see this very occurrance with civilian aircraft as well. Toilet seats come to mind.

[boestar]

Kip:

I never had the chance to answer you until today.

Why do we need a Multirole fighter in Canada?

Canada is a big country. We have the largest shoreline in the world and the largest landmass as well as the longest unpatrolled border in the world. We need a way to defend it. do we need the F-35 certainly not but the Superhornet is a good option.

We can say we can depend on the USA for support in time of need but what if we are defending against them. (it might be a short fight however). Should we bow down and become the pacifist defenceless Canadians that the world makes us out to be? I dont think so. We have a great country and should have the means to defend it.

As for the subs, they were a mistake from the get go. We should have concentrated on surface bvessels for coastal defence. Surface vessels are needed to maintain our soverignty in the north.

I watched an interesting documentary on WATER the other day. Water is expected to be the next OIL and Canada has more of it than anyone else. We should defend it.

My take is that we should maintain a modern method of defending our soil and that requires planes and ships.