I suppose it was only a matter of time (Canada/F-35 debacle)...

[Cutlass]

I don't think that would work. As the costs of peak performance systems goes ever upwards, middle size countries have an ever harder time going it alone. For that matter, it's a strategic mistake for the United States to go it alone on major new defense systems. The F-35 program was in part meant to remedy that by stretching the development over a group of nations. However, the US defense contractors have dominated the program, and so the costs of it have been over by ridiculous amounts.

 

[say1988]

The cost would be astronomical and is unlikely to have any export market (the official reasons the Arrow was cancelled).

Better off buying aircraft on condition of a certain amount of domestic involvement. Getting contracts was the big reason why Canada joined the JSF program long before any decision to actually obtain the F-35, with the ability to get them earlier being a secondary reason.

Canada will never be independent from the US. Having a given domestic industry does not help when your entire economy is dependent on that relationship. And while we lack any military aircraft industry, we do have an aerospace industry primarily under Bombardier.

 

[Verbose]

Maybe this is an opportunity for Canada to re-build it's aerospace industry by staging an open design contest (like the X-Prize)?

In the short term, buy up some cheaper, stop gap jets and start looking down the road 20-30 years and take this opportunity to establish some independence from the US (at least in regards to defense).

I definitely think there would be ancillary benefits from this (high tech jobs, spin off technologies).

Unlikely. It's an insanely competitive world for top-of-the-line fighter jets. The ones doing it are either BIG, like the US, or doing it for national strategy/prestige reasons - like France - but can't expect much more than break even. Sweden is in a similar position as France, but given its smaller size, its current machines are a hold-over from the Cold War, and no one expects Sweden to build these things in the future. The next gen beyond the present one will be foreign-bought. All in all, Canada is too tiny to build and maintain this kind of industry. It can do it I'm sure, but the economics of scale are just against it. If it writes off the costs in advance it'll be fine, but no profit should be expected.

Put the money in cutting-edge radar and electronic warfare or something instead I'd think.

 

[Cutlass]

Canada shouldn't even research that. Rather it should piggyback American, UK, and French research and systems. That will keep them world class without as much costs or risk.

I realize national pride gets in some of these politicians and makes them put forward nationalistic ideas at the expense of practical ones. It happens here all of the time as well (with no shortage of "jobs for Americans" and "American companies first" thrown in as well), however that's not really an excuse, and should be resisted as much as possible. Canada needs also to keep in mind that Canada is not going to war without its alliance partners. And so commonality of supply with allies should be a factor also.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The way things are looking anyone is not big enough anymore to build cutting edge combat aircraft. Those things are becoming too difficult expensive and complex with never ending development times and never large-enough budgets. Apparently economy and/or engineering are not keeping the pace of government requirements. Probably this 5th generation is the last maned fighters we are going to see before the path change radically. Very likely next ones are going to be simpler and smaller drones built in larger numbers.

 

[Cutlass]

I think that's more of a factor of a failing military-industrial complex and bad decision making all around than anything else. In theory we can have invisible airplanes that are as effective as visible ones, and so that is what we must do, even though no one else is doing it. But in practice the defense contractors are just taking the taxpayers for everything they can get, and aren't really concerned with the end product at all.

 

[Crezth]

Staying ahead of the game is unmistakably a good idea. I'm not sure why "no one else is doing it" is a rebuttal.

 

[warpus]

Let's leave the development of military hardware to military minded countries like the U.S., Russia, and Israel.

We can just buy whatever they come up with should we ever need a batch of new fighter jets. It would add to Canadian pride to have our own designs flying, or even to participate in a design with other countries, but we've got far more pressing matters at home to look after than to spend millions designing a fighter plane that will likely never even be used in a real conflict.

 

[Cutlass]

Staying ahead of the game is unmistakably a good idea. I'm not sure why "no one else is doing it" is a rebuttal.

But do we have to stay so far ahead of them that we ruin our economy in the process? We needed to replace 700 odd F-15s. We got a little over 100 F-22s. And they can't fly all the time. So even though the individual F-22 is far more effective in the fighter role, it still cannot be everywhere we need one to be, and so we still have F-15s falling out of the sky due to airframe failure due to age. So the program as a whole was a failure, regardless of how well the individual planes work, on those occasions when they do work. And now the JSF is supposed to replace 2-3000 aging aircraft, and it is not going to do that. There's no way in hell that 2000 of these things will ever be built. For the price of 2000 planes we might get 2-300 built.

Do you really think that it is good strategy to build 200 of something you need 2000 of, just because you get a better increment of capability in each of the 200? You still need the 2000 or you fail to accomplish your mission.

 

[Crezth]

Let's leave the development of military hardware to military minded countries like the U.S., Russia, and Israel.

Very wise.

But do we have to stay so far ahead of them that we ruin our economy in the process?

For a fella who is always reminding us we can raise taxes to foot the bill, this is a little odd coming from you. I agree there's fat to cut in the military, but R&D and development of next-gen war technology is not where we should be cutting. I can expand on specific reasons why I feel this way if you like.

We needed to replace 700 odd F-15s. We got a little over 100 F-22s. And they can't fly all the time. So even though the individual F-22 is far more effective in the fighter role, it still cannot be everywhere we need one to be, and so we still have F-15s falling out of the sky due to airframe failure due to age. So the program as a whole was a failure, regardless of how well the individual planes work, on those occasions when they do work. And now the JSF is supposed to replace 2-3000 aging aircraft, and it is not going to do that. There's no way in hell that 2000 of these things will ever be built. For the price of 2000 planes we might get 2-300 built.

I'm really not sure what your point or position is. Are you suggesting we give up entirely, or that there is some sort of endemic inefficiency to the upgrade process? Because a lot of the reason we keep missing benchmarks is because of cuts.

More to the point, the stunted development of crucial next-gen fighters and stealth bombers is largely due to indecision and an unwillingness of congress to foot the bill. But even if that weren't the case, I hardly see how that provides for liberty to say we shouldn't be doing it at all. We need to replace the aircraft, as you point out we are flying them too far beyond the expiration date, or give them up altogether. And I reject the latter option as having any redeeming quality to it besides from "balancing the budget" (a ludicrous proposition as we could cut back on ground deployments and save all that R&D money plus interest).

Do you really think that it is good strategy to build 200 of something you need 2000 of, just because you get a better increment of capability in each of the 200? You still need the 2000 or you fail to accomplish your mission.

I think the "good strategy" is continuing to develop next-gen materiel and hardware. It's the only sustainable military model.

 

[Cutlass]

For a fella who is always reminding us we can raise taxes to foot the bill, this is a little odd coming from you. I agree there's fat to cut in the military, but R&D and development of next-gen war technology is not where we should be cutting. I can expand on specific reasons why I feel this way if you like.

There are practical limits on all things. Most of what I would raise taxes to pay for have economic benefits. The military mostly does not. Gold plated weapons systems definitely do not.

I'm really not sure what your point or position is. Are you suggesting we give up entirely, or that there is some sort of endemic inefficiency to the upgrade process? Because a lot of the reason we keep missing benchmarks is because of cuts.

More to the point, the stunted development of crucial next-gen fighters and stealth bombers is largely due to indecision and an unwillingness of congress to foot the bill. But even if that weren't the case, I hardly see how that provides for liberty to say we shouldn't be doing it at all. We need to replace the aircraft, as you point out we are flying them too far beyond the expiration date, or give them up altogether. And I reject the latter option as having any redeeming quality to it besides from "balancing the budget" (a ludicrous proposition as we could cut back on ground deployments and save all that R&D money plus interest).

My point is that if you need 2000 of something, you do not design something that you will never be able to get the money to buy 2000 of them. You design the best you can that you can purchase in the numbers you need. You cannot simply say that you will spend whatever the cost turns out to be. For one thing, when you do that, you make certain that the seller will maximize the cost of the product, regardless of whether or not the product quality is what you hoped to get. So in the first place, by saying you will spend whatever, you have guaranteed that you will be spending far more per increment of capability as you would otherwise. You are inviting corruption and fraud into the system. Second, when all is said and done you are not going to get that money out of Congress. Congress cut the B-2 buy because it was too expensive. Congress cut the F-22 buy because it was too expensive. And Congress will cut the F-35 buy because it will be too expensive. To expect anything else is ridiculous. And while it is true that Congress is in part responsible for excessive costs in these programs, the primary reason for the outrageous costs is that the military industrial complex now runs the show. And is dictating the costs, not on the basis of ability, but on the basis of controlling the market.

The system is broken. It is designing the wrong airplanes. And because it is designing the wrong airplanes, that is the reason that we are stuck with aging aircraft in service. We will never be able to afford the numbers of these planes that are needed. And even if we did get them, their performance is not going to live up to expectations, because the failed development process is all about raking off as much as it can for the contractors, and not about building great planes.

I think the "good strategy" is continuing to develop next-gen materiel and hardware. It's the only sustainable military model.

Sure. But that always has to be done in terms of a sustainable budget. "Spend whatever it takes" is the Soviet model, and you know what it got them.

 

[Crezth]

There are practical limits on all things. Most of what I would raise taxes to pay for have economic benefits. The military mostly does not. Gold plated weapons systems definitely do not.

Going to have to call you on that. It is a major source of demand. Government-stimulated, mind you, but I don't bother so much about that.

My point is that if you need 2000 of something, you do not design something that you will never be able to get the money to buy 2000 of them. You design the best you can that you can purchase in the numbers you need. You cannot simply say that you will spend whatever the cost turns out to be. For one thing, when you do that, you make certain that the seller will maximize the cost of the product, regardless of whether or not the product quality is what you hoped to get. So in the first place, by saying you will spend whatever, you have guaranteed that you will be spending far more per increment of capability as you would otherwise. You are inviting corruption and fraud into the system. Second, when all is said and done you are not going to get that money out of Congress. Congress cut the B-2 buy because it was too expensive. Congress cut the F-22 buy because it was too expensive. And Congress will cut the F-35 buy because it will be too expensive. To expect anything else is ridiculous. And while it is true that Congress is in part responsible for excessive costs in these programs, the primary reason for the outrageous costs is that the military industrial complex now runs the show. And is dictating the costs, not on the basis of ability, but on the basis of controlling the market.

You are conflating a number of very different issues and I hope that I have the patience to unpack it all.

Design can and often is optimized for cost: it is one of the primary considerations. The reason these designs and next-gen creations are so expensive is not a failing in R&D brought in by reckless contract-seekers, because the military often does choose from a number of reasonably spaced competitive bids. No, the issue is that the technologies required are becoming tempestuously more expensive as demand for more sophisticated systems rise. How you combat this normally is you iterate and keep the ball rolling, but as you yourself noted we have had the damned unfortune of demanding reciprocation on every abandoned design, and so we are gradually pushing the envelop further and further away than we can reach. Canceling the F-35 was gravely short sighted and will only make the next projected fighter project even more expensive and worse.

Now I wouldnt recommend plowing through the problem with no regards for cost, but the issue at hand is the unwillingness or inability on the part of policymakers to divert resources from other parts *of the same department* to ensure we don't lose momentum. One fact I will have to vehemently disagree with is the idea that the military/industrial complex is so ineffectual and corrupt that it can't make good aircraft anymore. Well, I'm sorry, but that is simply nonsense. The US aero industry is probably the only industry that the US still leads the world in and handily, your backscratching clubs notwithstanding, and the issues you've outlined with design parameters are not a failing on the part of the companies per se but a simple reality of the cost of advancement, one that is exacerbated by failure and delay.

The issue with R&D is one of paramount national security. It should be the first and foremost consideration in our military budget when all is said and done, and it is not. And we're paying for it.

The system is broken. It is designing the wrong airplanes. And because it is designing the wrong airplanes, that is the reason that we are stuck with aging aircraft in service. We will never be able to afford the numbers of these planes that are needed. And even if we did get them, their performance is not going to live up to expectations, because the failed development process is all about raking off as much as it can for the contractors, and not about building great planes.

Sure. But that always has to be done in terms of a sustainable budget. "Spend whatever it takes" is the Soviet model, and you know what it got them.

A sustainable budget realizes the only part of the military worth satisfying against the odds is R&D.

 

[Verbose]

How do you expect to fight actually matters for what you intend to build and what it's supposed to be able to do.

How does the US expect to fight, what is it willing to risk at what cost, and how does it reflect in what it's designing and building?

At least the impression is that US is attempting for building things that will make war next-to risk-less for the US armed forces. That can only be achieved by tremendous expense.

Now, if it goes up against an adversary that is still willing to take some serious punishment, even if technologically ******** by comparison, that raises interesting possibilities.

Though one thing we can already conclude is that the US will be facing war by NGOs rather than conventional forces. So that's a lot of expense to fight conventionals, that will likely never be used quite as intended. So it works. The expense means no one will take on the US in a conventional, stand-up fight. It costs otoh, and the US still gets the unconventional fighters instead.

 

[Crezth]

The expense means no one will take on the US in a conventional, stand-up fight. It costs otoh, and the US still gets the unconventional fighters instead.

I'm fine with this. The cost is vindicated by the security.

 

[Evie]

The fundamental problem with that reasoning is that in a vacuum, where the USA are not a military hegemony, the only nation that might be in position to have any interest in taking you on are Canada and Mexico. The VERY THREATENING Canada and Mexico, one might add. Maybe Russia if they're really desperate for bits of Alaska.

America doesn't need such a first class military for local defense. It needs it to be in position to impose its interests worldwide (preferably without fighting). And that's a lot more questionable.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The cost is vindicated by the security.

The Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean might also have something to do with this...

 

[say1988]

I'm fine with this. The cost is vindicated by the security.

But how much cost is neccessary for that security?
Would any country threaten the US without F-35s and F-22s?

I believe the JSF program was a good idea, there are just a number of issues with how it was carried out, leading to cost overruns, delays, and questionable capabilities arising from all sides (industry, governments, and the public).

The F-22 I feel was less justified and less needed.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm fine with this. The cost is vindicated by the security.

And that is exactly the wrong approach. This leads you to spend far too much far too poorly, and in the end does not buy the security you were expecting.

 

[Crezth]

The fundamental problem with that reasoning is that in a vacuum, where the USA are not a military hegemony, the only nation that might be in position to have any interest in taking you on are Canada and Mexico. The VERY THREATENING Canada and Mexico, one might add. Maybe Russia if they're really desperate for bits of Alaska.

America doesn't need such a first class military for local defense. It needs it to be in position to impose its interests worldwide (preferably without fighting). And that's a lot more questionable.

We're not just defending the United States' literal soil, though. We're defending our interests abroad, manifest in the form of world peace between the great states and security for our allies.

The Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean might also have something to do with this...

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said?

But how much cost is neccessary for that security?
Would any country threaten the US without F-35s and F-22s?

Well, yes. Countries in the past have threatened us when they didn't think we would or could do anything about it. It's sort of the story of the first half of the 20th century.

But even if I were going to wax prolifically about the glories of military spending in order to secure our borders against Pearl Harbor II, I'd be missing my own point. US acquiring and developing advanced military technology is the vanguard of future security. Yes, the world seems quaint and peaceful now, but when we stop investing in next-gen tech, the next thing you know is that 20 years from now the Chinese have eclipsed us in every way that matters and start projecting into Southeast Asian, the Indian Ocean, and beyond. It's not just them, either: other admittedly less-competent states with designs and ambitions of their own would feel more at liberty to pursue their own aggressive diplomacy with whatever neighbors they think they have a right to. It doesn't have to be an outright war of conquest, but aggression has never been limited to "alright, all of this is mine now" throughout history. The United States, ironically enough, being a prime example of that.

The US army overextends itself too far and too often, and it is costly and some might argue counterproductive. But the one department that is actually capable of being a guarantor of future security - not just for us, but our allies and the world at large - is the one that realizes that staying a step ahead of the game secures victory before the war is fought. And there is no way to do that when you pull the rug out from under your military.

And that is exactly the wrong approach. This leads you to spend far too much far too poorly, and in the end does not buy the security you were expecting.

It already has.

 

[Evie]

We're not just defending the United States' literal soil, though. We're defending our interests abroad, manifest in the form of world peace between the great states and security for our allies.

Yes, that's what I was saying. You need a first class military to impose your interests abroad, and order the word to your will.

Defending your interests abroad by force is a choice. It's an eminently questionable choice. It's a choice many nations have turned their back on for a wide variety of reason. And it's the very basis of your need to throw money out the windows on military gadgets.

You don't need those gadgets so your country itself will be safe. You need those gadgets so you can get your way elsewhere in the world.

A military that's used to "defend interests" (in the form of imposing those agendas and interests on other states) is, fundamentally, an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. Some uses of it may remain justified, but it is not a defensive weapon.