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

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20705
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 20:21

'BP' said: "...What's screwing over a dozen of your closest friends really matter anyway...." Then there is the small matter of participating with the UK and Australia in ACURL.
"...Mission data reprogramming for Australian, Canadian and United Kingdom F‐35 aircraft is to be conducted at a yet‐to‐be‐developed Australia–Canada–United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL). The ACURL is currently planned to be located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, USA, and operated collaboratively by approximately 20 personnel from each of the ACURL partner nations, with the support of approximately 50 US personnel. The ACURL’s acquisition and sustainment costs are to be split equally between the ACURL partner nations..." [no payment by Canada yet AFAIK] http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Au ... 0OCRed.pdf

"..."An inability from Canada to make financial commitments to a reprogramming solution for the F-35 will transfer the financial burden of ongoing activities to JSF Partners, restricting Canada's ability to influence requirements (in the) development and design of the program solution," it added. If Canada decides to get involved in the facility it will be required to catch up with a financial contribution for a third of the $650 million. The costs will be included in a submission to the Treasury Board for a new fighter aircraft once the government finishes its review of that purchase, the briefing note pointed out.

As many as 15 to 20 Canadian military personnel would be assigned to the software laboratory...."
http://www2.canada.com/components/print ... df42400eba
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

luke_sandoz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 475
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 21:05

Ouch! 20 real good postings away from a brutal Canadian winter to Florida.

Gonna piss off a few folks :D :D
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 21:09

delvo wrote:Complaints about being threatened are a setup for the future: if they do end up with F-35s anyway, they'll get to spend the next few decades bitching about how it was only because of Americans pushing them into it, just like we supposedly somehow did before with Arrow's demise. Watch for the second part to really make the rehashing of an old story complete: they'll end up claiming that SuperHornet is Canadian!


The complaints about "threats" are baffling. The language in the JSF PSFD MOU that Canada signed is very clear as are the implications. In fact, the Canadian government's own interpretation of the MOU is especially concise.

"As outlined in the Industrial Participation MOUs, the continued availability of industrial opportunities to
companies in Canada is subject to Canada remaining a partner in the F-35 JSF Program, and acquiring the F-35."

Source: Canadian Industrial Participation in The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. December 2012
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2341
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 22:12

marauder2048 wrote:
delvo wrote:Complaints about being threatened are a setup for the future: if they do end up with F-35s anyway, they'll get to spend the next few decades bitching about how it was only because of Americans pushing them into it, just like we supposedly somehow did before with Arrow's demise. Watch for the second part to really make the rehashing of an old story complete: they'll end up claiming that SuperHornet is Canadian!


The complaints about "threats" are baffling. The language in the JSF PSFD MOU that Canada signed is very clear as are the implications. In fact, the Canadian government's own interpretation of the MOU is especially concise.

"As outlined in the Industrial Participation MOUs, the continued availability of industrial opportunities to
companies in Canada is subject to Canada remaining a partner in the F-35 JSF Program, and acquiring the F-35."

Source: Canadian Industrial Participation in The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. December 2012

If the Canadian gov. was serious about buying Super Hornets, there would be some sign of activity. No major flight evaluation of the F/A-18E/F by Canadian test pilots. Not even a whisper of asking the USN to arrange early delivery of a few jets from Boeing.

Personally, I think Sec. Carter should suggest that Canada order a few F-35s, with the option of returning them. My guess is the Canadians will "return" their F-35s just like the Aussies are "returning" their F/A-18Fs, by ordering another dozen. I have heard that the RAAF might actually get 36 SuperBugs and 12 Grizzlies. This is in addition to the 50-75 F-35As being procured.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20705
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 22:22

"...like the Aussies are "returning" their F/A-18Fs, by ordering another dozen. I have heard that the RAAF might actually get 36 SuperBugs and 12 Grizzlies. This is in addition to the 50-75 F-35As being procured."

Do tell where heard. Why 50-75 F-35As when it is written 75 [with a possibility of the final total being 100 as envisaged]?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5513
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 22:38

If the Canadian gov. was serious about buying Super Hornets, there would be some sign of activity. No major flight evaluation of the F/A-18E/F by Canadian test pilots. Not even a whisper of asking the USN to arrange early delivery of a few jets from Boeing.



Heard the same thing. Nothing official yet

I don't know if they are dragging their feet, we're never serious, or werent anticipating this kind of blowback
Last edited by XanderCrews on 13 Jun 2016, 22:48, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 22:40

neurotech wrote:If the Canadian gov. was serious about buying Super Hornets, there would be some sign of activity. No major flight evaluation of the F/A-18E/F by Canadian test pilots. Not even a whisper of asking the USN to arrange early delivery of a few jets from Boeing.

Personally, I think Sec. Carter should suggest that Canada order a few F-35s, with the option of returning them. My guess is the Canadians will "return" their F-35s just like the Aussies are "returning" their F/A-18Fs, by ordering another dozen. I have heard that the RAAF might actually get 36 SuperBugs and 12 Grizzlies. This is in addition to the 50-75 F-35As being procured.


Interesting points. Canada's current partner status exempts the JSF from Canada's Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) policy which is a 100% offset requirement for defense contracts.

As silly as this sounds, it *might* be more beneficial for Canada to abandon partner status and then select the JSF since it would compel Lockheed to funnel 100% of the contract value back into the Canadian economy.

I'm sure Boeing has been presenting detailed reports on how it would meet the IRB requirement if Canada buys the Super Bug.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5513
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 22:53

marauder2048 wrote:
neurotech wrote:If the Canadian gov. was serious about buying Super Hornets, there would be some sign of activity. No major flight evaluation of the F/A-18E/F by Canadian test pilots. Not even a whisper of asking the USN to arrange early delivery of a few jets from Boeing.

Personally, I think Sec. Carter should suggest that Canada order a few F-35s, with the option of returning them. My guess is the Canadians will "return" their F-35s just like the Aussies are "returning" their F/A-18Fs, by ordering another dozen. I have heard that the RAAF might actually get 36 SuperBugs and 12 Grizzlies. This is in addition to the 50-75 F-35As being procured.


Interesting points. Canada's current partner status exempts the JSF from Canada's Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) policy which is a 100% offset requirement for defense contracts.

As silly as this sounds, it *might* be more beneficial for Canada to abandon partner status and then select the JSF since it would compel Lockheed to funnel 100% of the contract value back into the Canadian economy.

I'm sure Boeing has been presenting detailed reports on how it would meet the IRB requirement if Canada buys the Super Bug.


Canada needs the F-35 more than the F-35 needs canada. It's 65 jets. Not 100, not 150. This isn't the UK. LM cant offer a better deal than it is now and canada can't get a better deal than what it has now. Canada can't be courted anymore at this point. They know what they know, and its their choice as to what they do but I don't know how many "moves" are left by either side. Eventually the brinksmanship will have consequences one way or the other.

And I don't see how pulling out of the program then picking the F-35 would get them anything but leftovers, especially considering the speed at which canada moves
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Jun 2016, 23:43

XanderCrews wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
Canada needs the F-35 more than the F-35 needs canada. It's 65 jets. Not 100, not 150. This isn't the UK. LM cant offer a better deal than it is now and canada can't get a better deal than what it has now. Canada can't be courted anymore at this point. They know what they know, and its their choice as to what they do but I don't know how many "moves" are left by either side. Eventually the brinksmanship will have consequences one way or the other.

And I don't see how pulling out of the program then picking the F-35 would get them anything but leftovers, especially considering the speed at which canada moves


Oh it's extremely high stakes. I don't agree with the strategy but it has some perverse logic to it:

LM can't offer a better deal because the MOU doesn't permit it; the contracts are awarded (and extended) on a best-value, competitive basis amongst the partners.

On the other hand, Canada's IRB/ITB policy guarantees awards (and specific $ amounts) to Canadian companies. And given the established contracts, the Canadian government might be banking on the fact that LM and the other primes would just extend and expand their current relationships.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post14 Jun 2016, 00:05

marauder2048 wrote:Interesting points. Canada's current partner status exempts the JSF from Canada's Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) policy which is a 100% offset requirement for defense contracts.

As silly as this sounds, it *might* be more beneficial for Canada to abandon partner status and then select the JSF since it would compel Lockheed to funnel 100% of the contract value back into the Canadian economy.


That's a double-edged sword. As it is, Canada was estimated to get around $11 billion in production contracts out of the F-35 program, more than the procurement cost. Sure, it's estimated, not guaranteed, but unless the quality of Canadian parts is subpar or something there's little reason to think that the JSF contracts would suddenly go to someone else (i.e. another country investing in the tooling and manufacturing processes involved to compete on producing those parts is unlikely if Canadian firms do a good job). That's more than how much Canada would spend on buying its 65 F-35's, and the money goes toward cutting edge aerospace industry by definition (since the F-35 is the most recent fighter production program).

By contrast, industrial offsets simply means that they'll invest the same amount of money in the Canadian economy. It doesn't matter how. So it's guaranteed, but it may be put into Canada's ice rinks for all that it will matter. So you're looking at 1) an estimated (though not guaranteed) amount of work greater than the procurement cost that will go into Canada's high-tech industry, or 2) a guaranteed amount of work equal to the procurement cost that may or may not further Canada's aerospace sector.

Additionally -- though I'm not sure about the details of this -- my understanding is that Canada doesn't have to pay the U.S.'s Foreign Military Sales fee for the F-35 because it is part of the program. (For the Super Hornets, it does have to pay a FMS fee.) If it pulls out of the F-35 program, will it have to pay the FMS fees if it later on decides to buy F-35's?
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post14 Jun 2016, 00:17

XanderCrews wrote:Swedish AF is 80 million per aircraft flyaway, just like the last time you asked:


viewtopic.php?f=36&t=29064&p=317584

Seems to me impossible to know. By 2014/2015 in Swedish media was published SAAB, as well as the Swedish Airforce stopped to give a price of a Gripen.
In fact there is not a singel Swedish taxpayer who has any idea what a Gripen will cost him or she (questions in paliament)

The Brazilians? Development costs were not mentioned.
The Gripen was that much in trouble the Swiss did not have to pay development costs. In case the Swiss would have ordered the Gripen, Gripens of Sweden would have been more expensive than the Swiss Gripens.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1098
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post14 Jun 2016, 01:14

marauder2048 wrote:
...LM can't offer a better deal because ... On the other hand, Canada's IRB/ITB policy guarantees awards (and specific $ amounts) to Canadian companies... .


Well leaders of countries can decide what they think is in their best interest and pass laws, imagining GUARANTEES, and that they gain leverage over suppliers and vendors. But in the end, leverage imagined, is not leverage in reality. It's not what they think they can tell Lockheed it must do. First, Lockheed also will decide what it WILL do, and Canada is delusional if it thinks the other partners will "force Lockheed" to play nice with a nation that has lost its marbles ... In fact I suspect, they are tired at this point of US/Lockheed patience.

blindpilot wrote:
" ... Jack Crisler, Lockheed's vice president of business development for the F-35 program, told Reuters Lockheed was under pressure from other partner countries ... "


If there is a vote among the other partners, I assure you at this point, they have less patience with Canada than Lockheed does. The vote will be 100%, "Screw them, let them buy Textron Scorpions." And Lockheed will pull work out of Canada, and the US will invoke NORAD paragraphs to ensure its own defense. And Canada can go ... whatever it is they want to go do ...

NOTHING is GUARANTEED because idiots say so ... Reality imposes itself harshly.

MHO
BP
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1999
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post14 Jun 2016, 01:27

What BP said.

All of this nonsense about LM blackmailing somebody is just that -- internet nonsense. The other program partner countries will insist that there be action to move workshare out of any country that is no longer a participant, consistent with the provisions of the PSFD MOU.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20705
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Jun 2016, 02:03

Lockheed-Martin says not buying F-35 jet would be wrong choice for Canada
12 Jun 2016 Daniel Leblanc

"...Mr. Over [Lockheed-Martin’s director of international business development for the F-35] took particular umbrage with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent comment that the F-35 “doesn’t work” and is far away from reaching its potential. There are already 185 F-35s flying in the United States and Italy, with plans to have more than 600 of them flying all over the world by 2020.

“I’m mystified,” Mr. Over said.

He went on to quote a lieutenant-general in the U.S. Marine Corps who has referred to his current fleet of F-35s as “Jurassic Park.” “His logic is, ‘Anything that comes into my jungle, this airplane kills,’” Mr. Over said...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e30410566/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1098
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post14 Jun 2016, 02:06

Trigger alert - Personal opinion ...

This is probably a pretty good place to speak about Boeing in the 21st Century. This is not your 1950's 707 Boeing or your F-15/18/AV8 McDonnell Douglas. Everything they sell, that is any good, 737's etc., comes prior to the 1997 merger. Even the core F-18 designs. Nothing they have done since, out of Chicago has been anything but a train wreck.. See 787 and KC 46. Boeing rolled out their first shiny new 787 two years late with plywood parts still hidden under the paint. The X-32 was an absolute joke, (does anyone know how to make a composite wing here? Just slap this piece on and it will almost go supersonic, and then take it off and it will STOVL) and that's why they lost the JSF contract. etc. etc. etc.

I will never fly on a 787 (I'm originally from SC, and hear things from the SC plants), and wouldn't trust Chicago post 1997 for any new design work. The first Super Hornets with LRIP in 97, barely makes the cut. Anything new .. well check the wheel wells for plywood, when you kick the tires. Most of the older Boeing/McD employees holding things together are retiring now. You don't think McNerney got paid $29M a year to make airplanes, do you? ....

Anyway this is NOT the Boeing that made the KC135Q's I flew, nor the 737's you usually fly in today. Something is wrong when they can't get the refueling boom right, after making more than a few in the past, on an air frame that is commercial off the shelf.

BUT, That is definitely just MHO, and Canada and Boeing sort of deserve each other, at this point.
BP

PS It's not the engineers' problems. They are good (at least until they leave in disgust). It's the new "non-QA" program management. Ask the Washington union guys, or for that matter, the non union workers in SC.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests