Canada to make it harder for US companies to win its fighter competition

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: InTheLight

Bigger? In what way?

Population? no. 39.54M in 2017. Canada? 36.29M in 2016.

Economy? no. California, $2.7t. Canada, $1.8T.


Land area? yup, ya got the Calis beat there.

An appetite for marijuana and oil and gas...watch the pipelines start flowing soon. We don't need you.

Is that all Canada thinks about ? Their herb ?
Appears so...

The way I see it they've got no other choice but to reduce their dependency on US. Who knows what sanctions Trump might enact next in the name of "national security".

Just more proof that Canda’s military acquisitions system is FUBAR’ed I recall a little dust up about a destroyer (iirc) contract recently. They make our acquisitions seem much better than they really are thanks to there horrendous inefficiency...

This is just politics. The real reason is more likely Canada's willingness to slow the whole programme down to avoid the cost for as long as possible, while using the current relations with the US as a convenient excuse. In a couple of years time Canada-US relations will be back to normal. Basing long term decisions on short term politics is just that; politics.

Canada currently and always has relied on the US might for it's security. They are able to have almost zero border security and a joke of a military thanks to "big bro" USA right next door. But that doesn't stop them from criticizing the USA non stop. So ironic.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Canada currently and always has relied on the US might for it's security. They are able to have almost zero border security and a joke of a military thanks to "big bro" USA right next door. But that doesn't stop them from criticizing the USA non stop. So ironic.

That's funny.

None of this started before your commander in chief started his trade war. We criticized you not stop? That's your victim mentally speaking, not reality. Do keep in mind, people entering your country must go through YOUR border agents, not ours.

So ironic.

a reply to: nightbringr

I'm sorry, but, no, it did not. The row over the F-35 started prior to trumps election. Withdrawing from the procurement was an election promise of Trudeau's. His election was during the Obama administration.

I am utterly not a fan of Trump, but the whole mess started before him and by the Canadians for their own internal politics.

a reply to: RadioRobert

F-35 value? If you buy a F-35 today, are you done? That plane is still being tweaked.

Better to foot drag and wait for Trump to be gone.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: RadioRobert

F-35 value? If you buy a F-35 today, are you done? That plane is still being tweaked.

Better to foot drag and wait for Trump to be gone.

If you sign up to buy an F-35 today, you're getting a later block.

a reply to: anzha

I was responding to his assertions that US border woes are our fault.

I dont disagree with the F35 issue.

a reply to: gariac

You do realize the F-15 is still getting upgrades, right? Sounds like its still being tweaked.

And, again, this predates Trump. This is an internal Canadian political situation that has gone weirdo strange. And, yes, Trump has made it worse. So did Boeing (before). However, Trudeau is the one that dug the hole in the first place with his campaign promises.

On a deeper level, the West as a whole did as well: there's not much of a choice OTHER than the F-35 for a 5th gen.

a reply to: anzha

Alternatively, the West going all-in with multiple partners is the only reason you can buy a block 12 F-35 for approximately the same price as a Typhoon, Rafale, etc.

I'm not an F-35 fanboy. Would have gladly cancelled it in the 2008-2013 range. Plenty of problems. LM has been a problem itself.

But I'm also a realist. And there is nothing like it available now, nor will there be in the foreseeable future (20-30 years).

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: gariac

You do realize the F-15 is still getting upgrades, right? Sounds like its still being tweaked.

And, again, this predates Trump. This is an internal Canadian political situation that has gone weirdo strange. And, yes, Trump has made it worse. So did Boeing (before). However, Trudeau is the one that dug the hole in the first place with his campaign promises.

On a deeper level, the West as a whole did as well: there's not much of a choice OTHER than the F-35 for a 5th gen.

Hardly the same situation. The F-35 is buggy. It still has difficulty flying long distances due to overheating. This is s problem in the carrier version since it means the carrier group had to be closer to the target.

a reply to: gariac

They didn't seem to have any problem flying long distances deploying to the UK a couple weeks ago. Or last year for their airshow performances. Or going to Japan.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

They didn't seem to have any problem flying long distances deploying to the UK a couple weeks ago. Or last year for their airshow performances. Or going to Japan.

Fly long distance WITHOUT using a tanker.
www.rollcall.com...
This problem had been around forever. The trouble is the sitting ducks, er I mean the Navy ships, need to be further from shore due to increase standoff of enemy weaponry.

The tankers help them not overheat then? Or are you completely changing your argument?

a reply to: gariac

Yes, and for 15 years the F-35C combat radius wasn't a problem, despite those antiship missiles entering service 20 years ago. Now suddenly, it's a problem. If only they'd upgrade the F-18, they wouldn't need tankers and they'd easily be able to reach those ranges and hit those targets from the extended ranges the carriers would have to stay at.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
The tankers help them not overheat then? Or are you completely changing your argument?

Fuel helps them with thermal management.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded $175,308,058 for modification P00053 to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price-incentive-firm, firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-15-C-0114). This modification provides for the development, testing, and activation of 13 different F-35 component repair capabilities in support of the F-35 Lightning depot implementation plan for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and non-Department of Defense (DoD) participants. Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire (37 percent); Torrance, California (15 percent); Redondo Beach, California (12 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (11 percent); Inglewood, California (8 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa (6 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (5 percent); Niles, Illinois (3 percent); Williston, Vermont (1 percent); Orlando, Florida (1 percent); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in November 2021. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps); and non-DoD funds in the amount of $175,308,058 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the Air Force ($82,237,394; 46.9 percent); Navy ($41,118,693; 23.5 percent); the Marine Corps ($41,118,693; 23.5 percent); and non-DoD Participants ($10,833,276; 6.1 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

It just never stops with the F-35.

a reply to: gariac

Right, because they automatically have component repair capabilities since they reached IOC.