Appropriateness of F35 for Canada questioned as costs projected to be $40B

[Electro Rock]

Total operational costs are the biggie.

For 65 fighters it'll run us about $1 billion per year, whether its the current CF-18 fleet, the F-35 or any of the other possible contenders aside from the Gripen, which was designed to be cheap to operate.

What I find disingenuous is the attempt to induce sticker shock on the public by quoting 42 year service costs, when there's no way the F-35 or any other current fighter design will be in other than maybe 3rd world service by then.

Expecting a current fighter design to remain useful for as long as the last 2 generations of fightets have is extremely unrealistic, given all the game changing technological advances that are either apon us or just around the corner.

[Electro Rock]

Total operational costs are the biggie.

For 65 fighters it'll run us about $1 billion per year, whether its the current CF-18 fleet, the F-35 or any of the other possible contenders aside from the Gripen, which was designed to be cheap to operate.

What I find disingenuous is the attempt to induce sticker shock on the public by quoting 42 year service costs, when there's no way the F-35 or any other current fighter design will be in other than maybe 3rd world service by then.

Expecting a current fighter design to remain useful for as long as the last 2 generations of fightets have is extremely unrealistic, given all the game changing technological advances that are either apon us or just around the corner.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

I am ok with the Canadian goverment, maintaining a modern milatery. That being said, we didn't need to buy that much. Utter waste of money like some of you said. Maybe 20 or 30, but no 90 of em. Way too much. There's more important stuff we could spend that money on.

[Electro Rock]

I am ok with the Canadian goverment, maintaining a modern milatery. That being said, we didn't need to buy that much. Utter waste of money like some of you said. Maybe 20 or 30, but no 90 of em. Way too much. There's more important stuff we could spend that money on.

[Pouria]

Its 65, and considering we're the 3rd largest country in the world, and that besides some very limited sea and land forces, we won't have anything else, its not a lot.

As far as money goes, if we didn't have to squander so much on Quebec we could afford a buy like this, upfront in cash *every few years*.

A lot of money is wasted on the Natives too, with no real benefit.

[Mountain Man]

We took their land so thats the least we could do for them. Instead of wasting billions on Jet fighters, they should be spending it on research and building facilities to make jet fighters and other military weapons. Too bad they spend it on overpriced American toys that boosts the American economy. We should be investing more on our own military R&D.

[key2thecup]

F35 will be the only available 5th gen fighter to us, F22 still can't be sold foreign. If we choose any other fighter available, they would be old 4th gen.

So after sleeping on it a few nights, it is a conundrum, even if we save some $ buying the 4th gen, within a decade we would be spending money upgrading them...

The problem lies with how to squeeze 65 F35's into the military budget.

Sources familiar with the decision say. “Can you imagine now taking an additional $23 billion out of the defence budget over the next 30 years?” asked one. “You would simply have an air force. That would be the Canadian military. You would have nothing else.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/07/michael-den-tandt-f-35s-werent-killed-before-now-because-of-u-s-election/

[Lockout Casualty]

F35 will be the only available 5th gen fighter to us, F22 still can't be sold foreign. If we choose any other fighter available, they would be old 4th gen.

So after sleeping on it a few nights, it is a conundrum, even if we save some $ buying the 4th gen, within a decade we would be spending money upgrading them...

The problem lies with how to squeeze 65 F35's into the military budget.

[key2thecup]

There is more to it than choosing the latest fighter for the maximum duration. Drone technology is advancing at such a pace that half-way through F-35 lifespan human pilots will be outdated themselves, not to say anything about the over-sized hunks of metal they fly.

Of course, the focus on latest and greatest begs the question why we need it at all. Canada isn't going to engage Russia over the Arctic, as it would be a severely futile engagement. That leaves Canada's F-35s to patrol for invading Norwegian and Danish forces.

Canada is the safest country in the world. We are surrounded by oceans on three sides and the biggest power in the world on the fourth. Why do we need the latest multi-role fighter to patrol our arctic skies?

An interesting watch: http://www.cbc.ca/fi...ay-fighter.html

[Lockout Casualty]

Yea I said that before too, we are not going to WW3 anytime soon, unless the West decides to start it.

The Russians have been relatively friendly since the '91 collapse of the Soviet Union.

China is shaping into one of our biggest trading partners and immigrant suppliers.

North Korea doesn't have the capacity to feed itself let alone launch a full-scale invasion.

So who is left in the world that is a military threat to us?

& Russia won't be going hostile over the Arctic, everything will be done by the books most likely in the UN.

As for drones, yea they are improving greatly but still can't replace a human controlled fighter/attack jet.

[Mountain Man]

There is more to it than choosing the latest fighter for the maximum duration. Drone technology is advancing at such a pace that half-way through F-35 lifespan human pilots will be outdated themselves, not to say anything about the over-sized hunks of metal they fly.

Of course, the focus on latest and greatest begs the question why we need it at all. Canada isn't going to engage Russia over the Arctic, as it would be a severely futile engagement. That leaves Canada's F-35s to patrol for invading Norwegian and Danish forces.

Canada is the safest country in the world. We are surrounded by oceans on three sides and the biggest power in the world on the fourth. Why do we need the latest multi-role fighter to patrol our arctic skies?

An interesting watch: http://www.cbc.ca/fi...ay-fighter.html

[key2thecup]

just because our neighbours haven't peed in our pool recently doesn't mean they won't.

[Trebreh]

Canada's economy is one the best in the world, our military should be up there too.

Im all for upgrades to our fighter planes, but with that money maybe we should go for something cheaper like a Gripen or Rafale.

[Lockout Casualty]

Drones are not capable of making decisions or engaging if necessary. Also considering it would have to cover hundreds of thousands of coastline with close to 36 000 islands. Not very easy or fast. Currently with all the FOL's Canada can put a fully armed patrol fighter jet to any place in the entire country including all borders within 15 minutes of scrambling. For the price of having all these drones cover all this space all the time is not as effective as a fighter jet.

Safety should not be taken for granted. Defending our land is necessary and just because our neighbours haven't peed in our pool recently doesn't mean they won't.

[Wetcoaster]

Recently? You mean since 1812?

[Mountain Man]

Drones are controlled by humans, so there goes decision making. Drones aren't made for engagement, yet. They're working on it. And it won't be limited by the human body.

Drones don't cost near the same as jet places that are piloted by humans. I fail to see how it wouldn't be cost effective as opposed to spending a billion dollars annually on 65 jets. The current US X47 program has ran under a billion dollars, while the F35 is nearing a trillion.

So who do we defend from? What nation do we have the capability to repel with 65 jets? Like I said, we are the safest nation on the planet. We are closest allies with the biggest stick holder in the yard.

What benefit will Canadians see from 65 latest jet planes?

[Lockout Casualty]

Canada continues to assist with NATO, NORAD, and the UN. In those missions Canadian jets are used outside our borders. 65 jets aren't many. Several go to training, some need repairs, than split them up from there to each operational unit and you are left with enough to assist the minimum with UN missions. I feel you miss the point of what Canada's mandate to its defence and other sanctioned missions.

Also, upgrading costs lots of $$$. Just like it did every other time in the past. Canada could very well need to protect its borders regardless of how unlikely you view it. Upgrading needs to be done and it will cost lots. Drones are not the best option nor do I trust the systems to operate them. They could easily be compromised just like any other computer system.

COD is not an accurate reflection of reality.

[Electro Rock]

The X-47 and other drones are nasically reuseable cruise missles, using elements of the technology that's going into the F-35.

It won't be until computers become much smarter, a near human level of intelligence at least, and until those true AIs are small and cheaper enough to put into an airframe, one that's probably going to have to be much more capable than today's drones, will you have something that can be considered a true replacement for manned multirole fighters.

Anyways, 65 fighters is actually a respectable large number when you consider that Russia and China, military giants with a lot more commitments, will probably only be able to field 400 4.5 and 5th generation fighters each. Of course they have a lot more tools in the toolbox and won't be as dependent on their fighter fleet as we will.

[Lockout Casualty]

The X-47 and other drones are nasically reuseable cruise missles, using elements of the technology that's going into the F-35.

It won't be until computers become much smarter, a near human level of intelligence at least, and until those true AIs are small and cheaper enough to put into an airframe, one that's probably going to have to be much more capable than today's drones, will you have something that can be considered a true replacement for manned multirole fighters.

Anyways, 65 fighters is actually a respectable large number when you consider that Russia and China, military giants with a lot more commitments, will probably only be able to field 400 4.5 and 5th generation fighters each. Of course they have a lot more tools in the toolbox and won't be as dependent on their fighter fleet as we will.

[Pouria]

There is more to it than choosing the latest fighter for the maximum duration. Drone technology is advancing at such a pace that half-way through F-35 lifespan human pilots will be outdated themselves, not to say anything about the over-sized hunks of metal they fly.

Of course, the focus on latest and greatest begs the question why we need it at all. Canada isn't going to engage Russia over the Arctic, as it would be a severely futile engagement. That leaves Canada's F-35s to patrol for invading Norwegian and Danish forces.

Canada is the safest country in the world. We are surrounded by oceans on three sides and the biggest power in the world on the fourth. Why do we need the latest multi-role fighter to patrol our arctic skies?

An interesting watch: http://www.cbc.ca/fi...ay-fighter.html