News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

For years, those of us who knew about these things suspected that in the long run the F-35 would be a lot cheaper than the alternatives. People who argued this were called all kinds of names. The government even ordered military officers and bureaucrats who knew the truth to take the secret to their graves. Behold the Czechs, who just revealed that the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen on total costs. And they've provided some detailed responses to media RFI (albeit without giving numbers for confidentiality):


I recommend everybody read it. Good time to ask what the motivations were of those who argued that F-35 advocates were just warmongers.
 
kEiThZ said:
For years, those of us who knew about these things suspected that in the long run the F-35 would be a lot cheaper than the alternatives. People who argued this were called all kinds of names. The government even ordered military officers and bureaucrats who knew the truth to take the secret to their graves. Behold the Czechs, who just revealed that the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen on total costs. And they've provided some detailed responses to media RFI (albeit without giving numbers for confidentiality):


I recommend everybody read it. Good time to ask what the motivations were of those who argued that F-35 advocates were just warmongers.
Click to expand...
Waiting until Block 4 was available seems to have worked out for us. Though we’ll need to run the CF-18s into 2030 before we get them. Maybe a Block 5 will be available?
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Waiting until Block 4 was available seems to have worked out for us. Though we’ll need to run the CF-18s into 2030 before we get them. Maybe a Block 5 will be available?
Click to expand...

Block 5 isn't even fully defined yet and won't be for years. Block 4 production just started. And full Block 4 isn't even going to be delivered till probably 2027. The Hornets won't last long enough to wait for Block 5. Waiting for full Block 4 at delivery is the right call. The first few aircraft delivered without Block 4 software will be upgradeable later. They will still have all the necessary hardware.

The really amazing thing here is how cost-effective and even cheap the F-35 is turning out to be for the price, compared to all the other options that were bandied about for years.
 
kEiThZ said:
Block 5 isn't even fully defined yet and won't be for years. Block 4 production just started. And full Block 4 isn't even going to be delivered till probably 2027. The Hornets won't last long enough to wait for Block 5. Waiting for full Block 4 at delivery is the right call. The first few aircraft delivered without Block 4 software will be upgradeable later. They will still have all the necessary hardware.
Click to expand...
Was it in hindsight the right move to delay F-35 acquisition from PM Harper’s 2010, $9 billion announcement to presumptive-PM Poilievre‘s 2028 first unit deliveries?
 
Admiral Beez said:
Was it in hindsight the right move to delay F-35 acquisition from PM Harper’s 2010, $9 billion announcement to presumptive-PM Poilievre‘s 2028 first unit deliveries?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. What was arguably a poor decision was the games played with the "gap" and then spending a billion buying and upgrading old Australian Hornets, while further delaying the F-35 purchase. Would have been good to start deliveries in 2024 with TR3 hardware (enables Block 4 software). This would have seen the Hornets starting exit from service in 2028 and full withdrawal from service by 2030.
 
I love this video for the facts it spits out and the myths it dispels. I argued all this stuff for years. And on every single forum, the public was convinced that the plane was a lemon. Even politicians got onboard with the narrative over the facts. Now we're finally seeing more and more acknowledgement that the aircraft is not just more capable, but that it's actually cheaper to own and operate.

 
picard102 said:
Looks like Portugal is reconsidering as well.
Click to expand...
Smart move on Portugal's part.

Paywall free: https://archive.is/tv4n5

As per this article, there's now a once inconceivable risk that the US could refuse to release software updates or other upgrades unless the client nation acquiesced to Washington's demands on trade. With that in mind, what would it take to remove and replace the US tech and components in the SAAB Gripen?


gripen-partners.jpg
 
If the goal is distance from the US, there is only one candidate. And it's the one that failed US security requirements in our fighter competition: the Rafale.


The Gripen fan club is a bit ridiculous. Having an American engine is not a minor vulnerability if you're worried about US policy.

But also, if we're going down the road of not fielding any US kit or integration, we're going to have a whole lot of problems immediately. An F-35 without American software updates is still useful. But a Gripen without missiles is less so. Point here is that our real vulnerability lies not in integration worries based on conspiracy nonsense. It lies on realities like the majority of our missiles, bombs and torpedoes being American. On our ships using American turbines. On our upcoming destroyers having American radars, etc.

We're also at a point where we don't have the luxury of time because the Hornet fleet is on the verge of falling out of the sky. So whatever public opinion is, we'll be buying F-35s. The only question is the number.

The original Conservative number was 65 frames to meet NATO and NORAD commitments. The Liberals got caught in a lie trying to justify their Super Hornet sole source. To cover it up, they said the force needed to be 88 frames. We could go back to 65 frames.

But cutting this order, only has leverage value if we actually spend more on jets elsewhere. It's not leverage if we just cut the number of planes. At that point, the Americans will (and not without justification) start talking about how we're not protecting Canadian airspace. If you want to give Donald Trump an excuse to have the USAF patrolling Canadian airspace.....
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
If the goal is distance from the US, there is only one candidate. And it's the one that failed US security requirements in our fighter competition: the Rafale.

The Gripen fan club is a bit ridiculous. Having an American engine is not a minor vulnerability if you're worried about US policy.

But also, if we're going down the road of not fielding any US kit or integration, we're going to have a whole lot of problems immediately. An F-35 without American software updates is still useful. But a Gripen without missiles is less so. Point here is that our real vulnerability lies not in integration worries based on conspiracy nonsense. It lies on realities like the majority of our missiles, bombs and torpedoes being American. On our ships using American turbines. On our upcoming destroyers having American radars, etc.

We're also at a point where we don't have the luxury of time because the Hornet fleet is on the verge of falling out of the sky. So whatever public opinion is, we'll be buying F-35s. The only question is the number.

The original Conservative number was 65 frames to meet NATO and NORAD commitments. The Liberals got caught in a lie trying to justify their Super Hornet sole source. To cover it up, they said the force needed to be 88 frames. We could go back to 65 frames.

But cutting this order, only has leverage value if we actually spend more on jets elsewhere. It's not leverage if we just cut the number of planes. At that point, the Americans will (and not without justification) start talking about how we're not protecting Canadian airspace. If you want to give Donald Trump an excuse to have the USAF patrolling Canadian airspace.....
Click to expand...
In broad, non-operational security terms, how did it fail US security requirements? It seems the US is okay enough with it to land on US carriers.
 
Canada must cancel the F-35 Fighter Jet contract. It would be insane to go ahead with a $20 billion contract with an American Defense company after Donald Trump has all but declared Canada an enemy and has threatened our annexation. There is no other option. There are many good reasons to cancel this contract, not the least of which is the fact that the US would have the ability to remotely disable the jets rendering them useless! Just about any other non-American fighter jet would be a better choice especially if we can build them in Canada and own the source code!

Not only do we need to cancel the F-35 contract we must cancel the following contracts:

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - $10 Billion
This contract should never have been awarded to Boeing in a no bid contract that Bombardier was not allowed to bid on. I was not happy about it at the time because just a few years earlier Boeing's trade complaint over the Bombardier C-Series jet resulted in Trump imposing 300% tariffs on the C-Series which bankrupted the program and led to Bombardier selling the C-Series to Airbus for $1. Airbus now sells this jet as the A220, and it is the most advanced single-aisle airliner in the world.

General Atomics - MQ-9B Reaper Drones $2.49 billion
We don't need to buy drones from the United States. They don't have a monopoly on drones. They don't have a monopoly on anything military. Many countries make perfectly good drones. I am sure our aviation industry is capable of developing drones

Lockheed-Martin - HIMARS Missiles - $5 billion (Est)
Although not ordered yet recent reports indicate that the Canadian Military is pushing for a sole-source award to Lockheed Martin for HIMARS long range missiles. Defense spokesperson Kened Sadiku stated that “the Long-Range Precision Strike (Land) project will significantly enhance Canada’s defense capabilities, both domestically and abroad. In what way will these missiles enhance Canada's domestic defensive capabilities? They do not have the range to strike Russia or China (not that I consider them enemies). Conceivably there is only one country they could be launched against from Canadian soil: The United States! Not such a farfetched possibility under Trump. If we need long range missiles to strike the US maybe we should not be buying them from the US. Maybe our UK friends will sell us Storm Shadows missiles or better, yet we could make our own! Instead of wasting $5 billion on this senseless purchase Canada should urgently source non-American air defense systems. Currently we have no air defense systems to protect our major cities leaving us vulnerable to American aerial attacks. I know it sounds crazy talking about aerial attacks from America but here we are under Trump.

PM Carney spoke in London yesterday and said that 80 cents of every Canadian military procurement dollar has gone to the United States. This has to stop NOW! We cannot be subsidizing the defense industry of a country that wants to annex us. Cancelling all contracts with US defense firms would come as a shock to Trump who sees his role as the top salesman for Americas defense companies.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top