Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Re: Joint Strike Fighter buy

Comment:

 

While everyone understands the need for a new first line fighter for the Air Force within the next four or five years, the purchase of the JSF continues to show that the defence leadership in Ottawa is losing its grasp on reality.

Yes. a new aircraft is needed. However, there are at least four (more if you add the Mig) aircraft that could meet the AF needs into the 2040 time frame. Consider the F-18 E/F and a few G's to add EW capability. How about the Grippen or the Eurofighter? All these are current, top line, fully supportable aircraft that would surely meet any needs of the AF for many years to come. They are in production now, have proven capabilities, and are more affordable – that should be reason enough for at least a fly-off.

Now I have heard the argument that the F-35 is going to be a 5th generation fighter. My question is, does Canada need a fifth generation fighter for its roll with NATO? The answer is most likely no. The reason is that Canada is not going to lead any air assault/air supremacy effort against any country that has comparable aircraft to the F-35. We will be part of a NATO strike force and that means working with, yep, Eurofighters, Grippens, F-18 E/F's and the F-22 and F-35. By NATO requirements, these will be coordinated efforts with member nations. The aircraft must be interoperable in a tactical environment.

I would have thought that the F-18 E/F and G series aircraft would have been the choice as they are the next generation of the F-18 the AF now uses. Transition would be easy even though the E/F & G are really different aircraft than the A/B and C/D version.

Was this F-35 buy done to placate LM as all the latest contracts have gone to Boeing  (except the 130 J)?

When you look at the F-35 price tag, you see around $130 Million each at today's prices. Make that $150 Million+ in a few years. You will own 65 new aircraft that will have all the introductory pains of a new aircraft including prangs (and this will happen). So you end up with a 60 aircraft Air Force? I guess we just get rid of a lot of pilots.

With the new requirements for Arctic Sovereignty and expanded need for forces in the Arctic, it would seem that there needs to be an added squadron or two to the AF for Arctic duty and patrol. Not to mention defence and patrol/intercepts. I guess we are planning on using drones/UAV's for this? Armed UAV's?

Somebody in DND HQ should fall hard for this decision. It makes no sense for the Canadian Forces and less sense for the tax payers. Spend those extra billions on adding forces to the Army and capability to the AF and Navy to work the Arctic and maintain the current capability they have worked hard to achieve.

DND HQ seemingly is out of touch with reality. Many have been roaming the halls too long thinking big thoughts. Funding is going to get tight, the control they have over existing programs is minimal, which always leads to problems (MHP tail rotor fix). How do they hope to control this contract?

And, oh yeah, where is the 100% offset going to come from? 16.0 Billion from LM to Canada? Yeah, sure, you bet. That will fade over the years.

Someone better look at this very closely. This is an election stealer for the Liberals if Harper pushes this ahead. Building ships in Canada is one thing. Shoud be done. But spending that kind of money on a new, unproven fighter is not a wise idea.     

– a concerned reader