• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada, Australia, U.K. Sign Joint Strike Fighter Agreements

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
9,639
Points
1,160
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2006 – With the first flight of the Joint Strike Fighter set for this week, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have “re-enlisted” for the program.

Canada signed on for the project’s production, sustainment and follow-on development phase during a Pentagon ceremony here yesterday. Australia signed on today as part of the U.S.-Australia ministerial meetings at the State Department, and the United Kingdom signed at a Pentagon ceremony today.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Defense Department’s program for a “multi-role” stealth air-to-ground strike aircraft. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and allies are developing the system together.

Canadian Deputy Defense Minister Ward Elcock and U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a memorandum of understanding that calls on Canada to pledge $150 million toward production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Canada already has contributed $150 million to the system-development and demonstration portion of the program.

“This is a very special event, because it is a very special partnership,” England said during the ceremony. “The United States and Canada share the strongest possible bonds of friendship, family and fundamental values, as well as a common border.”

“The Joint Strike Fighter program represents a revolutionary approach to both aircraft development and international armaments cooperation,” Elcock said. “It brings together expertise from many different countries and is, as a result, the single largest fighter aircraft program in the world.”

The United Kingdom has been involved with the Joint Strike Fighter program since its inception 10 years ago and is in to the program to the tune of $2 billion. United Kingdom Minister for Defense Procurement Lord Peter Drayson signed a memorandum of understanding early today in the Pentagon.

The deputy defense secretary thanked his British counterpart and praised the way American and British forces work together. “We've had this relationship for a long, long time,” England said. “Our forces are engaged today. As we sign this, there's people out there defending freedom together. They do it every day, shoulder to shoulder, and it's the same way our nations are shoulder to shoulder. I'm just delighted that we have brought this to a conclusion today. We look forward to a long relationship with the Joint Strike Fighter program.”

The British plan for a total buy of up to 150 short-take-off-and-vertical-landing versions of the aircraft for use on two future aircraft carriers.

Canada also is making a substantial investment in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Canadians plan to buy 80 F-35 conventional-take-off-and-landing aircraft to replace its CF-18 aircraft. The program, led by Lockheed-Martin, will build three variants of the fighter: a conventional model, a carrier model, and a vertical-take-off-and-landing model. The United States has dubbed the aircraft the F-35 Lightning 2. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will use the three aircraft variants. The F-35 will replace the Air Force’s F-16 Falcon, the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ F/A-18 Hornet, and the Marines’ AV-8B Harrier.

Elcock stressed that the program demonstrates how well the United States and Canada can work together. “The program will allow the United States and Canada to continue to benefit from each others’ wealth of technology and expertise,” he said.

Canada expects to retire its CF-18 fleet sometime after 2017, Elcock said. “Canada needs to explore what it needs from the next generation of fighter aircraft,” he said. “Our continued involvement in this project will help us determine our future fighter requirements for the Canadian Forces. Certainly, one capability we know we want to have is interoperability with the United States and our allies.”

Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson signed the memorandum during a ceremony at the U.S. State Department today. “It is an extremely important day for Australia and our air-defense capability,” Nelson said. “The Joint Strike Fighter is most certainly the correct aircraft for Australia in terms of air-to-air combat and its strike capabilities.

“It will see Australia through the next 30 to 40 years. It is a state-of-the-art aircraft, and we look forward very much to the imminent first flight.”

Other international partners participating in the program are: the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and Norway. Other nations, including Singapore and Israel, have expressed interest in the program.

Officials say plans call for building more than 2,400 F-35 aircraft by 2027.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/12/mil-061212-afps04.htm
 
Canada commits up to $500 million to the development of CF-18 replacement
MURRAY BREWSTER OTTAWA (CP) - Despite the misgivings of some allies, the federal government is spending an additional half-billion dollars for the final development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a stealth jet meant to replace Canada's aging CF-18s. ........

visit http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_n121383A.xml.html for more ino.
 
Colin P said:
Officials say plans call for building more than 2,400 F-35 aircraft by 2027.
Hmm, so this means that some of those who will pilot these aircraft are not even born yet, or are very young. Also, why wouldn't we (Canada) buy some VTOL (vertical take off landing) types? Would it be the total cost with those and the verson we will buy?
 
Michael Baker said:
Hmm, so this means that some of those who will pilot these aircraft are not even born yet, or are very young.

New Poster (Picture something like the old 'Uncle Sam' "We want You" Posters)

"Lots of time for You to raise a future CF Pilot!"
 
'bout time we anticipated future defence needs and got on the ball instead of waiting until 15 years after something should be replaced to deal witrh it...
 
I think it's important to not that our initial investment has been very lucrative for us so far. That investment will only become more valuable once this beast goes into production. It's not often that our procurement efforts have as much benefit as this. Is it perfect? No, but it's good enough to maintain.
 
Good to see we are moving ahead on this, but 80 jets will not be enough.........
 
peaches said:
Good to see we are moving ahead on this, but 80 jets will not be enough.........

No one ever said Canada was going to buy JSF
 
Been posted here also
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54615.0.html
 
I think if they were to buy only 80 they would try and justify less maned Airframes for more UAV technology.  If you have UAV's as Recon (even attack in a pinch) and couple that to smart weapons on a stealth maned Aircraft then you would not necessarily need to replace the CF-18 one for one. 

Just a thought tho.

:cdn:
 
As it stands now we have 80 upgraded CF18's, 80 is not enough.  We have 80 jets for a training sqn, continental air defence, CAS support to deployed army ops (or army ops here in Canada, if it ever came to that, God forbid), air interdiction, etc etc....  Some of the 80 jets will be in maint, as you can see we use up 80 jets quickly.

IMHO we need two full up fighter WINGS minimum.  A dedicated NORAD AD sqn for eastern Canada & western Canada, as well as dedicated CAS/air interdiction sqn east & west, plus an OTS.  Could a combined force of CF-135's & UCAV do it, possibly....

As I have said before Canada is the second largest land mass on earth, 80 fighters is not enough.  Another horrible possibility to consider, we may a some point in the future have to fight a war on Canadain soil, perhaps in the high north, 80 jets won't cut it.....
 
+1 Peaches.  WE need more operational fighters and pilots.  Ones that will stay and not end up with Air Canada.
If / when we get the new CF 135 (is that the new designation?) will any 18's be retired?
 
CF-135 is sorta my designation, just expanding on the current CF numbers system:):).  Don't want to confuse them with the USAF KC135.I am an Air Weapons Control Officer, I can tell you we do not have enough fighter, no question.  In the cold war days we had 66 Voodoos just for NORAD defence, they did nothing else, NORAD, NORAD, NORAD, and they were good at it.  Our CF5 guys did CAS, all day, every day.  Right now our Cf18 guys, God bless them, they do everything, air defence, CAS, air interdiction, I am surprised they are not doing SAR and cargo drops:):).

We need to specialize a bit more.  A real fighter wing in Cold Lake should, IMHO, have a fully equipped Air Defence sqn, that's all they do, air "superiority" for western Canada, paired up with a second sqn that does CAS, BAI.  Same thing in Bagtown, with 410 as OTS that can back fill as AD for NORAD at higher DEFCON levels.

Here's an idea how about 5 operational fighter sqns, & a training sqn.  An air defence sqn in Cold lake, paired with a CAS sqn to support 1 CMBG ops, same thing in Bagtown, air defence sqn and a CAS sqn to support 5CMBG, and a fifth sqn in Trenton to provide CAS/BAI support to 2CMBG ops, and 410 OTS in Cold Lake.

18 jets per sqn x 5 sqns = 90, plus 24 in OTS = 114, plus 5 in AETE= 119, plus spares = say up to 138, the original number of Cf18s' ordered.  It is doable....

Pilots will gladly stay in an Air Force, if they can fly...........

Thoughs.........
 
Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
While I agree that we need good, modern fighters to fulfil our NORAD commitments, defend the continent (Bears flew near this summer and North Korea is not all that far away), I think our Air Force needs to look a bit closer to the ground.  Having worked on 2 deployments with attack helicopters in support and seeing their value in other theatres and the flexibility they bring for prosecuting the 3 Block War, I think that Canada still needs some form of rotary-wing ground support airframe - I don't care which one, I'm looking at the need for Canada to have that capability...

I definitely agree that we need that capability however I disagree that these should be Air Force resources. It does not make sense to have aircraft that are being used in direct support of the Army in an entirely different command. I have never understood why green and grey helicopters fall under the blue umbrella.
 
...and I'd also like a GI with kung-fu grip.  A set of crayons...and...and...
Oh that wold be lovely to have that many fighters and jockies to drive 'em.
 
Why do green & grey helos fall under the blue umbrella, that's all thanks to that military "visionary" Mr Hellier in 1968. I say bring back the RCN & RCAF, IMO. :)

I agree 1000% we need attack helos, AH64 or AH1Z would be nice.  The Air Force can provide the force if so equipped, we are a JOINT military, it should not matter the colour of the dress uniform the guy flying wears, we are under joint command.

The problem lies in mindset.  The Canadian Air Force (I am in it) does not from what I have seen have a warrior mentality.  When I was on exchange with the USAF flying AWACS, they have the mind set that "we are at war, or soon would be" all the time.  It was a FIGHTING Air Force.  We in the Canadian Air Force to not approach it with the same sense of urgency, or seriousness, IMHO.  
 
Driver,

I realize that there is NO WAY right now we could achieve what I suggested, however we need desperately to rebuild this Air Force.  We don't need a massive 1000 plane force, but we should be striving toward an effective end state.  A small to medium size force can be effective & lethal if so equipped.  Look at the Dutch AF, Aussie AF, small but well equipped for real COMBAT!!!  I am a hard core AF guy, but our AF is in no way a COMBAT AF.  Certain units may be temporally, but overall we are not. 

Rebuild and aim toward something effective........ 
 
peaches said:
Why do green & grey helos fall under the blue umbrella, that's all thanks to that military "visionary" Mr Hellier in 1968.

That's one you cannot hang on Paul Hellyer.  In fact the current organization, if that's the right word, was the Air Force's revenge against Mr. Hellyer's diktats.

In the mid '60s, as the (misnamed) unification process got started, the Navy and the Army owned their own air arms - Maritime Air Group was an organic component of Maritime Command as 10th Tactical Air Group (two Wings) was integral to Mobile Command.  The pilots and aircraft were 100% part and parcel of the Army.

There were to Air (Force) Commands: Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command and one formation - an Air Division in Europe.

New aircraft threatened the Air Force's officer heavy rank structure.  Simply put: the (then) next generation fighter could do more with less - especially less pilots.  There were still lots of rotary wing pilots - but they were, for the most part, in the 'Navy' or 'Army' and were likely to become admirals or land force generals - not at all what the Air Force needed to ensure a 'fair' (large) share of the most senior positions.

As a result of the Air Force’s intrigues (the right word, I think) we became the only military organized around means of mobility, but that change came long after Paul Hellyer had left the scene and it flies in the face of what he was trying to do.
 
My post was meant to be sarcastic.  I fully understood where you're coming from, peaches.  We need what we once had.  An effective and combat ready Air Force, Navy and Land Forces with mission capable equipment.  The Land forces need more Griffins and troop transports PLUS attack helos to get thier jobs done.  We seem to be overstretched again with little equipment to pull the jobs off.  We can't be using the same airframe for multiple missions over and over again, they just won't put up with it.  More and different types of fighters is a good thing. No more generic, one plane to do all, winged warriors.  But like on the other thread, I don't think we need AC 130 gunships that can erradicate an entire grid square.  Newer Hercs or transport airframes to get the job done, hence the new to us C-17's.  What will happen to them once we're done overseas?  We can use them for humanitarian drops, etc.  
We also need more people to do the job, not just SOLDIERS but Air Trades and Sea Trades and Purple Trades to cover off for leave and our already exhuasted  deployed forces.
I think we also need to re-open some old bases or make new ones to accomadate these new members.  Or at least make some of what we have into super bases.  I think that one is in the works, but I'm no SME.
In short, we need more to do the job.  We've been telling the government for years and it finally took uncle Rick to kick some butt and get some bucks poured into the military.
I digress, I think.  rant off
:D
 
Driver,

I agree 1000%.  I don't know about that whole superbase thing.  I spent a few yrs on USAF AWACS at Tinker AFB OK.  That's a SUPERBASE, wow.  They idea of a superbase has merrit, few base hospitals, CE sections Base trnsp, MP's OR etc, but on drawback is that it futher isolates us from the Canadian public, the people we recruit from, and ultimatlty serve.

Here's a radical question to throw out there, WHY DO WE NEED AIR FORCE BASE AT ALL??  We need Moosejaw & Cold Lake for sure, pilot training needs to be away from civilian areas, in sanitzed airspace, as does CF18 ops on the Cold Lake Air weapons Range (CLAWR).  Can't be dropping bombs near downtown Ottawa.

But why do we need Comox, there's only 5 CP140's and a SAR sqn there, why not close it, move CP140's & SAR to Victoria with Sea Kings (19 Wg Victoria), just like 17 Wg Winnipeg.  Move 408 sqn edmonton to the Edmonton Itnl, or to Red Deer regional airport, use civi airports.  Trenton, put 436 sqn C130's into London, put C17's in Hamilton airport (its a cargo air hub), base our Airbus sqn in Ottawa, 425 Sqn Bagotville, its one sqn, build a hanger in Quebec City and move them there.  Close 14 Wing Greenwood, move an Aurora sqn to St John's NFLD or Gander, another ot the Halifax intl airport, or maybe Moncton or Charlottetown PEI, move Sea Kings to Halifax intl.

My model is the USAF ANG/Reserve units they have all over the US.  If we spread out the AF, we could better connect with Canadians, bigger foot print better support, more recruits.  Western Ontario is one the most populated areas of Canada, no CF bases, just res units.

This is just a radical question, thinking outside the box, thoughts.......... 
 
Back
Top