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

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

sunstersun

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 09:52

durahawk wrote:
sunstersun wrote:Thank god, now all we need is a quick F-35 order and we in business.


Ha... “quick” is not a term frequently associated with the Canadian procurement system.

Punt a decision to the next election cycle it is...

Grabbing a few more trashed out Hornets from her majesty's penal colony won’t help matters. They will be just as expensive to maintain as the current fleet, which means even less loonies for procurement. (Death spiral)



C-17 and Chinook replacements were pretty painless.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 11:41

sunstersun wrote:
durahawk wrote:
sunstersun wrote:Thank god, now all we need is a quick F-35 order and we in business.


Ha... “quick” is not a term frequently associated with the Canadian procurement system.

Punt a decision to the next election cycle it is...

Grabbing a few more trashed out Hornets from her majesty's penal colony won’t help matters. They will be just as expensive to maintain as the current fleet, which means even less loonies for procurement. (Death spiral)



C-17 and Chinook replacements were pretty painless.



What you mention only highlights the problems with the Canadian military procurement -> It only works when Canada is at war and above all and worse even, after too much Canadian blood has been shed! :(
Note that the C-17, Chinook and you can also add the Leopard 2 MBT procurement were "pretty painless" because Canada was at the time at war in Afghanistan (responsible for the security in the Kandahar province, one of the most violent and dangerous in Afghanistan) and as such this equipment was in dire need for the Canadian war efforts in Afghanistan hence why their procurement was "painless".
And in line with the above, the C-17, Chinook and Leopard 2 were purchased thru ACAN (Advance Contract Award Notice) and there was no competition evolved in the purchase of such equipment. Basically at that time, Canada saw the need to purchase a Strategical airlifter and awarded a contract to Boeing to purchase the C-17 (directly), the same happened with the Medium-to-Heavy Tactical Helicopter (Chinook) and with the Main Battle Tank, where a contract were directly awarded to the Dutch government and the German manufacturer to buy and modernize surplus Leopard 2 MBTs.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 15:34

It seems that the current Canadian government (dumb) plan to purchase Australian 2nd hand Legacy Hornets is closer to become "official":

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... ays-report


Canada is scrapping a plan to buy 18 new Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets and will instead buy surplus Australian F-18s, according to a report from Reuters news agency.

Reuters, citing three sources familiar with the matter, reported that an announcement will be made next week.

The Canadian government is not commenting on the report.

In late September, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledged that Canada was focused on purchasing surplus Australian F-18s for interim aircraft. “As you know, we are pursuing the options with the Australians at this time,” he told journalists.

In early October, the National Post reported Canada had taken the first official step to purchasing the used fighter jets from Australia. The Canadian government submitted a formal expression of interest on Sept. 29 to Australia to acquire the aircraft, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed.




Canada began discussions in late August with the Australian government to assess the potential purchase of used F/A-18 fighter aircraft from that country. “Canada expects to receive a response by the end of this year that will provide details regarding the availability and cost of the aircraft and associated parts that Canada is considering,” the PSPC noted at the time.

The Australian jets are being considered as interim fighters. They would supplement Canada’s existing CF-18 fleet until a new aircraft could be acquired.

The move to try to acquire fighter jets from Australia coincides with the U.S. government’s decision, based on a Boeing complaint, to hit Bombardier with almost 300 per cent duties on its CSeries civilian passenger jet.

The Liberal government had wanted to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets but that plan was derailed when the jet’s manufacturer, Boeing, filed the trade complaint in April against Bombardier of Quebec over its civilian passenger jets.

Boeing complained to the U.S. government that Bombardier was receiving subsidies, which in turn allowed it to sell its C-Series civilian passenger aircraft at below-market prices.

The U.S. ruled in favour of the American aerospace giant and as a result, Bombardier will face duties of almost 300 per cent.

That move by Boeing, however, scuttled the Super Hornet deal and prompted Canada to look elsewhere for jets.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1137
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 17:01

Aaah... pooor Turdeau.

He did this all to himself though. By breaking his own saying... "to kill your enemy is to lose" or some crap like that.

But by breaking his own rule, karma came back and slapped him.

See, Turdeau should never have pursued Super Dupers... because all they can do is kill his enemy either by bombing (e.g. Afghanistan) or shooting with missiles (e.g. Russki bombers coming over the Arctic Circle). No Turdeau should have pursued Growlers because they don't kill anyone. They only confuse and demoralize the enemy by jamming their cell phone reception, interfering with their Netflix viewing via satellite or cell-internet service, or by jamming their radar and navigational systems such that, for example, Russian bombers would become demoralized and then confused and wander back into Russia thinking they were heading for Ottaway. No, Turdeau pissed off Karma by trying to kill his enema when he said he should not do that.

Turdeau could even cap NK with his Growlers and drive the fatso rocketman mad by jamming his internet so that he could not purloin the BeeGees or 80's classic porn. He would drive KJU mad who would sue for peace. Then Turdeau would be the hero of the world. But no, he had to go for Super Dupers. Too bad...

Growlers for Kanaduhduh! :drool:
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19381
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 11:50

:devil: KARMA BitchSlapped BOING! as well. :doh: And I like it. 8)
F-35: 1, Super Hornet: 0 In Boeing’s Rift With Canada
06 Dec 2017 Lara Seligman

"Lockheed Martin’s F-35 appears to have emerged the real winner from Boeing’s rift with Canada over Bombardier’s C Series passenger jetliner. Canada’s liberal government has reportedly decided to scrap its planned $5.2 billion purchase of new F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets as an interim step to replacing its aging fleet of older-model Hornets. Instead, the Royal Canadian Air Force would buy earlier-generation Hornets from Australia as a short-term solution....

...Losing the Canadian order would undeniably be a blow for Boeing’s fighter business. The company stands to lose not just the 18 new Super Hornets Ottawa planned to buy initially, but the chance to capture all 65 new fighters the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) needs to recapitalize its fighter force.

Even worse, the dispute could drive the RCAF straight into competitor Lockheed Martin’s lap.

For a relatively small air force like Canada’s, it makes little sense to operate two types of aircraft, virtually guaranteeing the first 18 Super Hornets would have been followed by 47 more, argues Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. “Having a unique, 18-aircraft squadron just doesn’t make a lot of economic or military sense,” Aboulafia says. “Most likely they would’ve said, ‘Hey, we would save billions if we simply buy 47 more—that takes care of our fighter requirement for the next three decades.’”

Buying the Australian aircraft, which are almost identical in terms of age and capability to Canada’s current fleet, is at most a five-year Band-Aid for the aging fighter force, Aboulafia says.

If Canada scraps the Super Hornet deal and pursues a competition for a next-generation fighter in the next five years, Lockheed’s F-35 will almost inevitably emerge victorious, analysts agree.

The Boeing-Bombardier dispute gives Canada’s liberal new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who campaigned on dropping plans to buy the expensive and politically controversial F-35, an excuse to go running back to Lockheed.

“The RCAF ultimately wanted [F-35s]. Industry wanted them too. But Trudeau had campaigned on basically a Super Hornet platform and Boeing could’ve easily held him to it … until they gave him the perfect out,” Aboulafia says...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-1- ... ift-canada
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1137
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 18:08

Run Turdeau, RUN!!! :doh:
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 18:28

steve2267 wrote:Run Turdeau, RUN!!! :doh:


His pretty socks aren't meant for running, silly!
Choose Crews
Offline

luke_sandoz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 461
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 19:33

A most excellent summary. Because studying and analyzing the crap out of something makes politicians go really, really stupid.


https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/0 ... ssion=true
Attachments
0E0CA908-BFC5-46E9-AC16-EEFF24BB42D0.png
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19381
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 20:19

From above: "Farce, flipping farce. The endless Canadian Procurement Gong Show!" [BOING!]
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

arrow-nautics

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
  • Location: Halifax

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 21:31

BTW/FYI to all: On all the forums I belong to that are RCAF or CF-18 fan related the F-35 detractors are freaking out. Plus their sounding even more ridiculous than ever. It stagger me how dumb this all is. And now we are out the point where the loony detractors will be outed. I'm growing tired of slamming the F-35 based on 2012 information & myths that have been totally busted.

Check this rant out:

I worked 30 years in CF and 20 on Hornet, your CF -35 will never be able to fly in any norths stations...The SH was a really good flying platform and it made 100 times better in wet and cold Canada....Your F-35 is a game fighter, i saw a lot of F-22 problems and F-35 is too advance and too much hi tech for what CANADA need.we just need a launch platforms for missiles and bombs, thats the way war going with our “big brother” and we will have more problems if we not try to reconnect with US.....


He "saw" a lot of F-22/F-35 problems? Wow, the RCAF do a lot more than I thought :doh:
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:20

arrow-nautics wrote:BTW/FYI to all: On all the forums I belong to that are RCAF or CF-18 fan related the F-35 detractors are freaking out. Plus their sounding even more ridiculous than ever. It stagger me how dumb this all is. And now we are out the point where the loony detractors will be outed. I'm growing tired of slamming the F-35 based on 2012 information & myths that have been totally busted.

Check this rant out:

I worked 30 years in CF and 20 on Hornet, your CF -35 will never be able to fly in any norths stations...The SH was a really good flying platform and it made 100 times better in wet and cold Canada....Your F-35 is a game fighter, i saw a lot of F-22 problems and F-35 is too advance and too much hi tech for what CANADA need.we just need a launch platforms for missiles and bombs, thats the way war going with our “big brother” and we will have more problems if we not try to reconnect with US.....


He "saw" a lot of F-22/F-35 problems? Wow, the RCAF do a lot more than I thought :doh:


Too high-tech for the northern simpletons, got it.

I'm more amazed he was in the RCAF for 30 years and avoided working with and coordinating with the evil Yankees.

How'd he pull that off? Fantasy
Last edited by XanderCrews on 07 Dec 2017, 22:26, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:23

arrow-nautics wrote:BTW/FYI to all: On all the forums I belong to that are RCAF or CF-18 fan related the F-35 detractors are freaking out. Plus their sounding even more ridiculous than ever. It stagger me how dumb this all is. And now we are out the point where the loony detractors will be outed.


Sit back and enjoy the show. In 5 years they will look even more absurd and ridiculous than the circa 2012 detractors did.

Meltdown!
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

arrow-nautics

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
  • Location: Halifax

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:32

XanderCrews wrote:Too high-tech for the northern simpletons, got it.


He has worked in Forces but his rant is full of at least 5 violations to The 10 commandments of Logic or Rational Debate. Posters like this drive me crazy. Insert a myth in to sentence that is close to fact. Begging the question. Using small numbers to represent the whole. Non sequitur. Post hoc fallacy, Bandwagon fallacy.

What is really sad about it is it screams of disinformation tactic and evasion. It's usually always very "UNPROFESSIONAL" in tone style & substance which makes me question his credentials. Or he's over inflating his experience? EG. Someone with a BA says they have a Masters in order to appear superior and to gain the upper hand in an argument by being able to minimize their opponent. Saying they're Yoda when they are actually a Homer Simpson.
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:40

arrow-nautics wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Too high-tech for the northern simpletons, got it.


He has worked in Forces but his rant is full of at least 5 violations to The 10 commandments of Logic or Rational Debate. Posters like this drive me crazy. Insert a myth in to sentence that is close to fact. Begging the question. Using small numbers to represent the whole. Non sequitur. Post hoc fallacy, Bandwagon fallacy.

What is really sad about it is it screams of disinformation tactic and evasion. It's usually always very "UNPROFESSIONAL" in tone style & substance which makes me question his credentials. Or he's over inflating his experience? EG. Someone with a BA says they have a Masters in order to appear superior and to gain the upper hand in an argument by being able to minimize their opponent. Saying they're Yoda when they are actually a Homer Simpson.



Hes full of crap because anyone with a brain in their head doesn't just utterly dismiss a weapon system. If he actually "saw" the F-22 and F-35 he would know there is more to it than what he read online.

My advice would be to ask him very specific questions regarding the comparison of all 4 aircraft he claims to have knowledge on (F-35, F-22, Super Hornet, and CF-18) Ask for actual numbers and other measurable things. Not just "good" or "bad" or too "high tech" ---WTF does that mean? specifically the maintenance practices.

Image

I used to make fun of Mr. Selfie Socks, now I am realizing his ability to actually a make a decision on something. Even something as small as socks is a monumental achievement

Image

No wonder he wants to show them off!
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19381
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:45

The 'crewofzander' had me chuckling with this:
"I used to make fun of Mr. Selfie Socks, now I am realizing his ability to actually a make a decision on something. Even something as small as socks is a monumental achievement. No wonder he wants to show them off!"
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests