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

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

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 14:22

XanderCrews wrote:Of course you are using what the US pays for super Hornets and excluding FMS fees. Of course the Danes aren't buying aircraft in FY2017.


Exactly!
I even mentioned FMS in my last but one reply to maus but did you noticed how he ignored that "detail" in his next reply to me? :wink:

It's also funny that maus ignores that Australia signed an acquisition deal (acquisition alone which excludes training and support) with a cost of $2.9 Billion AUD in March 2007 (two thousand seven!) and with the AUD to USD exchange rate at that time this meant that contract valued around $2.2 Billion USD or resuming, in 2007 each Super Hornet cost Australia (again acquisition cost only) more than $91 Million USD - And again this was in 2007 where the Super Hornet production was at a much higher rate than today and discounting inflation rates.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 19:17

bumtish wrote:Problem with that is that Boeing is selling a story that when simulating land based use a Super should be able to do 9,000 hours. That is not based on any future SLAP mods, but on a simulation and definitely not any certification or test. Currently Supers have 6,000 certified hours and this is the information supplied by Dept of Navy to the Danes. DON where the ones selling the Supers to Denmark and DON provided the information. As it appears, Boeing supplied the 9,000 hour information in promotional pamflets to the Danish parliament and at a very, very late stage sent a mail to the Danish project office about their simulation.

The Danes did the calculation both with 6,000 hours and 8,000 hours on the SH frame and the SH came out as more expensive in both cases. And here, it doesn't matter if 8,000 or 9,000 hours as used, because the calculation was done for 30 years of use, where none of the aircraft would hit the 8,000 hours.

EDIT:

It appears there was additonal communications with DON regarding SH flight hours, and it was not a simulation with input of land based hours.

Image

Also additional material provided by Boeing as part of the RFI in 2008.

Image


The SH 9,500 hours is a projection based on less than expected heavy USN usage, yet certified hours remain at 6,000, which DON used in the RBI.



I've held my tongue on much of the BS written above, but there is no way the SH can reach 9000h on a land based profile. RCAF CF-18s didn't even get to 4000H before needing structural refits. The rigidity of the airframe is a real issue, which is essential for the aircraft to manage a set number of carrier landings. This must be balanced with land based operations where planes are subjected to different stresses, and keeping the overall weight of the aircraft down so not to affect performance. Furthermore Canada and other land base airforces would fly their Hornets with a completely different flight profile than the US Navy: Most air forces tend to have less transit time than the USN, and their fatigue life metrics emphasize that. The RCAF is well known for its emphasis on operational training, with ranges right beside their bases at Cold Lake and Bagotville. If I remember correctly, DoN and USAF on flight hours reflect these differences.

Unsurprisingly Canada is at the forefront of this area, with its fleet life assessment program: each CF-18 is installed with G-meters and an extensive number of strain gauges on an aircraft. These opposing requirements are not "easily remedied" by a bunch of fixes, otherwise Canada would have done the EMD on it decades ago. The similar balance exists with the Super Hornet, though they may have dealt with some of the low hanging fruit, the air frame cannot be designed to deal with both type of environments and maintain a high level of performance.

Concerning Denmark and Boeing's legal efforts. They look to have two objectives...but first its important to stress what this is not: there is no likelihood that they would overturn the decision, and they acknowledge that. While the cost delta between the Shornet and the F-35 may be higher than it actually is, they are not disputing that the delta exists.

Rather they are #1: trying to keep the impression that they have a chance to get a win in Denmark for Congress, Canada and (maybe) Malaysia. And #2: looking to sue Denmark for a false competition for a monetary value. Basically if you look at their recent statements and what they want, they want to find malfeasance in order to sue for damages.
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 353
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 22:56

Well, the USN is about to begin SELP'ing the Super Hornets to extend their service lives past 6,000 hours. If the data presented eight years ago had any bearing on actual service life, then the appropriate office in the DOD could just have signed off on that in that eight year period and gotten 9,500 hours without the SLEP.

Just sayin'.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 22:59

bumtish wrote:Well, the USN is about to begin SELP'ing the Super Hornets to extend their service lives past 6,000 hours. If the data presented eight years ago had any bearing on actual service life, then the appropriate office in the DOD could just have signed off on that in that eight year period and gotten 9,500 hours without the SLEP.

Just sayin'.


So, what you're saying is that 9000H isn't actually the aircraft service life?

Huh. Who'da thought that?
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 353
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 23:25

hb_pencil wrote:
bumtish wrote:Well, the USN is about to begin SELP'ing the Super Hornets to extend their service lives past 6,000 hours. If the data presented eight years ago had any bearing on actual service life, then the appropriate office in the DOD could just have signed off on that in that eight year period and gotten 9,500 hours without the SLEP.

Just sayin'.


So, what you're saying is that 9000H isn't actually the aircraft service life?

Huh. Who'da thought that?


Heh, the Danish project office didn't and also could only evaluate the formal reply of 6,000 hours. This number was not changed for 2014 RBI. NLR (Netherlands) evaluated the 6,000 hours and found them credible. The 9,500 hours appear in supplementary Boeing information, promotional Boeing pamflets for parliament, letters from Boeing to ministers, project office, members of parliament, but not where it matters, in the RBI.

On a different note, here is an answer from the Danish defence minster to a member of the Danish Parliament regarding one engine aircraft in the arctic. Might just interest Canadians.

NOTE 2: F-35 ABILITY TO OPERATE IN THE ARCTIC AND SINGLE-ENGINE

Purpose
This note explains the F-35's ability to operate in the Arctic, including from small airports, and the importance that the aircraft has only one engine.

...

The significance of a motor for the F-35's ability to operate in the Arctic
A modern fighter aircraft survivability depends on the interaction between many different sub-systems, including aircraft self-protection systems, design, design and redundancy of the electrical and hydraulic systems. The evaluation of the F-35's survivability in the Arctic mission scenario shows that it has better survival rate than the other two candidates [Super Hornet and Eurofighter], also despite the fact that the F-35 have only one engine. This is primarily due to the reliability of modern engines are so good that even with major damage can bring a fighter safe back to the landing.

It should also be noted that none of the 10 Danish F-16 accidents were caused by engine failure. The engine for the F-16 is designed in the 1970s, and it is expected that the new engines are equally reliable.


http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/f ... /index.htm
Offline

luke_sandoz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 454
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 00:40

hb_pencil wrote:
bumtish wrote:Well, the USN is about to begin SELP'ing the Super Hornets to extend their service lives past 6,000 hours. If the data presented eight years ago had any bearing on actual service life, then the appropriate office in the DOD could just have signed off on that in that eight year period and gotten 9,500 hours without the SLEP.

Just sayin'.


So, what you're saying is that 9000H isn't actually the aircraft service life?

Huh. Who'da thought that?


Seem to recall you had insights into the gear ratios of the selection machinery in Ottawa.

Any RUMINT about what the Budget allocation for these 18 planes will be, what Ready to Go to War unit price they are expecting from Boeing?

Any Danes hanging around Ottawa these days selling services? :D
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 03:36

luke_sandoz wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
bumtish wrote:Well, the USN is about to begin SELP'ing the Super Hornets to extend their service lives past 6,000 hours. If the data presented eight years ago had any bearing on actual service life, then the appropriate office in the DOD could just have signed off on that in that eight year period and gotten 9,500 hours without the SLEP.

Just sayin'.


So, what you're saying is that 9000H isn't actually the aircraft service life?

Huh. Who'da thought that?


Seem to recall you had insights into the gear ratios of the selection machinery in Ottawa.

Any RUMINT about what the Budget allocation for these 18 planes will be, what Ready to Go to War unit price they are expecting from Boeing?

Any Danes hanging around Ottawa these days selling services? :D


Given they basically cut the military staff out of the decision-making process and preferred to base their decision on glossy brochure briefings from Boeing lobbyists, they don't have a clue. Look at the lobbying rolls and who talk to who in the period January to May/June of last year... its sickening. I think they truly believed that they were going to get 60m Super Hornets all in. Moreover theres a "bad news" filter on information between people below a certain line and above it... those below being subject to the gag order as well.

At this point most probably have an inkling of the true cost... but not so much the consequences because of that filter. Will there be sticker shock? perhaps but this government seems somewhat determined to do really dumb things, so maybe they won't blink an eye at $7 billion dollars wasted.
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 04:54

hb_pencil wrote:
At this point most probably have an inkling of the true cost... but not so much the consequences because of that filter. Will there be sticker shock? perhaps but this government seems somewhat determined to do really dumb things, so maybe they won't blink an eye at $7 billion dollars wasted.

Considering that the government is about to spend billions of dollars on a FWSAR aircraft that is decidedly inferior than the existing aircraft and the other option, probably didn't meet performance specifications, pay more for it, all because of politics, this government is capable of no end of doing the dumb thing.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19240
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 05:30

:doh: :devil: 242 pages of extreme silliness from the Great White UP meanderings re F-35As. WinSome - LoseSome & ThenSome :devil: :doh:
Last edited by spazsinbad on 21 Mar 2017, 05:32, edited 2 times in total.
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: 454
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 05:32

thepointblank wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
At this point most probably have an inkling of the true cost... but not so much the consequences because of that filter. Will there be sticker shock? perhaps but this government seems somewhat determined to do really dumb things, so maybe they won't blink an eye at $7 billion dollars wasted.

Considering that the government is about to spend billions of dollars on a FWSAR aircraft that is decidedly inferior than the existing aircraft and the other option, probably didn't meet performance specifications, pay more for it, all because of politics, this government is capable of no end of doing the dumb thing.


Oh sh*t! Group Fuster Cluck on Runway 27 Liberal.

http://www.happydiver.space/?p=277
Attachments
IMG_7531.PNG
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2141
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 07:15

hb_pencil wrote:I've held my tongue on much of the BS written above, but there is no way the SH can reach 9000h on a land based profile. RCAF CF-18s didn't even get to 4000H before needing structural refits. The rigidity of the airframe is a real issue, which is essential for the aircraft to manage a set number of carrier landings. This must be balanced with land based operations where planes are subjected to different stresses, and keeping the overall weight of the aircraft down so not to affect performance. Furthermore Canada and other land base airforces would fly their Hornets with a completely different flight profile than the US Navy: Most air forces tend to have less transit time than the USN, and their fatigue life metrics emphasize that. The RCAF is well known for its emphasis on operational training, with ranges right beside their bases at Cold Lake and Bagotville. If I remember correctly, DoN and USAF on flight hours reflect these differences.


This is so true. Finnish F/A-18C/Ds are 6,000 hour aircrafts but are currently undergoing structural refits to achieve 4,500 actual flight hours otherwise they'd be worn off before 4,000 hours. The reasons are exactly what you mentioned. While Finland has no aircraft carriers AFAIK, the aircraft enter training areas within seconds after taking off and training is very intensive to maximize efficiency of it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19240
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 08:07

Aaahhh LEGACY Hornets - they leave quite a legacy: ROLL OUT THE BARREL - We'll have a BARREL of FUN...
FRCSW Center Barrel Program: The Lifeline of Legacy Hornets
09 Mar 2017 FRCSW Public Affairs

"...Each CBR+ averages about 25,000 manhours at a total cost of $2.5 to $3 million per aircraft....

...Marshall [F/A-18 center barrel production manager Keyon Marshall] said that there are still about 200 legacy Hornets left in the fleet that are eligible for the CBR+."

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6500
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

operaaperta

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 21:42

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 09:46

This from Australian DSTO, 2400 hrs airframe life
Attachments
30698029741_4cfaf02f4f_o.png
30154838714_c0b3ac971b_o.png
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5074
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 18:52

All of this documented proof aside, I am going to book mark the last page. And I want everyone to remember the day Maus92 tried to tell people the Super Hornet was more capable than the F-35, and his "evidence" was the USN buying more super hornets in FY17, mainly to augment the Super Hornets that are prematurely falling apart as he tells us how they will last 9000 hours, because reasons-- even though no Super Hornet operator has anywhere close to those numbers.

I also want to point out, that to this day the Super Hornet has never won a single competition. And every Super Hornet ever purchased has been sole sourced. When Super Hornets do compete against F-35s they lose. They lost in Japan, they lost in Denmark.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 20:47

XanderCrews wrote:All of this documented proof aside, I am going to book mark the last page. And I want everyone to remember the day Maus92 tried to tell people the Super Hornet was more capable than the F-35, and his "evidence" was the USN buying more super hornets in FY17, mainly to augment the Super Hornets that are prematurely falling apart as he tells us how they will last 9000 hours, because reasons-- even though no Super Hornet operator has anywhere close to those numbers.

I also want to point out, that to this day the Super Hornet has never won a single competition. And every Super Hornet ever purchased has been sole sourced. When Super Hornets do compete against F-35s they lose. They lost in Japan, they lost in Denmark.


Exactly!
And the sad truth (for the Super Hornet) is that the Super Hornet doesn't even have to compete against the F-35 in order to (always) lose.
For example the Super Hornet lost in Brazil against the Gripen NG (although this could in theory be attributed to the NSA espionage scandal) and it lost in India against the Rafale (and it even "somehow lost" to the Typhoon here since both the Typhoon and Rafale were the finalists while the SH was not).

Heck, like I previously said I used to be a Super Hornet "fan" (well more legacy Hornet fan but I suppose the Super Hornet counted as well) but facts are facts and there's no way to deny (although some/many people try their best to).
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests