Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

arrow-nautics

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
  • Location: Halifax

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 04:19

playloud wrote:As much as I'd love some extra F-35 love there, I couldn't blame any Stubby supporter for staying away.


EXACTLY why I never bothered with the BF4C site. I know of one of the admin (he's also a member of the FB "Canadians for the F-35 Lightning II" and from time to time when I've posted certain things on the CftF-35 LII site he has ripped me a new one. I made the connection that it was him a long time ago. Of course I won't be so below the belt and offside to mention his name but it was clear I was going to be skating uphill & behind the 8 ball in even bothering to join BF4C. I have very little respect for the BF4C since it's CLEARLY biased. I mean, don't call it that FFS! Call it "The BF4C & why the JSF is wrong".

Cherry picking & a loaded gun. If it truly should be an open discussion on the Best Fighter for Canada, should that not invite all options & sides of the argument? Not in their world!

At least we have an ear for Maus even though we don't like some of his opinions. I respect F-16,net for not banning him. Shows a level of professionalism obviously lacking by those people!
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 08:40

Considering that range is given as one of the reasons "not" to get the F-35 for up North... I thought I'd just lay this here (yes, it's an official slide from 4/2016)....

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6634
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 09:33

cosmicdwarf wrote:The Liberal party already favoured the Super Hornet before the election. This is all about saving face.



True and what the Canadian people need to know. Is it will cost them more and offer less capability. Than the plan from the Previous Conservative Government.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3094
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 09:39

delvo wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:It might be just a rumour without any basis to reality
It definitely has a basis in reality. When the Canook anti-F-35 crowd gets going, the Big Bug is always the alternative they favor, and they cling to it with religiony fervor, like their hands have turned to stone around it, no matter what happens next. It's Canada's equivalent of A-10 among American anti-F-35 people. One of my favorite examples of this, from another forum:


Sure, I know that. I meant that it's entirely possible the rumour about Canadian Government planning to sole-source Super Hornet is not what they are doing. It might be just one option they are considering. It might also be a way to test waters how Canadian people would react to such a move.

In any case I think it's beyond stupid that Canadian politicians are making statements about selecting or not selecting certain fighter type without having any knowledge or information about the issue. That is a thing that should be left for professionals on the field (CAF and Canadian aviation industry) to evaluate. Politicians should make statements only after they have some facts and professional evaluation to back on.

delvo wrote:So the F-35 goes from not equipped/capable enough to too equipped/capable, but, no matter which way that goes, the preferred alternative doesn't change. At first the Big Bug is preferred because it's got more, then it's preferred because it's got less. And comparison of the actual planes is meaningless... which makes perfect sense, when you're already fixated on the one you want anyway.


This is what I see all the time nowadays everywhere and not just from Canadian people. For example after the Danish evaluation, which shows F-35 as the preferred alternative, people here in Finland complained that the test scenarios were too tough and made only for F-35 to shine. When asked what kind of scenarios would be better, no one offered better or even alternative scenarios. This was done even after showing that most of the scenarios were pretty easy or supposedly better for the competitors. Like DCA mission which should have been great for Eurofighter Typhoon, although even there F-35 was noticeably more effective and had much better survivability. Some people just want F-35 to fail and can not be convinced otherwise.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 12:37

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3094
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 12:56

I think this is really what anti-F-35 people are really scared about:

But right now all we're asking to do is be able to compete in a fair, open, transparent and requirements-based competition for the replacement of the CF-18s.


Like Danish competition showed, F-35 will fare very well in such competitions.


I also like this quote:
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan repeatedly told the Commons that the CF-18s should have been replaced long ago and there was a need to quickly fill a capability gapf


Yeah, maybe F-35 should've been already bought like previous governments (including Liberal Party led government, which actually started the whole process) were doing... :roll:
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 13:01

popcorn wrote:Something fishy going on.. :devil:

http://www.timescolonist.com/lockheed-m ... -1.2273158

Unless they announce a competition at the same time, I doubt that they'll do much other than make the anti-F-35 people happy.

But this plan is poorly thought out and will cost more in the long run. Though I do agree that the CF-18 replacement should have been in the bag with the previous government.
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 13:57

SpudmanWP wrote:Considering that range is given as one of the reasons "not" to get the F-35 for up North... I thought I'd just lay this here (yes, it's an official slide from 4/2016)....


Was that slide part of a bigger presentation? Where can we get the rest?
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 14:13

Ah the joys or people who think that Canada doesn't need a manned fighter to replace the CF-18.
Offline
User avatar

arrow-nautics

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
  • Location: Halifax

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 14:25

cosmicdwarf wrote:Ah the joys or people who think that Canada doesn't need a manned fighter to replace the CF-18.
It's staggering the amount of people who think Predators are the answer :doh:
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 14:26

arrow-nautics wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:Ah the joys or people who think that Canada doesn't need a manned fighter to replace the CF-18.
It's staggering the amount of people who think Predators are the answer :doh:

I'm arguing with someone on Twitter who is talking about some super secret weapon that will make manned fighters obsolete. It's apparently not a UAV, nor is it SAMs/air defenses.
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 16:43

I'm not Canadian, so I've no idea what tolerances the locals have for potentially dodgy dealings, but this does seem odd.

Their governments campaign pledge apparently stated:
We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.
We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft


The obvious contradiction being that if one has a 'transparent' competition, then excluding one of the candidates seems unfair.
Then there is the fact that 9 months in & they have yet to start this 'transparent' competition.

Yesterday the PM says regarding the F-35:
"(it) does not work and is far from working"


Meanwhile public records show that the governing party were holding near-weekly meetings with Boeing for the first 4 months of the year:
Boeing, which produces the Super Hornet, lobbied government officials about a dozen times between January and April.


And the Canadian government have seemingly welched on their JSF programme subscription?

If they want to go another direction, then that is fine..... it's their prerogative.
However they should be honest as to why they were having such frequent meetings with Boeing & why they are refusing to have a competition like they promised.
They also need to be honest as to the economic cost of removing themselves from the JSF programme.

But above all else, surely the very cosy relationship between the Liberals & Boeing should be raising alarms in Canada?
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-says-f-35s-are-far-from-working-as-liberals-tories-spar-over-fighter-jet-strategies

After nearly a year of sitting on their hands, the 'urgent need' line also rings hollow.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 17:07

From the 'bojack_horseman' link above here are the last two SAD paragraphs:
"...“The Liberals have broken their promise for a fair and transparent competition to replace our CF-18s and are sole-sourcing the Boeing Super Hornet instead,” Conservative defence critic James Bezan said. “Maybe we should not be surprised. Boeing officials have met 10 times since February with senior political staff.” [and once with LM]

Sajjan replied that he met the head of Lockheed Martin, Marillyn Hewson, at a defence conference in Singapore last week. “I met with her and sat with her at that table as well,” he said."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 536
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 17:28

spazsinbad wrote:From the 'bojack_horseman' link above here are the last two SAD paragraphs:
"...“The Liberals have broken their promise for a fair and transparent competition to replace our CF-18s and are sole-sourcing the Boeing Super Hornet instead,” Conservative defence critic James Bezan said. “Maybe we should not be surprised. Boeing officials have met 10 times since February with senior political staff.” [and once with LM]

Sajjan replied that he met the head of Lockheed Martin, Marillyn Hewson, at a defence conference in Singapore last week. “I met with her and sat with her at that table as well,” he said."


So pretty much he just admitted to a 10:1 ratio of meetings. Canada's procurement system is evidently a lot more shady than I would have expected.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post08 Jun 2016, 18:11

durahawk wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:From the 'bojack_horseman' link above here are the last two SAD paragraphs:
"...“The Liberals have broken their promise for a fair and transparent competition to replace our CF-18s and are sole-sourcing the Boeing Super Hornet instead,” Conservative defence critic James Bezan said. “Maybe we should not be surprised. Boeing officials have met 10 times since February with senior political staff.” [and once with LM]

Sajjan replied that he met the head of Lockheed Martin, Marillyn Hewson, at a defence conference in Singapore last week. “I met with her and sat with her at that table as well,” he said."


So pretty much he just admitted to a 10:1 ratio of meetings. Canada's procurement system is evidently a lot more shady than I would have expected.

Not surprising though.

Another article on this, best read there.

Matthew Fisher: Buying Super Hornets, not F-35s, will saddle air force with ‘the wrong aircraft forever’
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 29 guests