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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2013, 03:31
by spazsinbad
Pressure increases on Conservatives to stay or leave F-35 program 22 May 2013 Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
"
OTTAWA - The Harper government may have "hit the reset button" on the purchase of F-35s, but planning for the stealth fighter continues — and Canada is facing a series of deadlines that will increase pressure to stick with the program.

Eight Canadian military officers continue to work on the multinational program in the U.S., at both the Pentagon and at Edwards Air Force Base in California, where they fill a variety of technical and planning roles.

An additional 16 military officers and civilians also work on the possible acquisition in Canada, according to a statement from the public works secretariat, which is overseeing the replacement of the air force's current fleet of CF-18s.

They will remain on the project until the government makes a decision whether to continue with the F-35 purchase, or buy some other fighter jet, the secretariat said....

...The country is so involved that Canadians are due to take over chairmanship of a key multinational board at the Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter project office in the spring of 2014....

...Documents show the lead time between ordering a jet and its delivery is four years.

And in order to keep the program on track, " the first aircraft in 2016, must have procurement expenditure authority to formalize (Joint Strike Fighter) Program Partner Procurement Request by (no later than) Fall 2012,'' warned a Aug. 19, 2011 slide deck written by the project management office."

http://www.thompsoncitizen.net/article/ ... late=cpart

A LONG COMPLICATED ARTICLE best read at source.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2013, 05:43
by popcorn
The opposition is crying "foul" but the process was never meant to be a competition but rather, an analysis of alternatives.


http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/ ... orks/34950

Prime Minister Harper, Cabinet to decide on F-35 fighter jets without advice from Public Works Procurement Secretariat, say Public Works officials
By TIM NAUMETZ | June 4, 2013

The Harper Cabinet has until mid-2014 to make a decision on the F-35 fighter jets, either to sign an initial contract for the first batch of four of the stealth fighters for delivery to Canada in 2017, or to delay it, or drop the plan entirely.

PARLIAMENT HILL—Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Cabinet will make the final decision on whether the government should go ahead with a 2010 plan to acquire a fleet of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft without advice or recommendations from Public Works’ National Fighter Procurement Secretariat now in the midst of an exhaustive “options analysis” that include three other fighter jet options along with the F-35, bureaucrats in charge of the review have disclosed.

A committee of Cabinet will be presented with information that is being gathered in the review, including aircraft capabilities and their ability to meet Canada’s requirements under the missions outlined in a defence strategy the government established five years ago, as well as cost and industrial benefits for Canada, but the senior officials presenting the information will provide Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Cabinet with no advice or any recommendations about which aircraft to choose, one of the senior officials supervising the review told a media briefing last Friday...

The plan to leave the final decision to Cabinet without advice from the public service on the controversial acquisition—estimated to incur costs of $44-billion over 30 years, including purchase price, sustainment, operations, replacement aircraft due to attrition and new weapons systems —surprised opposition MPs.

The opposition and other critics have accused the government of using the options analysis review as a delaying tactic to divert attention after an uproar over a report from Auditor General Michael Ferguson on the trouble-plagued F-35 project released last year...

More,at he link...

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2013, 07:40
by gtx
The opposition is just playing at being the opposition. If they were to quit the F-35 they would be crying over the loss of jobs in this important international program...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 04:27
by geogen
GTX,

It's probably too early to proclaim with such certainty that; 'if CA decides to delay or change acquisition plan, then CA will necessarily lose jobs'.

There are a significant number of invaluable Canadian suppliers already in the F-35 production loop. These are among top notch industrial leaders. Notwithstanding, Canada is not buying F-15s, but Canada still receives industrial production work for current-build F-15s being final-assembled in the US. Likewise, it's probably a good bet to think that Canadian industry would still be a valued and trusted source of critical F-35 parts and components, even if an alternative was selected.

That said, this mid-2014 date should give sufficient time for a more accurate assessment of alternatives to be considered, in relation to the latest classified progress report of the day on Block IIIF development (block IIIi being irrelevant to Canada). That, as well as progress of the relevant block IV follow-on development. Hopefully by then, more accurate estimates of potential total procurement costs would also be better 'estimated' for potential operational Canadian FY16-FY19 buys too. (e.g., among other potential forward-looking indications, if USAF is buying fewer FY15 jets than currently expected, etc). Yet, if too many uncertain factors remain, CA decision makers might very well opt to 'delay' the decision further and go for further SLEP and MLU'd CF-18s.

We'll definitely have to keep our collective 'Google-Fu' skills sharp during the continued wait and see holding pattern on this one. Stay tuned. Will be interesting to see how it plays out no doubt.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 09:24
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:The opposition is just playing at being the opposition. If they were to quit the F-35 they would be crying over the loss of jobs in this important international program...
Possibly... though I suspect this whole reevaluation thing is more of a smoke-grenade thrown by Harper to buy some time for things to cool down while keeping F-35 workshare as long as possible in the event of a switch. Of course, this will only work for so long... Sooner or later, someone's gonna tell Canada to $hit or get off the pot. Canadians don't seem to realize that 60 planes doesn't make them as important to the program as they think; so while a cancellation might sting LM's pride and bottom-line temporarily, I'm personally looking forward to watching their workshare move south if this goes on much longer.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 20:04
by gtx
geogen wrote:GTX,
It's probably too early to proclaim with such certainty that; 'if CA decides to delay or change acquisition plan, then CA will necessarily lose jobs'.


I think you misread what I was trying to say. I was having a go at the opposition which like nearly all oppositions in the Western world plays the role of opposition to its fullest. In other words, no matter what the government of the day says/does, the opposition will nearly always take the opposite stance. If the Govt says "white", the opposition will say "black" and vice-versa. therefore, if the Govt of Canada were to suddenly pull out of the F-35 program, I would put money on it that the opposition would decry the loss of jobs and investment opportunities...regardless of their previous positions or any facts.

geogen wrote:There are a significant number of invaluable Canadian suppliers already in the F-35 production loop. These are among top notch industrial leaders. Notwithstanding, Canada is not buying F-15s, but Canada still receives industrial production work for current-build F-15s being final-assembled in the US. Likewise, it's probably a good bet to think that Canadian industry would still be a valued and trusted source of critical F-35 parts and components, even if an alternative was selected.



I can assure you that should Canada withdraw fully from the F-35 (which I highly doubt they will), then the pressure from industries in other remaining partner nations to get their work-share and opportunities will be immense. I know, since that is what I would be doing. I will be hitting the road/telephone/email within minutes of hearing any such decision.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 20:07
by gtx
lookieloo wrote:I'm personally looking forward to watching their workshare move south if this goes on much longer.


I hear you...deep south! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 20:57
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
There are a significant number of invaluable Canadian suppliers already in the F-35 production loop. These are among top notch industrial leaders. Notwithstanding, Canada is not buying F-15s, but Canada still receives industrial production work for current-build F-15s being final-assembled in the US. Likewise, it's probably a good bet to think that Canadian industry would still be a valued and trusted source of critical F-35 parts and components, even if an alternative was selected.
.


The pressure to take those jobs and put them elsewhere should Canada leave would be enormous. especially with Korea looking to come aboard. The JSF program is not the F-15. If Canada were to leave or do a "hard reset" there could be some serious consequences. if only to negate the domino effect of canada leaving on other partners. If Canada were to withdraw and select something else, I would be shocked to see the same number of jobs stay there as other countries are champing at the bit to get more perks, and may well be threatening to leave themselves. Other countries would add pressure. and it they picked an alternative it could get downright punitive. "get your perks from boeing or EADs, because the F-35 is long gone here" There is no way Canada selects an alternative and there aren't big consequences, if only to set the example. What stops Australia from pulling the same maneuver as canada?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2013, 14:12
by quicksilver
geogen wrote:It's probably too early to proclaim with such certainty that; 'if CA decides to delay or change acquisition plan, then CA will necessarily lose jobs'.


IP is proportional to buy. It goes away if they drop out of the program.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2013, 14:59
by luke_sandoz
About time for the chuckleheads who pass themselves off as Canadian Journalists to weigh in with some torqued up Winslow Wheeler quotes and out of context fearmongering about how bad the F-35 is.

Is "Canadian Journalist" an oxymoron?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2013, 17:58
by smsgtmac
I don't think it can be overstated that the pressure on Canada is self-generated by the political decisions they made. What they have are conflicting interests: politics are making them reevaluate and reevaluation may close off the best way forward. Since buying NO fighters would be the ideal solution for their left-wingers, they have no motivation to help the government in power solve a problem the 'Libruls' created with the willing Canadian press. Program schedule milestones are driving the urgency, and Canada knows they can't hold up the train if they want to get back on board. If they had this political crisis two-three years earlier, they'd have more time to do more navel-gazing. Canada knows that even with the 'reset' price going up, if they bail and then decide to come back later, FMS prices will be higher and their access to the technology involved and value of available long-term production and sustainment work share will be much lower. It will be much lower because that 'multinational board' referenced above will make certain as much work goes to member nations as possible. I think this is the main reason the Canadian 'Opposition' doesn't push a cost argument as much as the disingenuous "Canada is Uniquely Cold and Vast" argument. On that point, I think Norway would have a few words about their history of escorting Russian bombers from the Barents Sea and down the GIUK Gap with F-16s.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2013, 21:09
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote:I don't think it can be overstated that the pressure on Canada is self-generated by the political decisions they made. What they have are conflicting interests: politics are making them reevaluate and reevaluation may close off the best way forward. Since buying NO fighters would be the ideal solution for their left-wingers, they have no motivation to help the government in power solve a problem the 'Libruls' created with the willing Canadian press. Program schedule milestones are driving the urgency, and Canada knows they can't hold up the train if they want to get back on board. If they had this political crisis two-three years earlier, they'd have more time to do more navel-gazing. Canada knows that even with the 'reset' price going up, if they bail and then decide to come back later, FMS prices will be higher and their access to the technology involved and value of available long-term production and sustainment work share will be much lower. It will be much lower because that 'multinational board' referenced above will make certain as much work goes to member nations as possible. I think this is the main reason the Canadian 'Opposition' doesn't push a cost argument as much as the disingenuous "Canada is Uniquely Cold and Vast" argument. On that point, I think Norway would have a few words about their history of escorting Russian bombers from the Barents Sea and down the GIUK Gap with F-16s.


Its the EH-101 trap perfectly set again. Lets hope they don't fall for it twice.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 20:59
by spazsinbad
National Fighter Procurement Secretariat Releases Updated F-35 Costs Through 2013 Annual Update 09 Aug 2013
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
"National Fighter Procurement Secretariat Releases Updated F-35 Costs Through 2013 Annual Update

GATINEAU, QUEBEC--(Marketwired - Aug. 9, 2013) - As part of the Government of Canada's Seven-Point Plan, the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat today released the Next Generation Fighter Capability 2013 Annual Update.

This second Annual Update presents updated life-cycle cost estimates for the F-35 and compares current estimates with those reported in the 2012 Annual Update. In 2012, the estimated cost was $44,820 million. The current cost estimate is $44,676 million, an overall decrease of 0.3 per cent. The new estimated cost reflects a decrease in sustainment and operating costs, while noting an increase in disposal and development costs....

...The Secretariat continues to work diligently on the evaluation of options to replace the CF-18 fleet. Industry has provided the information requested to support a rigorous examination of available fighter aircraft options against the missions outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy. The Independent Review Panel continues to provide oversight and guidance on the work supporting the evaluation of options to ensure it is both rigorous and impartial, and that the results to be made public are comprehensive and understandable.

Until the Seven-Point Plan is complete, the Government will not make a decision on the replacement for the CF-18 fighter jets and all options remain on the table."

For additional information, visit the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat website at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... s-eng.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... KW20130809

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 21:44
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Pressure increases on Conservatives to stay or leave F-35 program 22 May 2013...........


:shrug: :pint:

RE: Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 22:54
by spazsinbad
Make My Day - Make a Decision Canada. :D

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 23:41
by slowman.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -military/

John Ivison: F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military

The on-going hostilities are likely to flare up as the new minister is forced to make some unpalatable decisions on resource allocation, including the possibility of reducing the size of Canada’s 68,000 regular forces by chopping one or more of its nine infantry battalions.


http://o.canada.com/2013/08/15/0816-col-dentandt/

Fighter-jet contract may be punted beyond next election
Published: August 15, 2013, 1:53 pm

Be that as it may, whatever the government’s past rationale, the tide appears to have turned. There is now an expectation within defence industry circles that the government intends to either announce a competition for the fighter contract sometime early next year, or defer the matter until after the 2015 election, or a combination of both. If the fix was in, it no longer is.

It is also posited that Canada could eventually choose to stay within the international F-35 consortium to buy a much smaller number of planes than the original 65 — say 20 — and open up the remainder of the contract to international bids, which could mean a mixed fleet. Such a course would allow the Harper government to cover its bases politically, but would also be costly and controversial. Mixed fleets are notoriously expensive to operate, due to the doubling up on maintenance, training, parts and the like.

Why the change of heart? The theory making the rounds in Ottawa is two-fold. First, members of the caucus and cabinet are acutely aware that they need good-news stories, or at least the absence of more bad news stories, as they head into the pre-election period. Second, in the context of U.S. President Barack Obama’s continuing chilliness towards the Keystone XL Pipeline, there is a new determination at senior levels of the government to put Canadian industrial regional benefits first, and cut the best deal possible, for the best plane, at the best price, with the greatest economic benefit to Canada.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 23:56
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/14/john-ivison-f-35-purchase-may-force-conservatives-to-chop-infantry-battalion-from-cash-strapped-military/

John Ivison: F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military

The on-going hostilities are likely to flare up as the new minister is forced to make some unpalatable decisions on resource allocation, including the possibility of reducing the size of Canada’s 68,000 regular forces by chopping one or more of its nine infantry battalions.


http://o.canada.com/2013/08/15/0816-col-dentandt/

Fighter-jet contract may be punted beyond next election
Published: August 15, 2013, 1:53 pm

Be that as it may, whatever the government’s past rationale, the tide appears to have turned. There is now an expectation within defence industry circles that the government intends to either announce a competition for the fighter contract sometime early next year, or defer the matter until after the 2015 election, or a combination of both. If the fix was in, it no longer is.

It is also posited that Canada could eventually choose to stay within the international F-35 consortium to buy a much smaller number of planes than the original 65 — say 20 — and open up the remainder of the contract to international bids, which could mean a mixed fleet. Such a course would allow the Harper government to cover its bases politically, but would also be costly and controversial. Mixed fleets are notoriously expensive to operate, due to the doubling up on maintenance, training, parts and the like.

Why the change of heart? The theory making the rounds in Ottawa is two-fold. First, members of the caucus and cabinet are acutely aware that they need good-news stories, or at least the absence of more bad news stories, as they head into the pre-election period. Second, in the context of U.S. President Barack Obama’s continuing chilliness towards the Keystone XL Pipeline, there is a new determination at senior levels of the government to put Canadian industrial regional benefits first, and cut the best deal possible, for the best plane, at the best price, with the greatest economic benefit to Canada.


So one article about how the F-35 will cost Canada an infantry battalion and another article talking about how Canada hasn't officially adopted the F-35?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 23:59
by slowman.
XanderCrews wrote:So one article about how the F-35 will cost Canada an infantry battalion and another article talking about how Canada hasn't officially adopted the F-35?


Well, the first article explains what happens if Canada buys all 65 F-35s, and the second article explains Canada's options to prevent that, namely 20 F-35s + 45 winners of an open bid contest.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:13
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So one article about how the F-35 will cost Canada an infantry battalion and another article talking about how Canada hasn't officially adopted the F-35?


Well, the first article explains what happens if Canada buys all 65 F-35s, and the second article explains Canada's options to prevent that, namely 20 F-35s + 45 winners of an open bid contest.


in which they explain that is the more expensive option:

Such a course would allow the Harper government to cover its bases politically, but would also be costly and controversial. Mixed fleets are notoriously expensive to operate, due to the doubling up on maintenance, training, parts and the like.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 13:45
by cantaz
At this rate, we're more likely to chop our subs before we chop a battalion. The subs are on shaky ground as is, and once the Aurora needs replacing, the Navy and Air Force are going to go head-to-head on whether there's enough money for both airbreathing and subsurface ASW/maritime patrol.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 14:19
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
in which they explain that is the more expensive option:


True and this approach is doubly advantageous for the F-35. It guarantees a firm order for a quantity of the jets and means that an open bid for additional units can leverage investments made to support the initial order.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 15:07
by luke_sandoz
The quality of Canadian journalism is lower than a snake's belly in a wheel rut.

Monumentally stupid journalists that are so clueless about what they are writing they redefine brain dead.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 15:31
by slowman.
popcorn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
in which they explain that is the more expensive option:


True and this approach is doubly advantageous for the F-35. It guarantees a firm order for a quantity of the jets and means that an open bid for additional units can leverage investments made to support the initial order.


My understanding is that it is really 45 + 20, that is the open bid competition for 45 units come first, followed by a 20 unit CF-35 orders in the 2020s.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 16:06
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:
popcorn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
in which they explain that is the more expensive option:


True and this approach is doubly advantageous for the F-35. It guarantees a firm order for a quantity of the jets and means that an open bid for additional units can leverage investments made to support the initial order.


My understanding is that it is really 45 + 20, that is the open bid competition for 45 units come first, followed by a 20 unit CF-35 orders in the 2020s.


You do realize this is all some journalists' theory for a political strategy. I know to you theory is as good as fact, but just because I write something that says a healthy Canadian strategy is 1000 F-35s with 250 bought ever leap year doesn't mean anything official.

This garbage about "the F-35 is costing infantry" is completely dishonest. Its not the F-35 that is "costing infantry" its Canada cutting their budget at a time when they need to replace the CF-18. If you want a blame an aircraft blame the CF-18s for not lasting forever, not whatever replaces them, regardless of it its the super hornet, EF, or F-35 its going to cost. Canada put a cap at 9 billion, whatever they buy will cost that much its just a matter of what they spend it on. No idea why they don't blame other expenditures either, there seems to be no talk of Canada making cuts thanks to other acquisitions.

lastly as a quick hey wait a minute, Why do we assume the Eurofighters, F-18Fs, and other aircraft will still be in production in 2020? Unless they are buying them second hand, those planes are done. What will still be in production in 2020? F-35, Gripen NG, ??

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 16:20
by slowman.
XanderCrews wrote:lastly as a quick hey wait a minute, Why do we assume the Eurofighters, F-18Fs, and other aircraft will still be in production in 2020?

45 unit open bid competition strategy assumes that it will start next year, or at least before the 2015 year election to remove one of the opposition's campaign pledges.

Canada would save a bundle(I believe $2 billion) of not having to extend the life of CF-18 fleet while waiting for F-35 to go into mass production in the 2020s this way, a 45 unit open bid contest in 2014 followed by a 20 unit CF-35 order in the 2020s.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 16:22
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:lastly as a quick hey wait a minute, Why do we assume the Eurofighters, F-18Fs, and other aircraft will still be in production in 2020?

45 unit open bid competition strategy assumes that it will start next year, or at least before the 2015 year election to remove one of the opposition's campaign pledges.

Canada would save a bundle(I believe $2 billion) of not having to extend the life of CF-18 fleet while waiting for F-35 to go into mass production in the 2020s this way, a 45 unit open bid contest in 2014 followed by a 20 unit CF-35 order in the 2020s.


wrong. And beyond one of the many more detailed reasons you are wrong, you do realize one of the articles you posted said the CF-18 fleet will last until 2025 without extensions?

Must be nice picking and choosing what you take as fact, and what you ignore. Wish I could invent my own reality like that. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 17:05
by slowman.
XanderCrews wrote:wrong. And beyond one of the many more detailed reasons you are wrong, you do realize one of the articles you posted said the CF-18 fleet will last until 2025 without extensions?

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/06/ ... e-delayed/

Further Life Extension for RCAF CF-18s Being Considered As Delivery of F-35 Expected to Be Delayed

June 22, 2012. 7:49 pm • Section: Defence Watch

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News has an update on the F-35 situation:

OTTAWA — Defence Department officials knew last year Canada would not have enough F-35 stealth fighters by the time the last of the country’s CF-18s were due to be retired in 2020, newly released documents show.

As a result, officials were preparing to ask the Conservative government for more money to again extend the lives of some of the CF-18s — which have already undergone a $1.8-billion overhaul — until the last of the F-35s could come online.

“The planned CF-18 estimated life expectancy is currently 2020,”
reads one email dated Sept. 21, 2011, and obtained by Postmedia News through access to information laws.

Canada’s fleet of CF-18s were initially set to be retired in 2002, but a decade-long, $1.8-billion upgrade extended the life of 80 of the aircraft to between 2017 and 2020. (Three of the aircraft have since been lost.)

Further life extensions have been regarded as prohibitively expensive.

“I wonder whether these guys are ready to play a very dangerous game to try to somehow extend the lives of the CF-18s,” he said of Defence Department officials.

Current SLEP is for upto 2020. If the RCAF wants to extend the life of CF-18 to 2025, then another extension is required, which will be cost prohibitive.

Hence running a 45-unit open bid contest to complete the delivery of replacement jets ASAP and not having to extend the life of those CF-18s past 2020 has become a financially very attractive option for the RCAF.

Must be nice picking and choosing what you take as fact, and what you ignore. Wish I could invent my own reality like that.

Creating an alternate reality is something you are good at and at which I am terrible at.

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politic ... tins-f-35/

South Korea goes with Boeing, dumps Lockheed-Martin’s F-35
David Akin - August 18th, 2013

The Government of South Korea looks set to pick Boeing and its F-15 Super Eagle (above) over Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. South Korea is set to spend US$7.2 billion to buy 15 two-seater jets and 45 single-seat jets.

Canada, by comparison, has budgeted CDN $8.99 billion to buy 65 new F-35s fighters even as it undertakes an evaluation of its fighter jet options. Both the F-35 and the F-15 would be likely leading contenders to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s. The F-35 is a stealth fighter while the F-15E has some stealth technology. Canada currently flies F-18s.

Now, using today’s exchange rate to compare South Korea’s purchase with Canada’s budget for F-35s, South Korea is spending CDN$120 million per plane while Canada has budgeted $138.3 million per plane.

Among the factors that saw the F-35 eliminated from the South Korea competition was cost. The F-15 was cheaper:

Also, in terms of local industrial benefits, Boeing has promised to assemble the jets in South Korea. Canada will also insist on some industrial benefits coming its way from the manufacturer it eventually picks to supply it with new fighter jets but I don’t think any of those manufacturers are ready to let Canadians assemble their jets.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 20:40
by XanderCrews
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/06/ ... e-delayed/

Further Life Extension for RCAF CF-18s Being Considered As Delivery of F-35 Expected to Be Delayed

June 22, 2012. 7:49 pm • Section: Defence Watch

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News has an update on the F-35 situation:

OTTAWA — Defence Department officials knew last year Canada would not have enough F-35 stealth fighters by the time the last of the country’s CF-18s were due to be retired in 2020, newly released documents show.

As a result, officials were preparing to ask the Conservative government for more money to again extend the lives of some of the CF-18s — which have already undergone a $1.8-billion overhaul — until the last of the F-35s could come online.

“The planned CF-18 estimated life expectancy is currently 2020,”
reads one email dated Sept. 21, 2011, and obtained by Postmedia News through access to information laws.

Canada’s fleet of CF-18s were initially set to be retired in 2002, but a decade-long, $1.8-billion upgrade extended the life of 80 of the aircraft to between 2017 and 2020. (Three of the aircraft have since been lost.)

Further life extensions have been regarded as prohibitively expensive.

“I wonder whether these guys are ready to play a very dangerous game to try to somehow extend the lives of the CF-18s,” he said of Defence Department officials.

Current SLEP is for upto 2020. If the RCAF wants to extend the life of CF-18 to 2025, then another extension is required, which will be cost prohibitive.

Hence running a 45-unit open bid contest to complete the delivery of replacement jets ASAP and not having to extend the life of those CF-18s past 2020 has become a financially very attractive option for the RCAF.



from the article you posted above:

That has been made possible, industry insiders believe, by commander of the RCAF Lt. Gen. Yvan Blondin’s assertion before the Senate defence committee last March 25, that the Air Force’s CF-18s are flyable through 2025. Previously the planes’ best-before date was deemed to be 2020.


http://o.canada.com/2013/08/15/0816-col-dentandt/

Bolded it for you. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 01:07
by FlightDreamz
Keep hearing rumors online about Canada ditching the F-35 Lightning II in favor of the F/A-18E "Super" Hornet (which would be monumentally stupid in my opinion - too short ranged for one thing) see http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/02/boeings-bid-to-replace-cf-18s-gets-cbcnewsca-readers-talking.html
<b>Boeing's bid to replace CF-18s gets CBCNews.ca readers talking</b>
Terry Milewski's look at the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, now emerging as a rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the Canadian Forces' replacement for its aging CF-18s, really got the CBC Community talking.

Many of the comments on our story were enthusiastic about the Super Hornet being considered, as Ottawa reviews its commitment to buy F-35s.


Or http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/
Canada’s 138 “CF-18s” were delivered between 1982-1988, but accidents and retirements have reduced the fleet to about 103, with only 79 upgraded F/A-18 AM/BM Hornets still operational. The CF-18s are expected to be phased out between 2017 – 2020 Now, 65 new CF-35As are Canada’s official choice to replace its Hornets – and estimates of the cost range from $17 billion to $45.8 billion.


And finally http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/02/12/the-super-hornet-would-out-perform-the-f-35-in-any-canadian-arctic-operation-says-cf-18-pilot/
I'm not even going to post snippet's from that article. Best to click on the link and draw your own conclusions! :roll:

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 02:54
by XanderCrews
FlightDreamz wrote:Keep hearing rumors online about Canada ditching the F-35 Lightning II in favor of the F/A-18E "Super" Hornet (which would be monumentally stupid in my opinion - too short ranged for one thing) see http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/02/boeings-bid-to-replace-cf-18s-gets-cbcnewsca-readers-talking.html
<b>Boeing's bid to replace CF-18s gets CBCNews.ca readers talking</b>
Terry Milewski's look at the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, now emerging as a rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the Canadian Forces' replacement for its aging CF-18s, really got the CBC Community talking.


That's a "story" about internet comments collected on their website?

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 07:38
by Corsair1963
FlightDreamz wrote:Keep hearing rumors online about Canada ditching the F-35 Lightning II in favor of the F/A-18E "Super" Hornet (which would be monumentally stupid in my opinion - too short ranged for one thing) see http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/02/boeings-bid-to-replace-cf-18s-gets-cbcnewsca-readers-talking.html
<b>Boeing's bid to replace CF-18s gets CBCNews.ca readers talking</b>
Terry Milewski's look at the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, now emerging as a rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the Canadian Forces' replacement for its aging CF-18s, really got the CBC Community talking.

Many of the comments on our story were enthusiastic about the Super Hornet being considered, as Ottawa reviews its commitment to buy F-35s.


Or http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/
Canada’s 138 “CF-18s” were delivered between 1982-1988, but accidents and retirements have reduced the fleet to about 103, with only 79 upgraded F/A-18 AM/BM Hornets still operational. The CF-18s are expected to be phased out between 2017 – 2020 Now, 65 new CF-35As are Canada’s official choice to replace its Hornets – and estimates of the cost range from $17 billion to $45.8 billion.


And finally http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/02/12/the-super-hornet-would-out-perform-the-f-35-in-any-canadian-arctic-operation-says-cf-18-pilot/
I'm not even going to post snippet's from that article. Best to click on the link and draw your own conclusions! :roll:


So, let's say Canada could afford 79 Super Hornet vs 65 F-35's. What's the advantage??? As the latter is vastly more survivable! In 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats??? Personally, I doubt many would take the former. Just as I doubt anybody will seriously take Super Hornets vs F-35's. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 09:45
by gtx
Corsair1963 wrote:! In 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats??? Personally, I doubt many would take the former. Just as I doubt anybody will seriously take Super Hornets vs F-35's. :wink:


I am sure slowman would. He would probably argue that it would also lead to all similar air arms doing the same...except some would go even further and get F2Fs...

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 12:45
by cantaz
Boeing's bid to replace CF-18s gets CBCNews.ca readers talking
Terry Milewski's look at the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, now emerging as a rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the Canadian Forces' replacement for its aging CF-18s, really got the CBC Community talking.

Many of the comments on our story were enthusiastic about the Super Hornet being considered, as Ottawa reviews its commitment to buy F-35s.


Yeah, a community made up of the same ignorant and shortsighted attitudes that put us in the Cyclone fiasco. Because military acquisition should be treated like a popularity contest.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 14:59
by luke_sandoz
The Canadian Broadcorping Castration . . . Clueless journalism for morons.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 15:40
by slowman.
Corsair1963 wrote:So, let's say Canada could afford 79 Super Hornet vs 65 F-35's. What's the advantage???

1. You could buy 110 Silent Hornets for the price of 65 CF-35s.
2. Far better offset terms from Boeing than from Lockheed Martin.
3. Safety of a twin engine jet in arctic flights.

In 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats???

110 Wildcats are not such a bad choice relative to 65 Hellcats, because numeric strength has a quality of its own and allows tactics not possible with fewer number of planes.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 16:03
by SpudmanWP
slowman. wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:So, let's say Canada could afford 79 Super Hornet vs 65 F-35's. What's the advantage???

1. You could buy 110 Silent Hornets for the price of 65 CF-35s.
BS

The development of the "Silent" Hornet is not paid for and please stop comparing FRP Hornets to LRIP F-35s. Canada will be mostly buying FRP F-35s.

2. Far better offset terms from Boeing than from Lockheed Martin.
No they cannot. Canada will be part of the F-35 program for 40 years. Boeing cannot make the same long term guarantees. The problem with traditional offsets is that they are short term in nature and only cover a small number of airframes.

3. Safety of a twin engine jet in arctic flights.
Norway has no problems with it's F-16s.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 17:07
by XanderCrews
Silent Hornets are theoretical aircraft. :lol:

I prefer Silent Tomcats myself, and you can buy 200 of those for the price of 100 Silent hornets.

This is all possible because I say so

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 23:46
by stobiewan
XanderCrews wrote:Silent Hornets are theoretical aircraft. :lol:

I prefer Silent Tomcats myself, and you can buy 200 of those for the price of 100 Silent hornets.

This is all possible because I say so


Ah, but I have the SilentArrow! Mach 5 (6 if I've had beer) with twin engines and it runs on beer. Or something. It's Canuckian.

And it's (picks figure out of thin air) ONE QUARTER the price of an F35...

Seriously, how much BS can one troll produce. ..F15 in standard trim is more than the FRP price for F35.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:08
by gtx
Damn!! You have Silent Arrows? I give up then. All I have is a Silent Spitfire...

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:35
by hb_pencil
pfft.

I have a the Silent Bomarc. As we all know, that kills Silent Arrow any day and every day.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:35
by count_to_10
Can I get a hypothetical F-23 hypothetically equipped with EOTS and DAS?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 01:11
by geogen
count to 10 -- don't joke... an F-23 with something like PAWS-2+, integrated IRST (off the shelf) and external SNIPER SE pod would not only be 'good enough', but would likely even negate the need for USAF to pursue LRIP F-35A recap today! Simply augment with UCAV/UAV and possibly even short-term F-16 if need be.


Spud -- You are correct, the 'Advanced Super Hornet' is not yet funded nor complete. But it could be incrementally funded and achieved (jointly), to an acceptable standard, within 3-5 years. Most likely too, it could be procured at nearly a 2:1 ratio (vs F-35A) in FY16, FY17 and FY18.

Look at the potential 'Advanced Super Hornet' as more of a 'growth pathway' and less of an outright platform 'block' upgrade.

But please, you are really criticizing and classifying Boeing's annual output of 20-30 total Super Hornet units as being 'FRP'!?! And then honestly complaining that someone can't compare said hypothetical 'FRP' 30x Super Hornet output rate, vs an 'LRIP' F-35 output rate of over 50 combined units annually in FY16 and FY17 and FY18?!?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 01:48
by SpudmanWP
By SH FRP I mean fully developed, all the kinks worked out, etc.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 01:48
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:count to 10 -- don't joke... an F-23 with something like PAWS-2+, integrated IRST (off the shelf) and external SNIPER SE pod would not only be 'good enough', but would likely even negate the need for USAF to pursue LRIP F-35A recap today! Simply augment with UCAV/UAV and possibly even short-term F-16 if need be.


Spud -- You are correct, the 'Advanced Super Hornet' is not yet funded nor complete. But it could be incrementally funded and achieved (jointly), to an acceptable standard, within 3-5 years. Most likely too, it could be procured at nearly a 2:1 ratio (vs F-35A) in FY16, FY17 and FY18.

Look at the potential 'Advanced Super Hornet' as more of a 'growth pathway' and less of an outright platform 'block' upgrade.

But please, you are really criticizing and classifying Boeing's annual output of 20-30 total Super Hornet units as being 'FRP'!?! And then honestly complaining that someone can't compare said hypothetical 'FRP' 30x Super Hornet output rate, vs an 'LRIP' F-35 output rate of over 50 combined units annually in FY16 and FY17 and FY18?!?


Ok, I have a question or maybe it should be a topic for another thread. Yet, even if the Advance Super Hornet was funded with Stealthy Weapons Pods, CFT's, and more Powerful GE F414 EDE's. Could it still compete with forthcoming Stealth Fighters from Russia and China. (i.e. PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, etc. etc.) :?: :?: :?:

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 02:17
by count_to_10
geogen wrote:count to 10 -- don't joke... an F-23 with something like PAWS-2+, integrated IRST (off the shelf) and external SNIPER SE pod would not only be 'good enough', but would likely even negate the need for USAF to pursue LRIP F-35A recap today! Simply augment with UCAV/UAV and possibly even short-term F-16 if need be.


Why would it need an external pod? The planned F-35 looks like it had it integrated:
Image
http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/F-23A/F-23A%2 ... 201500.gif

The NAFT F-23 too.
Image
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/ ... small2.jpg

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 04:13
by geogen
Count-to-10 -- Let's say we compromise: Order 400 of those NAFT F-23 to equip joint USAF-USN Tactical command, augment with new build F-16, Super Hornets as gap-fillers, round off with UAV/UCAV + next gen stand-off and call it a day until 2035 =)

That said, whether they started off with an external pod or not, until the internal system could have been integrated, it still would have likely qualified as 'good enough' in the game-changer category. In my opinion.

Spud -- I was only challenging you on your Super Hornet 'FRP' argument because I believe you have argued that point before...i.e., price points of an 'FRP' FY15-FY18 Super Hornet vs an LRIP F-35. Moreover, as the Shornet is being upgraded incrementally, so should the F-35 be seeing it's own respective non-recurring follow-on block upgrades too...so in truth, both jets will be in a continual state of 'working the kinks out'.

Hence, in my mind at least, the more relevant question should rather be a matter of the customer first and foremost satisfying it's respective recap requirements via 'good enough', affordable (sustainable), reliable, operational platforms on a timely schedule.

And p.s., the invaluable Canadian aerospace Industry will most likely be involved with the F-35 Program over the next 30 yrs, etc, whether or not RCAF actually ends up procuring and operating the aircraft. Don't let any discussions implying otherwise confuse you on that point.

Corsair -- that's a fair question. Personally, if you're putting me in charge of that 'upgraded SH' requirement (or let's say, put me in charge 2-3 years ago) with the need to be able and compete with/counter an emerging class of potential adversarial platform, e.g., I'd place the actual weapon system/munition upgrade requirement up there with the other priority system/component upgrades. Contemplate something along the lines of a Growler-Lite (alq-218 equipped), w/ enhanced APG-79 modes, CFT (w/ built-in frontal-sphere MAWS aperture), Type IV computer, new displays, your enhanced engines, off-the-shelf IRST pod in lieu of ATFLIR, a MALD-J on the opposite station and 4x modified air-launched ESSM (AIM-162) variants (2 of which mmW-seeker-tipped, 2 IIR-tipped) carried in the centerline Weapon pod. Perhaps top off with 2x under-wing mounted next-gen Python 6 (stunner-derived?) anti-AAM self-protection for good measure.

Total deployed unit weapon system cost by 2018 (including systems and fully armed)? Maybe $150m ballpark? IMHO, that would be a credible alternative deterrent and capability, perhaps augmented with next-gen UCAV...at least until a clean-sheet 2025-2030 model could be phased in.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 11:32
by count_to_10
Don't take it too seriously -- we're all talking "hypothetically" as a joke.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 14:39
by cantaz
Corsair1963 wrote:Ok, I have a question or maybe it should be a topic for another thread. Yet, even if the Advance Super Hornet was funded with Stealthy Weapons Pods, CFT's, and more Powerful GE F414 EDE's. Could it still compete with forthcoming Stealth Fighters from Russia and China. (i.e. PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, etc. etc.) :?: :?: :?:


Just want to point out it's a weapon pod that (poorly) mirrors the capacity of one of F-35's 2 weapon bays. What's the cost-benefit ratio of reducing the RCS of a single 2klb bomb or 2x1klb bomb or 2 x AMRAAMs (and associated pylons or therelackof)?

Boeing loves to show their mockup of a "clean" ASH, with the only external ordnance being the wing tip stations' AIM-9s. If people love complaining about F-35's internal load, what would they make of ASH's even lighter "stealth" config?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:51
by sprstdlyscottsmn
reducing the RCS of said stores would be of great benefit, and the SHornet would have the capability to carry 3 or 5 of them IIRC. I think the "Blk III" SHornet is a must to keep it remotely relevant.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:04
by SpudmanWP
They just announced today that based on over 7000 hours of actual F-35 flight experience, the new official lifetime cost estimates are now 22% lower than what they were before.

I wonder if the recently announced Canadian re-verification of the F-35's lifetime cost (procurement, support, fuel, basing, and disposal) took these numbers into account?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 22:51
by count_to_10
Oops, wrong thread.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 23:34
by geogen
Spud -

'They' announced today exactly how many F-35s ultimately procured would cost 22% less to operate, per LCC?

And this estimated $587B figure is being based on how many average flight hours per year, per F-35?

What is this precise number of $587B based on??

There are many unknown and uncertain aspects to 'take into account' with respect to the F-35 Program...and therein is the high risk and uncertainty. I'm sorry.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 23:48
by SpudmanWP
The point of the announcement is that using actual F-35 data rather than manipulated 4th gen data comes up with a 22% lower price. The JPO has been saying this for a LONG time.

Another thread shows one of the mistakes that CAPE made which was that they assumed that the F-35B would be spending 80% of its flight hours in STOVL mode. Given that this is such an obvious mistake, I wonder what other Easter Eggs are in their earlier “estimations”?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:05
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:The point of the announcement is that using actual F-35 data rather than manipulated 4th gen data comes up with a 22% lower price. The JPO has been saying this for a LONG time.

Another thread shows one of the mistakes that CAPE made which was that they assumed that the F-35B would be spending 80% of its flight hours in STOVL mode. Given that this is such an obvious mistake, I wonder what other Easter Eggs are in their earlier “estimations”?

80% of it's flight hours, or just 80% of it's take-offs and landings?
(Which would be simply mistaken as opposed to absurd)

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:19
by geogen
Spud -

The point of the noted article was that latest estimates show 'the F-35 Fleet' will cost $857B over 55 years! That's the point!

So...the clear question to ask is: what is the actual numeric size of this said 'fleet' precisely? And perhaps, how many annual flight hours are being calculated?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 01:01
by lookieloo
SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if the recently announced Canadian re-verification of the F-35's lifetime cost (procurement, support, fuel, basing, and disposal) took these numbers into account?
Not holding my breath. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 01:12
by spazsinbad
'count_to_10' I would suggest the 80% refers to the takeoff/landing component of an F-35B flight as has been described earlier on the forum in the thread about such matters (link below)....

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 7th, 2011
“...unlike a Harrier, the [F-35]B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month....

...if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fight-er jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports & hatches & bells & whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.

“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? ...That is an option [a completely conventional landing on a suitable runway – NO STOVL] that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.”

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 269#198269
&
ORIGINAL: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockh ... -vertical/
_______________________

The original quote refered to is sloppy (I find 'Breaking Defense' vague on most milflight matters) but redeemed perhaps by the last sentence in the excerpt below:
"...Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air. [I do not believe any miljet is operated at full power in this manner at at all - conserving fuel is important and operating as required of course.]

...The great majority of the plane’s flight time — ... — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL...."

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 05:51
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:Spud -

'They' announced today exactly how many F-35s ultimately procured would cost 22% less to operate, per LCC?

And this estimated $587B figure is being based on how many average flight hours per year, per F-35?

What is this precise number of $587B based on??

There are many unknown and uncertain aspects to 'take into account' with respect to the F-35 Program...and therein is the high risk and uncertainty. I'm sorry.


No, you're just clinging to your delusions, which isn't new.

As I said in the other thread, basically the JPO is slotting in real data from the operational squadrons and figuring out what it will cost to run the fighter over its lifespan.From what I know, the USMC is basically running these aircraft ragged, and giving excellent data that is helping to define these figures. They know what the fuel consumption is for the F-35, they are starting to figure out part life cycles. Further use of ALIS will only continue to refine these figures. One of the really big advantages.The aircraft will have very few time limited parts; a large portion of them will be replaced as they fail.

Its no-longer guesswork or high risk, no matter what fiction you want to believe.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:28
by Corsair1963
hb_pencil wrote:
geogen wrote:Spud -

'They' announced today exactly how many F-35s ultimately procured would cost 22% less to operate, per LCC?

And this estimated $587B figure is being based on how many average flight hours per year, per F-35?

What is this precise number of $587B based on??

There are many unknown and uncertain aspects to 'take into account' with respect to the F-35 Program...and therein is the high risk and uncertainty. I'm sorry.


No, you're just clinging to your delusions, which isn't new.

As I said in the other thread, basically the JPO is slotting in real data from the operational squadrons and figuring out what it will cost to run the fighter over its lifespan.From what I know, the USMC is basically running these aircraft ragged, and giving excellent data that is helping to define these figures. They know what the fuel consumption is for the F-35, they are starting to figure out part life cycles. Further use of ALIS will only continue to refine these figures. One of the really big advantages.The aircraft will have very few time limited parts; a large portion of them will be replaced as they fail.

Its no-longer guesswork or high risk, no matter what fiction you want to believe.



So, what's your problem??? Sound like you are making the case for the improved forecast.... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 09:57
by geogen
I guess my 'issue' is with the apparent 'discrepancy', not delusion thank you, w/ the Pentagon's latest estimate for F-35B's hourly cost being $37,000/hr. Then, making a fairly big deal in a press release/report about that being an affordable discount. Some would just say that's debatable I guess, especially taking into account the hourly cost of existing Hornets which it is slated to replace, yet 'save money too'... ?

If one can't see such a discrepancy as just the latest one worthy of pondering and worth discussing, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 13:47
by popcorn
Will Bogdan's projections constitute "official" O&S costs or will they have to wait for updated CAPE figures?


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology ... story.html


F-35 computer programming facility still in Canada’s plans, DND documents say


OTTAWA — Canada is still involved in the planning of a $650-million computer programming facility for the F-35 aircraft, but is holding off paying its share of the project until the government makes a decision on whether to buy the fighter aircraft.

The facility for reprograming the software-intensive stealth fighter would be operated by Canada, Britain and Australia. Canadian military officers are currently involved in the early stages of the project, according to Department of National Defence documents obtained by the Citizen.

But the Conservative government’s decision to rethink its F-35 purchase is limiting the country’s ability to influence the establishment of the software reprogramming infrastructure for the high-tech jet, warned the September 2012 briefing note for then-associate defence minister Bernard Valcourt.

“An inability from Canada to make financial commitments to a reprogramming solution for the F-35 will transfer the financial burden of on-going activities to JSF Partners, restricting Canada’s ability to influence requirements development and design of the program solution,” it added...

Public Works official Lucie Brosseau stated in an email to the Citizen that Canada has not committed to participating in the software facility, nor has it contributed any funds. “Canada remains a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter Program to benefit from economic opportunities resulting from its partnership and to keep the option on the table while it undertakes an evaluation of options,” she added.

On Aug. 9, the government issued an update on its ongoing review of the fighter jet procurement, stating that the DND had completed an analysis of the estimated life-cycle cost for the F-35. It also noted that “anticipated United States budget restrictions and their potential effects on F-35 prices remain an area of risk, as do the current forecasts for sustainment and operating costs, which would put pressure on future budgets.”

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 16:26
by cantaz
lookieloo wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if the recently announced Canadian re-verification of the F-35's lifetime cost (procurement, support, fuel, basing, and disposal) took these numbers into account?
Not holding my breath. :roll:


Most recent report on our side talks about a 12% drop in bilateral sustainment cost estimate, based on info JPO submitted in July.

Canada received a bilateral cost estimate from the F-35 Joint Program Office on 7 June 2013. The bilateral sustainment cost estimate provided to Canada showed a significant year-over-year decrease in cost, in the order of 12%. However, this 12% reduction contrasted with the Selected Acquisition Report 2012 (SAR 12) that the US Department of Defense tabled in Congress on 23 May 2013, which showed no significant change in the sustainment cost estimate. The SAR sustainment estimate did not change because it was based on the 2011 estimate prepared by the office of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE), an independent US Government agency, which wasn't updated in 2012. The CAPE estimate is a more conservative position and does not take into account 2012 updates to the technical baseline and estimate inputs, whereas the F-35 program office estimate does.


And

In order to mitigate the situation wherein the 12% reduction in sustainment costs reported by the F-35 Joint Program Office were not independently confirmed by CAPE nor reported to Congress in the SAR 12 report, National Defence has significantly increased sustainment contingency, such that it is comfortably in the range recommended by KPMG and significantly higher than last year’s provision.


So it looks like we are looking for corroboration from CAPE or maybe GAO.

Link to report: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-report ... -2013.page

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 17:16
by XanderCrews
I'll try and find out if KPMG will amend their report or if the Canadain Gov. will adjust it themselves.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 17:25
by hb_pencil
There are multiple figures:

There is the annual update, (which just came out and was just linked to) which is based on the running tally within DND on costs. Then there is the fighter secretariat who sent out the questionnaires in late spring. Those were sent out to the manufacturers, who probably gave their numbers. LM has always claimed the lower number, so its possible that its already part of the secretariat's analysis.

I don't think KPMG will amend the report: I believe their contract is over and a new one will be tendered.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 17:46
by spazsinbad
Seems like someone wants to get ahead of any reductions to be made - nothing applies to Canada? Maybe this story was posted before 'cost reduction' stories surfaced? I like the last sentences in this excerpt below (more at the jump as always):

Future of F-35s in question as program nears $9B spending cap set by Tories 22 Aug 2013 Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
"OTTAWA — The military’s dream of buying a fleet of F-35s appears to be in growing danger of bumping against a hard spending cap imposed by the Conservative government.

A new Defence Department report shows the anticipated cost per plane has increased since December, which combined with other factors has left very little room for error if Canada is to buy 65 of the stealth fighters for $9-billion.

That number is politically important because the government has stated it will not pay more than $9-billion to buy a replacement for Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s.

(The full cost of the F-35s has been pegged at $45 billion, but only $9 billion of that is for actually buying the planes. The remaining $36-billion is for development, maintenance, operating costs and disposal when the aircraft reach the end of their usefulness, expected around 2052.)

Defence officials blame the most recent price hike on higher than expected production costs, foreign currency fluctuations and, in particular, changes some allies have made to their own F-35 purchase plans.

Because some allies have scaled back or delayed their plans to purchase the stealth fighter, Canada will be forced to buy them when they are in a more expensive period of production, the report indicates
...." [WhereIsCanada in this?]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/22 ... by-tories/

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 18:20
by spazsinbad
Here is the quote from that recent 09 Aug update for Canada...

Next Generation Fighter Capability - August 2013
"...Cost Methodology and Estimates
For the annual updates to Parliament the Department uses two distinct data sources to derive the acquisition cost estimate for a fleet of Canadian F-35A aircraft and the associated life-cycle costs estimates. The F-35 Joint Program Office provides estimates for over 90 per cent of the acquisition and sustainment cost data. The remainder of the life-cycle cost data is dependent on how Canada would operate its fleet, and the cost estimate is based on data from Canadian sources. National Defence also takes into account actual and projected differences between the Canadian and United States currencies, and other such economic factors that affect cost estimates.

Canada received a bilateral cost estimate from the F-35 Joint Program Office on 7 June 2013. The bilateral sustainment cost estimate provided to Canada showed a significant year-over-year decrease in cost, in the order of 12%. However, this 12% reduction contrasted with the Selected Acquisition Report 2012 (SAR 12) that the US Department of Defense tabled in Congress on 23 May 2013, which showed no significant change in the sustainment cost estimate. The SAR sustainment estimate did not change because it was based on the 2011 estimate prepared by the office of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE), an independent US Government agency, which wasn't updated in 2012. The CAPE estimate is a more conservative position and does not take into account 2012 updates to the technical baseline and estimate inputs, whereas the F-35 program office estimate does. In SAR 12:
•the acquisition cost estimate is based on F-35 Joint Program Office calculations; and
•the most recent F-35 Joint Program Office sustainment cost estimate has not yet been reviewed by CAPE. As a result, the SAR 12 sustainment costs are essentially unchanged from the SAR 11 estimate.

In order to mitigate the situation wherein the 12% reduction in sustainment costs reported by the F-35 Joint Program Office were not independently confirmed by CAPE nor reported to Congress in the SAR 12 report, National Defence has significantly increased sustainment contingency, such that it is comfortably in the range recommended by KPMG and significantly higher than last year’s provision...."

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-report ... -2013.page
&
http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_I ... e-2013.pdf (0.4Mb)

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 20:44
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Seems like someone wants to get ahead of any reductions to be made - nothing applies to Canada? Maybe this story was posted before 'cost reduction' stories surfaced? I like the last sentences in this excerpt below (more at the jump as always):

Future of F-35s in question as program nears $9B spending cap set by Tories 22 Aug 2013 Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
"OTTAWA — The military’s dream of buying a fleet of F-35s appears to be in growing danger of bumping against a hard spending cap imposed by the Conservative government.

A new Defence Department report shows the anticipated cost per plane has increased since December, which combined with other factors has left very little room for error if Canada is to buy 65 of the stealth fighters for $9-billion.

That number is politically important because the government has stated it will not pay more than $9-billion to buy a replacement for Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s.

(The full cost of the F-35s has been pegged at $45 billion, but only $9 billion of that is for actually buying the planes. The remaining $36-billion is for development, maintenance, operating costs and disposal when the aircraft reach the end of their usefulness, expected around 2052.)

Defence officials blame the most recent price hike on higher than expected production costs, foreign currency fluctuations and, in particular, changes some allies have made to their own F-35 purchase plans.

Because some allies have scaled back or delayed their plans to purchase the stealth fighter, Canada will be forced to buy them when they are in a more expensive period of production, the report indicates
...." [WhereIsCanada in this?]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/22 ... by-tories/
Price increasing since December of last year? Either they're stupid, or they're assuming their readership is stupid, which isn't much of stretch given the comments under the story. Oh... there are some tasty ones this time.

-Statement that the Harrier is still in production and being sold to India for its carriers.
-Wide assumption that Canada buying a "vertical take-off" plane
-The "no comms in the arctic" trope.
-Mig-21s would be "good enough."
... and many other generic "military is bad" whines.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 02:18
by FlightDreamz
<b>f414/euro/grippenng/sbug</b>
That's a "story" about internet comments collected on their website?

Keep hearing rumors, RUMORS I never said there was a story and how does over fifteen pages of text equal "internet comments"?
Here's a link to a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zB0ZxBurRc">YouTube video covering the same topic</a> maybe sound and moving pictures will be more to your liking. Sheesh.
Image

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 02:35
by count_to_10
Wait, wait. "No effective difference in stealth between the F-35 and the F-18"?
Seriously?

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 00:22
by Corsair1963
Canada is not leaving the JSF Program. So, this whole debate is moot in my opinion..............

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 00:49
by cantaz
Corsair1963 wrote:Canada is not leaving the JSF Program.


EH101 had constructs signed, people hired and money changed hands before the Chretien Liberals killed it and kept it killed for almost ten years. I don't put anything beyond any party.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 15:52
by XanderCrews
FlightDreamz wrote:
<b>f414/euro/grippenng/sbug</b>
That's a "story" about internet comments collected on their website?

Keep hearing rumors, RUMORS I never said there was a story and how does over fifteen pages of text equal "internet comments"?
Here's a link to a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zB0ZxBurRc">YouTube video covering the same topic</a> maybe sound and moving pictures will be more to your liking. Sheesh.


Calm down there. I mentioned it on the link where the news agency ran a story that was a collection of comments. Which I think is a tad disingenuous, and at the minimum wasteful. It would be like them writing a story about this thread. Its a collection of internet opinions. It was a comment about the story not about the F-18 debate. But if you would like I can gladly comment on that youtube Boeing ad disguised as a new report :lol:

cantaz wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Canada is not leaving the JSF Program.


EH101 had constructs signed, people hired and money changed hands before the Chretien Liberals killed it and kept it killed for almost ten years. I don't put anything beyond any party.


That was funny. Tore up the jobs, bought the helicopters anyway.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 20:02
by cantaz
XanderCrews wrote:That was funny. Tore up the jobs, bought the helicopters anyway.


Actually, they didn't buy the EH101 helicopters in the end. They kept the competition going for ten years, always finding ways to avoid re-awarding AW's bid, until Sikorsky finally came around to submit an impossible bid that became the winner.

In addition to getting a lot of newly hired Canadians across Canada fired, the government paid AW $300mil in cancellation fee. That's how far public opinion in Canada can go in f##king up military procurement, that's how far Canadian politicians will play the anti-Canadian Forces card to get elected.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 07:10
by hb_pencil
This article might give some context.

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/ne ... d5fe52&p=1

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 22:29
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin: F-35 Cancellation Would Mean Canada Out $10.5 Billion 13 Sep 2013 Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press

"MONTREAL - Canada's aerospace industry could lose about $10.5 billion worth of contracts over several decades if the federal government ultimately decides not to purchase the controversial F-35 Stealth Fighter, says a senior executive at Lockheed Martin.

Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of the U.S. defence giant, says Lockheed will honour $500 million worth of business already awarded to Canadian partners but that other work would be in jeopardy without a Canadian jet order.

"If in fact the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35 we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane," he said in an interview after officially opening its new engine overhaul facility in Montreal.

Carvalho said Lockheed estimates that Canadian industry could potentially receive $11 billion of contracts over 25 to 40 years as its builds 3,000 planes for air forces around the world.

About 72 Canadian companies have secured work on the F-35 project. Industry Canada has estimated that the potential value could be US$9.8 billion, including the amount of contracts already awarded.

Gilles Labbe, the former head of aerospace cluster Aero Montreal and CEO of F-35 supplier Heroux-Devtek (TSX:HRX), last year warned that thousands of jobs would be at risk if lead manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman remove work destined to be completed in Canada by members of the global supply chain.

Ottawa is evaluating potential alternatives to its original plan to purchase 65 F-35 aircraft. A KPMG report late last year warned that the total bill, including service and support, could be as much as $45.8 billion over 42 years to replace the current stable of CF-18s, which are due to be retired in 2020.

Carvalho said Lockheed continues to reduce the F-35's cost. He said each plane will cost Canada around $75 million in today's dollars, or about $85 million including inflation once they are expected to be delivered to Canada in 2018.

He said the contractor has removed 50 per cent of costs from when it started production and is looking at how to remove another 50 per cent as it gets into full production, making it "an affordable airplane" to the U.S. government.

"As we continue to gain the efficiency on the production line, the learning, as we continue to build more and more airplanes, as the production ramps up, the cost of this airplane will only come down."..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/13 ... a+Business

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 01:16
by pushoksti
The comments on that article are horrible. Canadians truly are blind to reality.

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 01:30
by cantaz
pushoksti wrote:The comments on that article are horrible. Canadians truly are blind to reality.


It's certainly depressing. Even among those in uniform, blind F-35 and Harper hate is quite common.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 23:55
by popcorn
Not much to report from the Canadian front, with the SK drama hogging the limelight the last couple of months. In the end, SK recovered it's sanity and reversed course in the nick of time..
Now it's Canada's turn to keep us entertained. :D
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/0 ... d-version/

The battle over the Pentagon’s most expensive jet fighter just got juvenile.

A small Canadian company has created a 45-second video that reduces the debate over the F-35 to a playground feud. Literally.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 01:56
by SpudmanWP
Even when they reduced it to the simplest terms possible, they got it completely wrong.

Even using FY2014 LRIP F-35A vs FRP F/A-18 total cost, you can only get 2:1.

Factor in the fact that Canada is not buying FY2014 jets but looking at when they actually will be buying puts it at around 1.25:1.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 02:38
by popcorn
I hope Boeing hires them.
Can't wait for Boeing to explain why their selling price for the same number of aircraft shouldn't be 1/3 the price of LM's.
After all, stingy Canadians would be up in arms buying something overpriced by 200%. :devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 12:47
by cantaz
Didn't realize it was a Canadian company that made that atrocity, but the naivety makes sense. Good point on how it actually puts Boeing in a position for financial loss.

Isn't the Super Bug lines due to close soon anyways?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 05:23
by smsgtmac
This whole topic reminds me of a little ditty and it pops in my head every time I read the subject line;

Darling you gotta let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
If you say that you are mine
I'll be here 'til the end of time
So you got to let know
Should I stay or should I go?

It's always tease, tease, tease
You're happy when I'm on my knees
One day is fine, the next it's black
So if you want me off your back
Well come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

Canadian drama queens need to be ignored already. The real pros NOT in Boeing''s pocket know the right answer. Go with it and take on the extra trouble. It will go away in the end.
(BTW: Apologies to The Clash)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 18:41
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Not much to report from the Canadian front, with the SK drama hogging the limelight the last couple of months. In the end, SK recovered it's sanity and reversed course in the nick of time..
Now it's Canada's turn to keep us entertained. :D
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/0 ... d-version/

The battle over the Pentagon’s most expensive jet fighter just got juvenile.

A small Canadian company has created a 45-second video that reduces the debate over the F-35 to a playground feud. Literally.


The original is a full minute and a half-- They forgot to include the very nice lucrative rebate the F-35 kid gets. or the F-18s suddenly breaking into many pieces from an unseen force when the kids start wrestling over the fist fulls of money the F-35 kids pockets start producing. They had to cut that last part. :D

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 19:17
by SpudmanWP
How about the fact that their math is COMPLETELY WRONG.

Even with today's LRIP numbers, the GWS cost is about 2:1.

In 2018 it is projected to be 1.25:1

And I am not including their ridiculous "included 10 years of support" claim.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 01:52
by pushoksti
Oh great here is another thing for Canidiots to get all horny over. :roll:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-393979/

Boeing expects its F/A-18 production line in St Louis, Missouri to keep humming for the foreseeable future, despite mixed signals from the US Navy about acquiring additional aircraft.

"I can easily envision the production line going beyond 2020," says Michael Gibbons, vice president and programme manager of Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft. "I could envision, easily, several more years of buys by the US Navy."

Super Hornets cost $51-$52 million each including warfare systems and General Electric F414 engines, while the electronic warfare-roled Growler costs about $9 million more, according to Gibbons.


What.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 02:14
by popcorn
One would think that Canadian industry would be very vocal and lobbying hard for the deal.


http://medicinehatnews.com/news/nationa ... ys-report/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 03:21
by coldman
pushoksti wrote:Oh great here is another thing for Canidiots to get all horny over. :roll:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-393979/

Boeing expects its F/A-18 production line in St Louis, Missouri to keep humming for the foreseeable future, despite mixed signals from the US Navy about acquiring additional aircraft.

"I can easily envision the production line going beyond 2020," says Michael Gibbons, vice president and programme manager of Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft. "I could envision, easily, several more years of buys by the US Navy."

Super Hornets cost $51-$52 million each including warfare systems and General Electric F414 engines, while the electronic warfare-roled Growler costs about $9 million more, according to Gibbons.


What.

Yeah the quoted price seemed a tad off, so I decided to do a little digging. Fortunately all military expenditures are released into the public domain, so after about five or so minutes of testing my google-fu, I found this lovely little document

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudge ... eapons.pdf

And it states, clear as day, that the U.S Gov spent $2,065.4 million on 26 F/A-18EF fighters in FY 2013. Now using simple division, one can easily find that the per-unit cost of a super bug in 2013 was $79.4 million. So this presents us with two distinct possibilities. Either GIbbions is lying, or Boeing is gouging the U.S Gov to the tune of roughly $30 million per plane.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 03:23
by spazsinbad
Not sure if this quote is in Oz or US dollars but anyway....

Where next for F-18? 11 Dec 2013 australianaviation.com.au
"...Flyaway cost for a Super Hornet without its government-furnished GE engines and electronic warfare package is $37 million..."

http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/1 ... t-for-f18/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 06:19
by hb_pencil
coldman wrote:
pushoksti wrote:Oh great here is another thing for Canidiots to get all horny over. :roll:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-393979/

Boeing expects its F/A-18 production line in St Louis, Missouri to keep humming for the foreseeable future, despite mixed signals from the US Navy about acquiring additional aircraft.

"I can easily envision the production line going beyond 2020," says Michael Gibbons, vice president and programme manager of Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft. "I could envision, easily, several more years of buys by the US Navy."

Super Hornets cost $51-$52 million each including warfare systems and General Electric F414 engines, while the electronic warfare-roled Growler costs about $9 million more, according to Gibbons.


What.

Yeah the quoted price seemed a tad off, so I decided to do a little digging. Fortunately all military expenditures are released into the public domain, so after about five or so minutes of testing my google-fu, I found this lovely little document

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudge ... eapons.pdf

And it states, clear as day, that the U.S Gov spent $2,065.4 million on 26 F/A-18EF fighters in FY 2013. Now using simple division, one can easily find that the per-unit cost of a super bug in 2013 was $79.4 million. So this presents us with two distinct possibilities. Either GIbbions is lying, or Boeing is gouging the U.S Gov to the tune of roughly $30 million per plane.


He's not lying, he's just using the 2000 base year cost, without pods, pylons or key electronic systems. That's how you get to that costs.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 04:15
by Corsair1963
Really, as the orders come in. The pressure will mount on Canada to purchase the F-35. Especially, from the current JSF Partners. Honestly, I can't even imagine Canada selecting anything but the Lightning.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 21:17
by cantaz
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I can't even imagine Canada selecting anything but the Lightning.


You're assuming that the decision will be logical, as opposed our usual exercise of cutting off our own nose to spit our own face.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 05:40
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I can't even imagine Canada selecting anything but the Lightning.
Your optimism is touching, but misplaced methinks. My estimates for the F-35's order-book ceased to include Canada some time ago (still looks good though).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 08:40
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I can't even imagine Canada selecting anything but the Lightning.
Your optimism is touching, but misplaced methinks. My estimates for the F-35's order-book ceased to include Canada some time ago (still looks good though).



Uh, its still on the books.... so your estimates are wrong. And the secretariat is a pretty unbiased body, I'd not be worried about its ability to make decisions impartially. They have been briefed with the relevant information from various domestic and foreign bodies, so reading the Canadian press isn't going to give you any perspective on what is going on in that milieux.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 12:40
by cantaz
The concern isn't with what the secretariat will do, but what the government of the day will do with the support of the people. The Conservatives are likely to follow through with the F-35, but if any other party replaced them, we could very well have another EH-101 fiasco.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 18:15
by bigjku
Canada needs the new Arrow. Canada want's the new Arrow.

More importantly the viewing public in the rest of the world wants to watch Canada attempt to build the new Arrow.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 18:29
by hb_pencil
cantaz wrote:The concern isn't with what the secretariat will do, but what the government of the day will do with the support of the people. The Conservatives are likely to follow through with the F-35, but if any other party replaced them, we could very well have another EH-101 fiasco.


I believe the Liberal party has basically accepted the need for the F-35. I really can't remember an instance in the past six months when they directly criticized the program, and that is in comparison with their attack dog mentality in the months before that. Someone suggested to me that this is a party view. They may kick it a bit, but many are mindful of the EH101 disaster and realize that this isn't something they want to repeat.

The NDP does, but I don't think they are anti F-35 as much as anti air force. Also their chances of them coming in are, in my estimation, less than one in three.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 20:01
by gtx
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I can't even imagine Canada selecting anything but the Lightning.
Your optimism is touching, but misplaced methinks. My estimates for the F-35's order-book ceased to include Canada some time ago (still looks good though).


I would still include the F-35 for Canada but later than originally planned - expect an order late this decade.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 20:02
by gtx
bigjku wrote:Canada needs the new Arrow. Canada want's the new Arrow.

More importantly the viewing public in the rest of the world wants to watch Canada attempt to build the new Arrow.


:lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 10:36
by popcorn
Hopefully it won't be long now... canny move by the others to try and force a formal competition.

Military’s fighter-jet reports to put ball in Ottawa’s court on F-35s

The Canadian Forces have finished exploring the world market for fighter jets, putting pressure on the government to decide whether to launch a competition or forge ahead with the sole-sourced purchase of F-35s before the next election.

According to documents posted on a federal website on Thursday, the Canadian Forces have already prepared draft reports on the price, the technical capabilities and the strategic advantages of the four fighter jets in the running...

However, the Canadian Forces informed the panel of independent experts that it has not managed to obtain detailed financial information from the four aircraft manufacturers. Instead, the government is currently operating with a “rough order of magnitude,” which suggests that Ottawa will need to launch a full competition if it wants guarantees that it is getting the best possible price for its new fighter jets.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e16180717/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 12:17
by cantaz
A formal competition, if driven by RCAF requirements and doesn't coincide with another financial crisis, will just result in the F-35 anyways. Recent fighter competition in other countries runs, what, 3-4 years on average? A competition starting in 2014 should take at least until 2016, longer if we go by Canada's poor track record.

During that time, the F-35B hits IOC and goes to Japan, overall program cost and health should continue to improve based on current trend, and it's now a stone's throw away from FRP. In comparison, the SH/ASH is a couple more years out of date, the Rafale treads water and the Typhoon continues to cost too much.

Time is on the side of the F-35, and maybe the Grippen NG if Saab decides to show up. The only losers are the RCAF and Canada, burning more money into keeping the Hornet flying longer instead of recapitalizing the fleet sooner. But on the subject of military spending, too many Canadians are all too happy to burn that money thinking they're saving money.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 13:47
by popcorn
cantaz wrote:A formal competition, if driven by RCAF requirements and doesn't coincide with another financial crisis, will just result in the F-35 anyways. Recent fighter competition in other countries runs, what, 3-4 years on average? A competition starting in 2014 should take at least until 2016, longer if we go by Canada's poor track record.

During that time, the F-35B hits IOC and goes to Japan, overall program cost and health should continue to improve based on current trend, and it's now a stone's throw away from FRP. In comparison, the SH/ASH is a couple more years out of date, the Rafale treads water and the Typhoon continues to cost too much.

Time is on the side of the F-35, and maybe the Grippen NG if Saab decides to show up. The only losers are the RCAF and Canada, burning more money into keeping the Hornet flying longer instead of recapitalizing the fleet sooner. But on the subject of military spending, too many Canadians are all too happy to burn that money thinking they're saving money.


Yeah, pretty much agree with your assessment.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 14:03
by vilters
The most difficult questions usualy have a very simple answer.

Do you want a 5th generation fighter? YES? => Buy the F-35.

Why?
It is the ONLY 5th gen fighter available.

it is as simple as that.

Skip 5th gen or buy F-35.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 20:06
by luke_sandoz
vilters wrote:The most difficult questions usualy have a very simple answer.

Do you want a 5th generation fighter? YES? => Buy the F-35.

Why?
It is the ONLY 5th gen fighter available.

it is as simple as that.

Skip 5th gen or buy F-35.


Do you want a modern fighter that will give your pilots a fighting chance of getting home alive? YES? => Buy the F-35.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 22:25
by pushoksti
luke_sandoz wrote:
vilters wrote:The most difficult questions usualy have a very simple answer.

Do you want a 5th generation fighter? YES? => Buy the F-35.

Why?
It is the ONLY 5th gen fighter available.

it is as simple as that.

Skip 5th gen or buy F-35.


Do you want a modern fighter that will give your pilots a fighting chance of getting home alive? YES? => Buy the F-35.


But it only has one engine. :roll:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 01:29
by vilters
Double engine = Double trouble. :oops:

So far the engine has proven pretty reliable.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 04:30
by Corsair1963
The price is coming down on the F-35. So, I honestly don't see Canada backing out the program. Yet, it shows you the impact of bad press can have on a Military Program. Regardless, if much of it is true or not.... :bang:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 04:44
by lamoey
Corsair1963 wrote:The price is coming down on the F-35. So, I honestly don't see Canada backing out the program. Yet, it shows you the impact of bad press can have on a Military Program. Regardless, if much of it is true or not.... :bang:

The Canadians had to take lessons from Norway in ocean management to protect their fisheries in the Atlantic. Perhaps they should have looked at the Norwegian project office and how they run a propper tender process, however skewed it might have been, to avoid any backlash down the road. The Canadian government at the time seemed to have missed the point about democracy and how it works with the press being an important part of the checks and balance in a modern transparent democracy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:36
by Corsair1963
lamoey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The price is coming down on the F-35. So, I honestly don't see Canada backing out the program. Yet, it shows you the impact of bad press can have on a Military Program. Regardless, if much of it is true or not.... :bang:

The Canadians had to take lessons from Norway in ocean management to protect their fisheries in the Atlantic. Perhaps they should have looked at the Norwegian project office and how they run a propper tender process, however skewed it might have been, to avoid any backlash down the road. The Canadian government at the time seemed to have missed the point about democracy and how it works with the press being an important part of the checks and balance in a modern transparent democracy.



LOL You must be talking about Canada. As the media in the US is hardly an important part of US Democracy. As the press here is mainly supported by one "Party". Which, is extremely bias. :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 11:08
by hb_pencil
lamoey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The price is coming down on the F-35. So, I honestly don't see Canada backing out the program. Yet, it shows you the impact of bad press can have on a Military Program. Regardless, if much of it is true or not.... :bang:

The Canadians had to take lessons from Norway in ocean management to protect their fisheries in the Atlantic. Perhaps they should have looked at the Norwegian project office and how they run a propper tender process, however skewed it might have been, to avoid any backlash down the road. The Canadian government at the time seemed to have missed the point about democracy and how it works with the press being an important part of the checks and balance in a modern transparent democracy.


Ummmm, how many JSF Member states actually ran a "proper tender process?" The UK, Dutch, Canada, Turks, Australians and Italy never did. The Danes have now ordered one (partly due to disgruntlement over Offsets) but they initially selected the F-35 without a process, and as you claim Norway did as well. However in that case it wasn't even much of a competition: Dassault and EADS backed out, leaving the F-35 against super gripen.... hardly a fair competition.

I don't know how "democracy" fits into your argument. At no point did the government act illegally, nor erroneously. The assessments carried out by the Next Generation Fighter Project staff between 2005 and 2012 showed that the F-35 was cheaper and more capable than any of the other competitors. A full competition was deemed to be completely unnecessary. Then there was a controversy, in part driven by political maneuvering which injected completely erroneous information into the situation. This led to the Options Analysis. We've now spent $20 million dollars on this reset, and likely lost significant production opportunities only to discover, the F-35 is still cheaper and more capable than any other competitor. Moreover there are distinct process advantages to going sole source. This includes the ability to open up their books and directly negotiate on price.

One last point. The Canadian state was founded not on "democracy" but a phrase that is very relevant here: Peace Order and Good governance. Running a exceptionally costly competition where the outcome isn't really in doubt is the epitomy of "bad governance"

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 22:10
by spazsinbad
Reading FUN :drool:
for CanadiUNs but not moi (and in too languages yet already) :doh:

Joint Strike Fighter Program

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... e-eng.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2014, 06:48
by pushoksti
So the government plans on having F-35s in Cold Lake, good luck with that. I think they have bigger problems than aircraft procurement.....

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/r ... er-to-busk

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2014, 19:55
by cantaz
pushoksti wrote:So the government plans on having F-35s in Cold Lake, good luck with that. I think they have bigger problems than aircraft procurement.....

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/10/r ... er-to-busk


Nothing new, really. Leaving CL broken or fixing it is largely independent of replacing the Hornets. We've only got two full time fighter bases, F-35 or whatever else HAS to go to Cold Lake and Bagotville. And CL is such a large base, with convenient ranges, it's not like it can be easily replaced.

Almost ended up there myself, thank freaking god I lucked out

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2014, 04:32
by popcorn
http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTI ... -17801008/

Lockheed Martin Corporation : NGRAIN Supports the F-35 Program and Its Contributions to Economic Recovery

Release date- 10012014 - Vancouver, BC - With Friday's release of Canada's major economic indicators showing steady progress in job creation and economic recovery, NGRAIN, headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, urged the Canadian Government to continue investment in the production of the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet.

'The F-35 program is creating and sustaining thousands of high-quality jobs nation-wide while providing Canadian companies like NGRAIN with the experience, expertise, and resources to access new opportunities that otherwise would not be available,' said Gabe Batstone, CEO. 'The continued production of the F-35 is critical for our company, our community, and our national defence
.'

NGRAIN knows on which side of it's bread is buttered... curious name ..



http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... Id=7647228

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2014, 03:12
by Corsair1963
Canada complains about the cost of the F-35. Yet, except for the F/A- 18E/F Super Hornet. The other 4.5 Generation Fighters are more expensive or will be as production of the F-35 ramps up. In addition Canada spends much less than many Western Countries on Defense. (as a % of GDP)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2014, 06:51
by hb_pencil
Corsair1963 wrote:Canada complains about the cost of the F-35. Yet, except for the F/A- 18E/F Super Hornet. The other 4.5 Generation Fighters are more expensive or will be as production of the F-35 ramps up. In addition Canada spends much less than many Western Countries on Defense. (as a % of GDP)


Yes, because "Canada" is one entity that speaks with one voice. We're the borg, but with igloos.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2014, 07:10
by gtx
hb_pencil wrote:. We're the borg, but with igloos.


:lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 06:53
by SpudmanWP
You will be assimilated, Eh.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 18:31
by XanderCrews
hb_pencil wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Canada complains about the cost of the F-35. Yet, except for the F/A- 18E/F Super Hornet. The other 4.5 Generation Fighters are more expensive or will be as production of the F-35 ramps up. In addition Canada spends much less than many Western Countries on Defense. (as a % of GDP)


Yes, because "Canada" is one entity that speaks with one voice. We're the borg, but with igloos.


You misspelled "boring" there :D

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 06:04
by Corsair1963
gtx wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:. We're the borg, but with igloos.


:lmao:


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 14:28
by arrow-nautics
news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/11/federal-budget-sends-canadian-militarys-equipment-buying-plan-into-limbo-new-fighter-jets-likely-off-the-table/

OTTAWA — The badly needed new equipment on the Canadian military’s shopping list may end up becoming a wish list over the next three years after Tuesday’s federal budget pushed $3.1 billion in planned capital spending into the future.

The reallocation and delay outlined in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s fiscal plan was something long expected in defence circles, and a dramatic demonstration of how far the department has fallen in terms of the political pecking order in Ottawa.

In practical terms, it’s a reflection of the government’s failure so far to deliver long-promised new ships, search planes, helicopters and trucks. But it’s also part of a Conservative campaign to outflank the deficit in the run-up to the 2015 election......The government put the F-35 program, a political lightning rod, on hold in December 2012 and has yet to say whether it will hold a full-fledged competition to determine which fighter to buy.


:bang: :doh: :shrug:

This stupid country. I wonder how LM will react.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 15:03
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote:news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/11/federal-budget-sends-canadian-militarys-equipment-buying-plan-into-limbo-new-fighter-jets-likely-off-the-table/

OTTAWA — The badly needed new equipment on the Canadian military’s shopping list may end up becoming a wish list over the next three years after Tuesday’s federal budget pushed $3.1 billion in planned capital spending into the future.

The reallocation and delay outlined in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s fiscal plan was something long expected in defence circles, and a dramatic demonstration of how far the department has fallen in terms of the political pecking order in Ottawa.

In practical terms, it’s a reflection of the government’s failure so far to deliver long-promised new ships, search planes, helicopters and trucks. But it’s also part of a Conservative campaign to outflank the deficit in the run-up to the 2015 election......The government put the F-35 program, a political lightning rod, on hold in December 2012 and has yet to say whether it will hold a full-fledged competition to determine which fighter to buy.


:bang: :doh: :shrug:

This stupid country. I wonder how LM will react.



Here is a little hint, Canada is still paying into the JSF program :wink: "The Reset" was just a time buyer

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 16:59
by cantaz
Not too surprising, I suppose.

The last round of report from the NGFS had a notional buy profile starting with 4 aircraft in 2017. I assume that means cheque in the mail in 2017, not actually aircraft on Canadian soil by 2017.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2013.page#toc6d

Money on table means buy in in 2017 with LRIP 11. Aircraft delivery around 2019, or can it be as soon as 2018? The RCAF will have to push the Hornets out into the 2020s if need be, but how much operational restrictions and maintenance must be put into place to achieve that figure?

Aircraft in Cold Lake by 2017 means LRIP 9 (buy in 2015) or maybe LRIP 10 (buy in 2016). A buy in in 2015 might be achievable if we have an early election, and the US takes an IOU until we can finalize the F-35 in the FY16 budget.

In either of the above cases, production is suppose to ramp up starting LRIP 9, so absorbing the relatively small initial Canadian orders shouldn't be a huge issue. We'd expect that the Canadian government is informally updating LM and JPO on any changes in a "notional" Canadian buy.

The good news is that time should improve the image of the F-35 program, somewhat. Between now and 2017, the USMC goes IOC with block 2B, USAF goes IOC with block 3I, block 3F software is far enough along to to make reasonable assessment of USN's IOC schedule, and a myriad of issues have time to be sorted out. If we're really lucky, the weight margin will stablize enough to put a ballistic liner in so Gilmore can shut the hell up about it.

The real negative impact IMO is dragging the Hornets out for a couple extra years, and the greater cost of the next generation fighter associated with inflation (a political point, mostly).

It's unlikely the Conservatives would do well in the 2015 election if the F-35 becomes an election issue. Hell, the F-35 could be the best run fighter program of the century and still, few Canadian government going into an election would want military procurement on an election agenda.

So, ever pragmatic (to the point of being predictable and unimaginative), the Conservatives are pushing the fighter issue back past 2015 to get re-elected. If they get another majority, they'll just bull the F-35 through. If they get a minority, they'll woo enough Liberals into supporting the program, given that Canada originally entered the program under a Liberal government anyways.

Alternatively, the NDP gets elected, guts the CF and I'm out of a job.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 19:37
by hb_pencil
arrow-nautics wrote:news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/11/federal-budget-sends-canadian-militarys-equipment-buying-plan-into-limbo-new-fighter-jets-likely-off-the-table/

OTTAWA — The badly needed new equipment on the Canadian military’s shopping list may end up becoming a wish list over the next three years after Tuesday’s federal budget pushed $3.1 billion in planned capital spending into the future.

The reallocation and delay outlined in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s fiscal plan was something long expected in defence circles, and a dramatic demonstration of how far the department has fallen in terms of the political pecking order in Ottawa.

In practical terms, it’s a reflection of the government’s failure so far to deliver long-promised new ships, search planes, helicopters and trucks. But it’s also part of a Conservative campaign to outflank the deficit in the run-up to the 2015 election......The government put the F-35 program, a political lightning rod, on hold in December 2012 and has yet to say whether it will hold a full-fledged competition to determine which fighter to buy.


:bang: :doh: :shrug:

This stupid country. I wonder how LM will react.



Umm... nothing has changed. DND budget is calculated through 20 year amortizations, rather than all the money up front. Thus new capital projects actually are not that difficult to budget for: four LRIP 9 aircraft will increase the capital budget something like 20 million a year.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 10:14
by spazsinbad
Soon there will be not much choice for those Wavering (not Drowning) Canuckians.... :D Prolly a good thing eh.

Boeing looks to Congress to fund fighters after Navy skips orders 13 Feb 2014
"...While the 2015 budget does not include funding for shutting down the F/A-18 production line in St. Louis after 2016, the Navy plans to add such termination funding to its 2016 budget, said one of the sources, who could not speak publicly.

That spells bad news for Boeing, which needs additional orders from the U.S. Navy to continue producing the fighter planes, according to industry executives and analysts.

Navy officials have said they would like to keep buying Super Hornets and Growlers, but cannot afford to do so given tough budget pressures that have already forced the service to propose eliminating one of 11 U.S. aircraft carriers.

That means Boeing must now appeal to U.S. lawmakers to fund an additional batch of Growlers to keep the line running for one more year while it continues to hunt for foreign sales...."

http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2014/feb/ ... ps-orders/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 07:17
by thepointblank
Hey everyone,

A bit of a lurker here, but I recently saw an Ottawa Citizen editorial that has made my blood boil:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-1/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-2/

I'm definitely thinking of responding to the editorial, as the journalism is open to taking an submission to support F-35. But there are so many faults with the article that it leaves a very nasty impression.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 07:34
by spazsinbad
What is the nasty impression? I vote for the author.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2014, 12:36
by cantaz
Wow, that's pretty terrible, even among the long history of terrible submissions to Defence Watch. It's clear that the blogger is both biased against the F-35 and lacks the expertise to vet articles.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 08:08
by popcorn
The view from the other side of the fence.


http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-1/


Why the F-35 is essential for Canada - Part 1

Editor’s note: Last week Defence Watch ran a three part series on why the F-35 wasn’t the right aircraft for Canada. This week Defence Watch runs a three part series on why the F-35 is essential for Canada. The article is written by Edward Wu, who is based in Vancouver. He answered the Defence Watch request to pen a defence of the F-35. He noted that he is not associated with any defence or aerospace contractors, nor any political parties or government.

By Edward Wu Defence Watch Guest Writer

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been much maligned in the press recently, some of it fairly, and some of it unfairly. In order to separate what is important to Canada, one does need to take a step back and look at the empirical evidence to make an accurate assessment of the choices available to Canada.

More....

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 14:30
by smsgtmac
popcorn wrote:The view from the other side of the fence.


http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-1/


Why the F-35 is essential for Canada - Part 1

Editor’s note: Last week Defence Watch ran a three part series on why the F-35 wasn’t the right aircraft for Canada. This week Defence Watch runs a three part series on why the F-35 is essential for Canada. The article is written by Edward Wu, who is based in Vancouver. He answered the Defence Watch request to pen a defence of the F-35. He noted that he is not associated with any defence or aerospace contractors, nor any political parties or government.

By Edward Wu Defence Watch Guest Writer

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been much maligned in the press recently, some of it fairly, and some of it unfairly. In order to separate what is important to Canada, one does need to take a step back and look at the empirical evidence to make an accurate assessment of the choices available to Canada.

More....

Good on Mr. Wu. I thought about replying to Pugliese's first 'guest', but besides the fact I'm not Canadian and don't really care, I decided not to because Pugliese's got an agenda and I don't like giving editorial control to a newspaper--been burned once long ago. On the plus side, some mother's son in the comments suspects I am of Chinese descent and live in British Columbia. That guy hints at something he's going to cherry pick in regards to the Eurocanards, while some 'chef' (at a golf course?--experts are everywhere!) seems to think the F-16 isn't a very good benchmark anymore. Maybe I should have been doing a series of posts doing a play by play on Pugliese's game?
Nah, I still don't really care.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 16:58
by gtx
I see the usual blog dwellers have waded in against him.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 17:28
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:I see the usual blog dwellers have waded in against him.



LOL yep.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2014, 23:48
by popcorn
Mr. Wu's seond installment in de defense of the F-35.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-2/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 03:54
by gtx
And yep...right on queue, there's Eric Palmer and co....

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 13:26
by cantaz
Want to shoot Wu a pat on the back, but don't want to use FB. :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 13:32
by gtx
cantaz wrote:Want to shoot Wu a pat on the back, but don't want to use FB. :?


Ditto!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 23:44
by thepointblank
gtx wrote:
cantaz wrote:Want to shoot Wu a pat on the back, but don't want to use FB. :?


Ditto!

Well, I did hear he does reside on this forum as well...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2014, 02:27
by popcorn
The 3rd and final installment of Edward Wu's sober treatise supporting the F-35 for Canada.


http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-3/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2014, 03:58
by smsgtmac
popcorn wrote:The 3rd and final installment of Edward Wu's sober treatise supporting the F-35 for Canada.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-3/


Wu hit that one out of the park. Only 'error' other than some cut-paste repetition in the article was in the 'Comments' where he brought up Dina Rasor. Rasor has credible deniability as to her relationship with the rathole she founded (POGO), having left 'leadership' positions a while back. Nowadays she is part and parcel with Truthout.org, as far-left a propaganda operation you will ever see, and I believe funded by Soros to boot.

'Doug Allen' in the comments is a hoot. Evidently being an EMT who likes airplanes qualifies one as an aerospace 'authority' in Nova Scotia. Wait until the 'usual suspects' show up.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2014, 05:43
by Corsair1963
smsgtmac wrote:
popcorn wrote:The 3rd and final installment of Edward Wu's sober treatise supporting the F-35 for Canada.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-3/


Wu hit that one out of the park. Only 'error' other than some cut-paste repetition in the article was in the 'Comments' where he brought up Dina Rasor. Rasor has credible deniability as to her relationship with the rathole she founded (POGO), having left 'leadership' positions a while back. Nowadays she is part and parcel with Truthout.org, as far-left a propaganda operation you will ever see, and I believe funded by Soros to boot.

'Doug Allen' in the comments is a hoot. Evidently being an EMT who likes airplanes qualifies one as an aerospace 'authority' in Nova Scotia. Wait until the 'usual suspects' show up.



Problem is far more "critics" that have no idea what they're talking about. Than F-35 Supporters that do..... :bang:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 13:52
by popcorn
To bid or not to bid..

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -the-f-35/

Richard Shimooka: Stick with the F-35

...There are often many good reasons to run a competition: It can help to drive down costs, and generate better incentives and outcomes. Politically, it may be perceived as the safe choice, which would presumably result in greater credibility for the decision and the procurement process. Unfortunately, none of these benefits would apply in this instance, and would likely result in the opposite outcome. A key issue is the length of time required to run a competition. Even a year’s further delay will imperil Canada’s potential industrial benefits package with the F-35, which would rank as the country’s second largest aerospace project for the next two decades. Also, it would further push back the CF-18’s replacement, forcing the Royal Canadian Air Force to expend additional funding to keep its current aircraft flying.

This, however, is just a best-case scenario for a competition. There is every reason to expect that it would require more than two years to complete...

More at the link.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 14:57
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote:
'Doug Allen' in the comments is a hoot. Evidently being an EMT who likes airplanes qualifies one as an aerospace 'authority' in Nova Scotia. Wait until the 'usual suspects' show up.


I was proudly banned from his blog after presenting facts and being logical. Always fun to watch fan boys try and make all the pieces fit.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 20:06
by gtx
Yes, it is interesting how ones like Doug and Eric Palmer decry Lockheed Martin and Co and the Govts/Defence Forces for covering up/distorting 'facts' and yet they are just as bad, arguably worse by not allowing even dissenting views on their blogs. Makes you wonder...how scared, little men (and I use that term very loosely) they must be if they can't defend themselves...having to rely on constant censorship and hiding of dissenting views. :roll:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 20:11
by spazsinbad
Hey 'gtx' in most cases it is no longer even 'interesting'
"...it is interesting..."
:devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 23:05
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:
'Doug Allen' in the comments is a hoot. Evidently being an EMT who likes airplanes qualifies one as an aerospace 'authority' in Nova Scotia. Wait until the 'usual suspects' show up.


I was proudly banned from his blog after presenting facts and being logical. Always fun to watch fan boys try and make all the pieces fit.




Remember the quote from a F-35 Test Pilot.......

The only naysayers of the F-35 are the ones that have never flown it or against it! :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2014, 17:37
by XanderCrews
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/ ... hievement/

Magellan horizontal tails on an F-35!

TORONTO, March 3, 2014 /CNW/ – Magellan Aerospace Corporation (“Magellan” or the “Corporation”) announced today that the first Magellan-manufactured horizontal tail assembly installed on an F-35A Lightning II aircraft was successfully flown for the first time on Wednesday, 26 February 2014. The Magellan tail assembly flew on aircraft AF-46, an F-35A Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) variant, from Lockheed Martin’s final assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas. The first flight of this Canadian-manufactured tail assembly marks an important milestone for Magellan as a major Canadian supplier to the international F-35 program.

Magellan is under contract with BAE Systems to produce horizontal tail assemblies for the CTOL variant of the F-35 and is expected to produce more than 1,000 sets of these components for the program over a 20-year period. “This is a very exciting time for everyone who has been involved on the program over the past ten years,” said Mr. James Butyniec, President and Chief Executive Officer of Magellan. “While Magellan has been producing a number of F-35 assemblies for the program for a number of years, this first flight of our horizontal tail is a significant event and Magellan is proud of this achievement.”


“Magellan delivered the horizontal tail for the aircraft that flew today in December 2012,” said Mr. Scott McCrady, Magellan’s Corporate Program Director, F-35. “Since then our annual production rates have been steadily increasing and are expected to continually increase over the next several years as the F-35 program matures.” Canadian companies like Magellan have had unprecedented competitive opportunities to support this international program since the inception of Canada’s participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program in 1997.

Magellan’s aggressive investment in facilities, equipment, and processes leading up to this event, has positioned Magellan to potentially achieve sales approaching $2.0B CDN on the F-35 program. To date, Magellan has surpassed $120M CDN in revenues on the program.

Magellan, under contract with Rolls-Royce, has also been producing the vane box assembly and transition duct for all of the F-35B Short Take Off and Landing (STOVL) variants flying today. In addition, Magellan has been producing a number of composite assemblies and machined details to Lockheed Martin directly. This milestone in the Corporation’s horizontal tail program demonstrates that companies such as Magellan can be successful and competitive in today’s globalized aerospace supply chain.


Your move SAAB, I want to see the competitive offsets that allow Magellan to build 1,000 of any part for an aircraft barely projected to break triple digits.

This is why a "competition" will be a waste of time and money and hurt companies like Magellan-- I look forward to the usual suspects leaving comments on that article.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2014, 18:14
by XanderCrews
So just so I am clear and I want anyone to correct me on this because I want to make sure I have all my facts straight:

*The KPMG report regarding the F-35's cost spelled out the entire lifetime cost from womb to tomb for Canada, with just under 88 million for an F-35 (I believe this is "fly away cost") Total aquisition for 65 aircraft was 8.98 Billion.

*Canadian Industry has been offered offsets and benefits that pale in comparison to anything else being offered anywhere in the world now or in the future, and has already profited around .5 billion and is expected to profit in the billions for the next 20 years with the F-35.

*In 2-3 years The F-18E/F, EF2000, and Rafale will be OOP

*This will leave the Gripen NG, and the F-35 for Canada to choose from.

*According to Edward wu, the Gripen NG doesn't even hold up to current CF-18s.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2014, 19:23
by hb_pencil
XanderCrews wrote:So just so I am clear and I want anyone to correct me on this because I want to make sure I have all my facts straight:

#1)The KPMG report regarding the F-35's cost spelled out the entire lifetime cost from womb to tomb for Canada, with just under 88 million for an F-35 (I believe this is "fly away cost") Total aquisition for 65 aircraft was 8.98 Billion.

#2) Canadian Industry has been offered offsets and benefits that pale in comparison to anything else being offered anywhere in the world now or in the future, and has already profited around .5 billion and is expected to profit in the billions for the next 20 years with the F-35.

#3) In 2-3 years The F-18E/F, EF2000, and Rafale will be OOP

#4) This will leave the Gripen NG, and the F-35 for Canada to choose from.

#5) According to Edward wu, the Gripen NG doesn't even hold up to current CF-18s.


I numbered them for you.

#1) yes, but this price has to be fairly firm as DND has largely exhausted its contingency to pay for this price. A second major problem is that our currency is fluctuating right now and that can have a major effect on purchase power.

#2) yes, this is basically the F-35's largest selling point, and not well understood outside of professional circles.

#3) No. F/A-18E for sure, EF-2000 will still be possible until about 2019 or so, Rafale (with the India deal) should be 2020 or later.

#5) No, (if all things go right for Gripen) it shouldn't be inferior to the CF-18. Longer effective range, similar carriage, better radar and same or better sensors, the Gripen would represent a qualitative step up from our current CF-18s, but not as good as the competitors. At very least they wouldn't be as life-limited as our current planes are.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2014, 22:06
by XanderCrews
hb_pencil wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So just so I am clear and I want anyone to correct me on this because I want to make sure I have all my facts straight:

#1)The KPMG report regarding the F-35's cost spelled out the entire lifetime cost from womb to tomb for Canada, with just under 88 million for an F-35 (I believe this is "fly away cost") Total aquisition for 65 aircraft was 8.98 Billion.

#2) Canadian Industry has been offered offsets and benefits that pale in comparison to anything else being offered anywhere in the world now or in the future, and has already profited around .5 billion and is expected to profit in the billions for the next 20 years with the F-35.

#3) In 2-3 years The F-18E/F, EF2000, and Rafale will be OOP

#4) This will leave the Gripen NG, and the F-35 for Canada to choose from.

#5) According to Edward wu, the Gripen NG doesn't even hold up to current CF-18s.


I numbered them for you.

#1) yes, but this price has to be fairly firm as DND has largely exhausted its contingency to pay for this price. A second major problem is that our currency is fluctuating right now and that can have a major effect on purchase power.

#2) yes, this is basically the F-35's largest selling point, and not well understood outside of professional circles.

#3) No. F/A-18E for sure, EF-2000 will still be possible until about 2019 or so, Rafale (with the India deal) should be 2020 or later.

#5) No, (if all things go right for Gripen) it shouldn't be inferior to the CF-18. Longer effective range, similar carriage, better radar and same or better sensors, the Gripen would represent a qualitative step up from our current CF-18s, but not as good as the competitors. At very least they wouldn't be as life-limited as our current planes are.


Thank you!

If the Canadain Currency continues to slip, it still favors JSF though doesn't it? as its going to be cheaper than the alternatives save for the Gripen NG. (and it may be close in that department)

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2014, 14:24
by smsgtmac
An 'Ungu[i]ded Analytical Bomb' can be found in the latest Air and Space Journal:
"The Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 Program: A Canadian Technology Policy Perspective" http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/article.asp?id=194#

Easily dismissed...
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-joint-strike-fighterf-35-program.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2014, 22:32
by gtx
hb_pencil wrote:#5) No, (if all things go right for Gripen) it shouldn't be inferior to the CF-18. Longer effective range...


But it only has one engine! :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2014, 23:42
by neurotech
gtx wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:#5) No, (if all things go right for Gripen) it shouldn't be inferior to the CF-18. Longer effective range...


But it only has one engine! :wink:

Not sure if you have read my previous comments about single engine jets, but the F414 or F135 engines are significantly more "survivable" than a F404 in the earlier CF-18s.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 00:16
by cantaz
I think gtx was being sarcastic.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 01:40
by gtx
cantaz wrote:I think gtx was being sarcastic.


Indeed I was. I find it laughable the number of Canadians who bemoan the F-35 for only having one engine (somehow Canada is different and must have two). But then in the next breath proclaim the Gripen as the best thing out there. Can't have it both ways guys!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 05:00
by pushoksti
gtx wrote:(somehow Canada is different and must have two).


Their notion is Canada has vast, vast, VAST frozen landscape that is patrolled 24/7. Therefore two engines are needed when one breaks apart for unknown reasons.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 05:25
by coldman
pushoksti wrote:
gtx wrote:(somehow Canada is different and must have two).


Their notion is Canada has vast, vast, VAST frozen landscape that is patrolled 24/7. Therefore two engines are needed when one breaks apart for unknown reasons.

And yet the U.S (via Alaska) and Norway have been flying single engine F-16's with less reliable engines than the F-35's for decades now without a hitch in environments that are just as bad if not worse than what pilots would face in Canada.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 07:55
by Corsair1963
coldman wrote:
pushoksti wrote:
gtx wrote:(somehow Canada is different and must have two).


Their notion is Canada has vast, vast, VAST frozen landscape that is patrolled 24/7. Therefore two engines are needed when one breaks apart for unknown reasons.

And yet the U.S (via Alaska) and Norway have been flying single engine F-16's with less reliable engines than the F-35's for decades now without a hitch in environments that are just as bad if not worse than what pilots would face in Canada.



This point has been discussed over and over again. That if you look at it by the numbers. Single engine aircraft are as safe and sometimes even safer than twin engine types. :doh:

Honestly shocked that it even comes up anymore???? :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 02:52
by luke_sandoz
Oh oh, this is gonna light a fuse.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/06 ... eral-says/

Lotsa the same old stuff re-packed for maximum impact. Guess if you repeat the stuff enough you think you are winning.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 04:18
by smsgtmac
luke_sandoz wrote:Oh oh, this is gonna light a fuse.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/06 ... eral-says/

Lotsa the same old stuff re-packed for maximum impact. Guess if you repeat the stuff enough you think you are winning.


:lol: !!! Perhaps the Professor Martin Shadwick quoted in the article should explain how similar US and Canadian defense needs are to show how relevant total Canadian F-22 needs are to total US F-22 needs? He could start with a nice table doing quantitative comparisons of numbers of countries liberated/attacked without coalition support, while leading coalitions, forward deployed force rotations/yr, etc. He could have another comparison of all the operating locations where each force routinely operates and a nice chart on force posture and density/dispersion far from home, and another on treaty obligations...etc... etc.. Others can think of more, I'm sure.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 05:56
by luke_sandoz
Ironically, if the F-35 needs the Raptor, then other, lesser capable aircraft like a Hornet, Rafale, or Eurofighter would really, really need Raptor support.

The story actually makes the case for the JSF

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 17:16
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:Ironically, if the F-35 needs the Raptor, then other, lesser capable aircraft like a Hornet, Rafale, or Eurofighter would really, really need Raptor support.

The story actually makes the case for the JSF



Potentially horrible for the US Navy too. Why do you need the USAF to protect you? :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:06
by SpudmanWP
Reread and UNDERSTAND the quote from the general again.

The U.S. Air Force is upgrading the F-22, which officers see as essential. Without the upgraded F-22s, “the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant,” Hostage said.


It's all about pushing for upgrades on the F-22.

I wonder how the USN feels about the USAF general saying their F-35B/Cs will ALWAYS be irrelevant since the F-22s will not be there :)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:18
by luke_sandoz
XanderCrews wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Ironically, if the F-35 needs the Raptor, then other, lesser capable aircraft like a Hornet, Rafale, or Eurofighter would really, really need Raptor support.

The story actually makes the case for the JSF



Potentially horrible for the US Navy too. Why do you need the USAF to protect you? :doh:


To say nothing of the Norwegians, Dutch, English, Israelis, Japanese . . .

In the same interview Hostage said:

"Absolutely. I am fighting to the end, I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35 because I truly believe that the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s. If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade."

So if they are irrelevant, why would he fight so hard to keep them?

Or maybe when the full quote is looked at:

"That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be."

it seems more likely Hostage was making a case for the drastic need to upgrade the F-22.

Another drive-by attempt by the same guy who has slagged the F-35 for a long time. Amazing he uses this false comparison:

"The controversy surrounding the F-35 purchase has centred on technical and cost issues, as well as the acquisition process. The Department of National Defence originally claimed the project would cost around $14.7 billion but then-Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page put that price tag at around $29 billion."

Of course he makes it appear to be an apples to apples comparison when it is a false comparison based on different costing time frames and assumptions. Have to figure as the defense expert at that paper he knows this but for some reason he has decided to leave out a critical piece of information to create what can only charitably be considered as a false impression.

Modern journalism in Canada. Channeling his inner Sweetman maybe?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 20:20
by cantaz
I don't really regard Pugliese as a defence expert. There's a difference between occupying a spot intended for an expert and being an expert. His coverage of the F-35 program has shown that he's got more biases than facts in his head.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 22:39
by neptune
...slow news day, nothing new about our neighbors, so....

I feel that it is time for us (F-16, et al.) to start advocating the "re-think" for our northern neighbors (the Canuks) and encourage them to consider purchasing the Dassault Rafale. This would alleviate their F-35 cost issues and I'm certain their brother French company would give them a better price than the US firm. Also, as we are advocates, it would improve our political position with the French, which the US certainly needs.

Another reason would be to mitigate here; discussions, debates and airing "old laundry" for any military aviation issues north of our border. At least they would be fulfilling their national requirements and we would at least have a "5 minute crunch" barrier, should anything happen "Way-Up" North.

Seriously, if they buy anything from us and they have issues, and it will automatically be our fault and the best approach might be to send their 50 or so a/c buys to a more suitable party. At least Dassault could provide proper French and insure their manuals are at least correct in one language, certainly not the Queen's English. The US firm might simply run their documents thru "Google Translate" and call it "Good" enough.

Any further discussions about sharing resources, training, development, etc. can be of more benefit to the US when focused on the technically competent manufacturing countries in the "Far East".

Now is the time to wish them "Adieu et Bon Voyage". :)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 23:22
by XanderCrews
neptune wrote:...slow news day, nothing new about our neighbors, so....

I feel that it is time for us (F-16, et al.) to start advocating the "re-think" for our northern neighbors (the Canuks) and encourage them to consider purchasing the Dassault Rafale. This would alleviate their F-35 cost issues and I'm certain their brother French company would give them a better price than the US firm. Also, as we are advocates, it would improve our political position with the French, which the US certainly needs.

Another reason would be to mitigate here; discussions, debates and airing "old laundry" for any military aviation issues north of our border. At least they would be fulfilling their national requirements and we would at least have a "5 minute crunch" barrier, should anything happen "Way-Up" North.

Seriously, if they buy anything from us and they have issues, and it will automatically be our fault and the best approach might be to send their 50 or so a/c buys to a more suitable party. At least Dassault could provide proper French and insure their manuals are at least correct in one language, certainly not the Queen's English. The US firm might simply run their documents thru "Google Translate" and call it "Good" enough.

Any further discussions about sharing resources, training, development, etc. can be of more benefit to the US when focused on the technically competent manufacturing countries in the "Far East".

Now is the time to wish them "Adieu et Bon Voyage". :)


Making em buy from the french is pretty sadistic...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 01:11
by cantaz
At least Dassault could provide proper French and insure their manuals are at least correct in one language, certainly not the Queen's English.


May you burn in the special part of hell reserved for A-10-preservationists and Sukhoi fanboys. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, Quebec French is pretty corrupted, so France French won't even be correct here.

At least you're not telling us to buy Eurofighter, so you can't be all bad.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 13:14
by enrico
hahhaha tres drole...

Speaking of language, notice anything here?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1269035592

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 23:12
by neptune
enrico wrote:hahhaha tres drole...

Speaking of language, notice anything here?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1269035592


Aviation English?...but on my projects north of the border it is usually required for documentation to be in both French and English with both having grammatical and cultural differences that aren't always caught in the "back check"....and yes both our North Louisiana French and our South Louisiana Cajun have both digressed abit from the Parisienne I heard on my last trip down The Avenue des Champs-Élysées. :)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 23:45
by luke_sandoz
Great comments thread on that CBC story. Scary, funny and desperate all at the same time

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 00:55
by spazsinbad
Here is a comment on the 2 language issues: :devil:


Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 02:45
by delvo
Go home, Romans!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 02:51
by smsgtmac
delvo wrote:Go home, Romans!


Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, "Romanus" !
Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !
Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
[He twists Brian's ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion: How many Romans?
Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Brian: Dative !
[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Brian: Er, "Domum" !
Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your b*lls off.

:cheers: (I thought the same thing)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 02:57
by archeman
Best Thread +1

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 13:46
by luke_sandoz
smsgtmac wrote:
delvo wrote:Go home, Romans!


Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, "Romanus" !
Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !
Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
[He twists Brian's ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion: How many Romans?
Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Brian: Dative !
[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Brian: Er, "Domum" !
Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your b*lls off.

:cheers: (I thought the same thing)



Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh. FLASHBACKS!

10th grade Latin, Father Latraverse, aka Pere Hannibal, demonstrating Centurion sword skills with commentary in Latin.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 20:53
by gtx

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 23:47
by maus92
Not sure about the veracity of this source, but here it is:

Feds to delay F-35 decision until after next federal election
By TIM NAUMETZ |
Published: Wednesday, 03/26/2014 4:21 pm EDT


"PARLIAMENT HILL—The government has delayed its current schedule to sign a contract for an initial delivery of Lockheed-Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets to Canada until after the 2015 federal election year, The Hill Times has learned.

The Public Works Department, while insisting the deadline is “notional” as a special secretariat continues to review expected F-35 capabilities abilities and costs along with three other established fighter jets, confirmed that a U.S. Defence Department office in charge of the F-35 project has changed Canada’s “buy profile” to push back the first delivery of four of the first-strike attack fighters to 2018 from 2017.

The change means an initial “full funding” contract for the 65 planes Canada is still scheduled to acquire over a period of six years would be required in 2016, two years before Lockheed-Martin’s 2018 delivery of the first four planes that would eventually replace Canada’s dwindling and aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets."

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/ ... tion/37978

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 23:52
by cantaz
That's basically everyone's conclusion anyways. The Conservatives are pretty unimaginative.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 04:29
by Corsair1963
gtx wrote:Much better to watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI&sns=em




That's great............. :lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 04:33
by Corsair1963
maus92 wrote:Not sure about the veracity of this source, but here it is:

Feds to delay F-35 decision until after next federal election
By TIM NAUMETZ |
Published: Wednesday, 03/26/2014 4:21 pm EDT


"PARLIAMENT HILL—The government has delayed its current schedule to sign a contract for an initial delivery of Lockheed-Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets to Canada until after the 2015 federal election year, The Hill Times has learned.

The Public Works Department, while insisting the deadline is “notional” as a special secretariat continues to review expected F-35 capabilities abilities and costs along with three other established fighter jets, confirmed that a U.S. Defence Department office in charge of the F-35 project has changed Canada’s “buy profile” to push back the first delivery of four of the first-strike attack fighters to 2018 from 2017.

The change means an initial “full funding” contract for the 65 planes Canada is still scheduled to acquire over a period of six years would be required in 2016, two years before Lockheed-Martin’s 2018 delivery of the first four planes that would eventually replace Canada’s dwindling and aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets."

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/ ... tion/37978



Funny, politics is the same the world around. You bet in the end Canada will in fact purchase the F-35A. Then years from now some will look back and wonder what all the controversy was all about. :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 22:07
by gtx
Yep, they definitely will. It will just be later than preferred by their Air Force. Of course that won't shut the naysayers up...they will bitch and moan about it for decades ...right up to the point when the F-35s are due to be retired and then they will complain that nothing will be as good as the F-35.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 00:53
by hb_pencil
cantaz wrote:That's basically everyone's conclusion anyways. The Conservatives are pretty unimaginative.


No decision has been made thus far. Basically Canada had to move their purchase back because of our delay. We'll know in a couple of months what the actual decision will be.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 01:12
by alloycowboy
There is no rush for the Canadian government to order the F-35 because of the software and flight test delays. In fact the longer they hold out the better they can squeeze Lockheed Martin and the US Government for a better price. Ideally we want to purchase on a US presidential election year.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 19:30
by gtx
alloycowboy wrote:In fact the longer they hold out the better they can squeeze Lockheed Martin and the US Government for a better price.


Less of an issue with this platform especially if you are already a partner. Mind you, sliding will reduce the prices since they are dropping the further out you go. One has to balance this against the higher price of maintaining the existing platforms though. In Australia's case the cost to extend the classic Hornets beyond the dates currently set is simply to excessive. I would expect that Canada's Classic Hornets would be in a very similar situation.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 01:16
by XanderCrews

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 01:33
by coldman
XanderCrews wrote:http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/04/its-time-for-the-rcaf-to-buy-used-u-s-a-10-warthogs/


click for lulz

Wait what!?

At least some of the complaints of the JSF are valid, but any shortcomings in that platform would pale in comparison to the deficiencies of the A-10. Canada simply does not have the resources to field more than one fighter, and the A-10 is perhaps the worst fighter they could possibly pick.

Ah, who am I kidding? Logic has no place in the mind of most Canadian armchair generals.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 12:04
by XanderCrews
coldman wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/04/its-time-for-the-rcaf-to-buy-used-u-s-a-10-warthogs/


click for lulz

Wait what!?

At least some of the complaints of the JSF are valid, but any shortcomings in that platform would pale in comparison to the deficiencies of the A-10. Canada simply does not have the resources to field more than one fighter, and the A-10 is perhaps the worst fighter they could possibly pick.

Ah, who am I kidding? Logic has no place in the mind of most Canadian armchair generals.


Isn't that the truth, I like that the author clarifies in the comments that this is in response to General Hostages comments on needed an upgraded F-22, (which made it sound like the F-35 was insufficient in air to air combat) the answer to inferior air 2 air is buy A-10s of course. LOL

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 15:17
by basher54321
Impressive justification of the A-10s Multi Role capability - CAS, CSAR, FAC(A) - oh and um just keep and upgrade the legacy Hornet fleet for all the other missions - saving us money by having to set up the infrastructure to support another jet.

May as well just keep the CF-188s - sell them a few pave claws so they can have the all important (not) 30mm gun - after all they would still have 2 engines!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 21:23
by pushoksti
I'm really starting to think that Canadian journalists are complete idiots. Seriously. Do they even research the topic they write about or do they just like hearing themselves talk? (or type in this case) Why don't those morons stay in their lane and stop pretending to be some sort of experts because they write a crappy useless blog for some pathetic newspaper?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 23:54
by delvo
The comments section illustrate how spectacularly stupid Hostage was when he said F-35 was irrelevant without F-22. Everybody who's been paying any attention to actual tactical aircraft development at all knows it was just plain flat-out FALSE, and that includes Hostage himself. But now that he's said it, he's given the anti-F-35 crowd something to bleat and crow on and on and on and on with forever, so it will simply NEVER stop being trotted out and paraded around on pages like that one. He can spend the rest of his life trying to back out of that absurd statement and issuing others that go the opposite way, and it will make no difference.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2014, 08:19
by coldman
delvo wrote:The comments section illustrate how spectacularly stupid Hostage was when he said F-35 was irrelevant without F-22. Everybody who's been paying any attention to actual tactical aircraft development at all knows it was just plain flat-out FALSE, and that includes Hostage himself. But now that he's said it, he's given the anti-F-35 crowd something to bleat and crow on and on and on and on with forever, so it will simply NEVER stop being trotted out and paraded around on pages like that one. He can spend the rest of his life trying to back out of that absurd statement and issuing others that go the opposite way, and it will make no difference.

On the contrary I feel as if he was being quite smart.

If he had come out and just said that the F-35 alone is more than capable of handling itself in the air (as the multitudes of partner, and non partner nations have found), then some congressman would logically begin questioning why we should bother keeping the F-22 around. By taking a cheap shot at a program he knows has a snowballs chance in hell of being cancelled, he might have just kept the F-22 alive for just that much longer.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2014, 17:22
by XanderCrews
coldman wrote:
delvo wrote:The comments section illustrate how spectacularly stupid Hostage was when he said F-35 was irrelevant without F-22. Everybody who's been paying any attention to actual tactical aircraft development at all knows it was just plain flat-out FALSE, and that includes Hostage himself. But now that he's said it, he's given the anti-F-35 crowd something to bleat and crow on and on and on and on with forever, so it will simply NEVER stop being trotted out and paraded around on pages like that one. He can spend the rest of his life trying to back out of that absurd statement and issuing others that go the opposite way, and it will make no difference.

On the contrary I feel as if he was being quite smart.

If he had come out and just said that the F-35 alone is more than capable of handling itself in the air (as the multitudes of partner, and non partner nations have found), then some congressman would logically begin questioning why we should bother keeping the F-22 around. By taking a cheap shot at a program he knows has a snowballs chance in hell of being cancelled, he might have just kept the F-22 alive for just that much longer.


We all know why he said.

People in the know with the F-35, like governments and their personnel who are involved in the F-35 program know its very capable in air to air even without the F-22.

The people who have locked onto his words, without explaining it, especially those in countries where the F-35 may be on the borderline and is a hot political topic is a giant pain in the a$$. There has been talk about doing a competition in Canada for example this could be a move to appease an unhappy public. What makes the public unhappy? comments like Hostages. His comments have been most repeated in Canadian articles.

It was narrow-minded. And it seems like every general or admiral out there gets to learn the hard way that if they say 99.9 percent positive things about the JSF, the press will lock onto and beat into the ground the .1 percent where they MIGHT have actually MAYBE meant something negative.

I would have much rather him kept the F-22 comment to himself save for when its time to actually talk F-22 upgrades with people who have the ability to give him the funding. All he has done now is spark controversy

It just goes to show that there is a double standard with JSF reporting. If the CNO hints that stealth may be obsolete its SPUN into a shot at the F-35. If the General makes the political move to sell the upgraded F-22 because the JSF can't do it all. Then it is not spun at all. No one bothered to examine the context on that one or why an F-22 pilot would say such a thing...

He could have sold it a better way.

so on one hand it probably doesn't matter. OTOH, as delvo said it could have consequences and at the least has planted a seed of doubt that may not subside for a long time, possibly even after a kill in the air.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2014, 08:31
by popcorn
If you think Canadian journalists are bad, here's what a former, Deputy of National Defence has to say re the need for fighters.. there isn't any.
Helos and drones will,suffice and so lo n g as they have a bright Canadian Maple Leaf pasted on the fuselage, that will assure protection of Canadian sovereignty. HAHAHAHAHAHA..

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Ca ... story.html

Canada doesn’t need fighter-capable aircraft

Canada does not need fighter capability to protect sovereignty, for minor armed conflicts, or for conflicts between major powers.

Canada’s greatest threat would be a terrorist copycat 9/11 using either a drone or an aircraft. Fighters, unless in the vicinity of the target, could not protect against this threat.

The sovereignty of Canada’s airspace can be affirmed by any aerial vehicle carrying an official logo of Canada. A non-credible event of a rogue Russian scouting aircraft actually entering Canada’s airspace would be addressed by a diplomatic response.

Minor armed conflicts involving Canada probably would not include aerial combat but, more likely, would require support of ground operations by armed helicopters and/or aircraft specialized for that role...

Lots more LOL...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2014, 09:08
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:If you think Canadian journalists are bad, here's what a former, Deputy of National Defence has to say re the need for fighters.. there isn't any.
Helos and drones will,suffice and so lo n g as they have a bright Canadian Maple Leaf pasted on the fuselage, that will assure protection of Canadian sovereignty. HAHAHAHAHAHA..

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Ca ... story.html

Canada doesn’t need fighter-capable aircraft

Canada does not need fighter capability to protect sovereignty, for minor armed conflicts, or for conflicts between major powers.

Canada’s greatest threat would be a terrorist copycat 9/11 using either a drone or an aircraft. Fighters, unless in the vicinity of the target, could not protect against this threat.

The sovereignty of Canada’s airspace can be affirmed by any aerial vehicle carrying an official logo of Canada. A non-credible event of a rogue Russian scouting aircraft actually entering Canada’s airspace would be addressed by a diplomatic response.

Minor armed conflicts involving Canada probably would not include aerial combat but, more likely, would require support of ground operations by armed helicopters and/or aircraft specialized for that role...

Lots more LOL...



To think that Canada had such a strong and proud Military. Now see with a Liberal Government can do for you.... :bang:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2014, 09:13
by spazsinbad
Canada would then be copying New Zealand - no fighters and helo pilots who think they are jet jocks! :devil:


Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2014, 15:14
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Canada would then be copying New Zealand - no fighters and helo pilots who think they are jet jocks! :devil:




I never get tired of that song. LOL

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 05:13
by popcorn
Given the limited number of F-22s, it would seem the F-35 is needed so ensure the F-22 remains relevant. :devil:


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ology.aspx

As an example of a system that will have to adapt to a new mission, he cited the F-35.

“The F-22 buy was truncated,” Welsh said. “Good or bad, it doesn’t matter at this point,” but “we don’t have enough F-22s to provide air superiority for a theater’s worth of conflict.” Therefore, the F-35 will have to fulfill some of the air superiority mission “before it goes and does the things it was supposed to be designed to do. It’s just the way it is.”

James told reporters in a press conference later that she and Welsh have high confidence the F-35 will deliver the expected capability, and Welsh said he fully expects it will achieve the planned initial operational capability date in 2016.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 05:29
by spazsinbad
Nice to know eh. :devil: As if all the countries buying the F-35 without the F-22 did not know this. :doh: Good of the WELSHINGHOSTAGE to say so though. :roll: GetYurPDF of the 6 page article here:
Low Budgets, High Technology By John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor AIR FORCE Magazine / April 2014

"Declining Air Force budgets mean the service must consciously trade capacity for capability....

...James told reporters in a press conference later that she and Welsh have high confidence the F-35 will deliver the expected capability, and Welsh said he fully expects it will achieve the planned initial operational capability date in 2016.

The F-35 has had teething problems, but these are typical of “leap-ahead” technologies, which the F-35 represents, James said. “A certain amount of this is to be expected,” she observed, but she reiterated program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan’s mantra that “there’s no more time, there’s no more money” to get the F-35 up to snuff, and the aircraft will have to be “produced on time.”

Welsh said he trusts the opinions of hard-nosed test pilots and those in the initial training cadres who’ve said of the designers: “They got the airplane right.” The “way it flies, the way it handles. ... They like [it]. ... Every guy I’ve talked to who’s flown the airplane will tell you the same thing.”

He told reporters that the concerns on the F-35—particularly on the maintenance side—are “the same kinds” the service had with the F-22, F-16, and A-10, and those all were resolved. The key now is to bring an operations mentality to flying operations, rather than a test-flight mentality, “which is very, very different.”

“You’ve got to be able to have predictable turn rates”—the time it takes to service and ready the aircraft to fly again. “You’ve got to be able to fix airplanes within a certain time limit.” F-35 operations at Eglin AFB, Fla., are now tracked this way, he said....

...Welsh later told reporters that the data links are a key investment and his goal is “to make sure everything we can connect into is easily ‘connectable-to,’ if that makes sense.” It will be critical for all USAF systems to be able to talk to each other—and connect with the other services. AirSea Battle, he said, is “about extending ranges” and thus being able to take advantage of data from forward deployed Navy sensors on ships, aircraft, and submarines, and vice versa...."

SOURCE: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... nology.pdf (0.9Mb)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 07:18
by popcorn
The silver lining to the truncated Raptor fleet is going to be a more potent F-35 in the A2A arena.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... 4best.aspx

Smaller But Still the Best

The Air Force is shedding aircraft and personnel in an attempt to preserve its potency and readiness as a global force. At the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla., in February, USAF leadership laid the groundwork for what this will mean and cautioned that the service must undergo deep changes to adapt to a new postwar footing...

Change is already taking place in many mission sets. The end of F-22 production meant the F-35 is now being adapted to perform air superiority missions, and this involves improving weapons and sensors.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 20:21
by zerion
How much will this affect the price?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... efore-2018

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 02:24
by cantaz
Per unit cost will go down for Canada and concurrency cost will disappear, but total program cost will increase as the entire service life is shifted a couple years into the future, assuming inflation does its thing. I.e. instead of the last F-35 ending its service in 2046, it ends it in 2048 and consequently suffers 2 extra years of whatever future inflation.

Also, it means dealing with the extra costs of operating the old Hornets a little longer.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 03:54
by XanderCrews
This means game over for the Super Bug.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 05:42
by gtx
It could also mak it interesting for anything other than the F-35 to win regardless of capability. Will any of the likely rivals (Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen) still be in production then if they don't pick up an order between now and then?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 06:58
by coldman
gtx wrote:It could also mak it interesting for anything other than the F-35 to win regardless of capability. Will any of the likely rivals (Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen) still be in production then if they don't pick up an order between now and then?

The only one that might not make the cut is the shornet. All of the Eurocanards have orders that will keep their respective lines alive until 2018. And honestly, I'd be surprised if the f-18 was not around for the Canadian competition. The navy has made it clear that they want more gowlers, and even if they don't get them my money is on boeing keeping the line alive out of their own pocket with the hopes of winning big in Canada.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 07:54
by Corsair1963
coldman wrote:
gtx wrote:It could also mak it interesting for anything other than the F-35 to win regardless of capability. Will any of the likely rivals (Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen) still be in production then if they don't pick up an order between now and then?

The only one that might not make the cut is the shornet. All of the Eurocanards have orders that will keep their respective lines alive until 2018. And honestly, I'd be surprised if the f-18 was not around for the Canadian competition. The navy has made it clear that they want more gowlers, and even if they don't get them my money is on boeing keeping the line alive out of their own pocket with the hopes of winning big in Canada.




Canada isn't going to the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, or Gripen. In the end it will get F-35A's as planned...... :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 08:32
by gtx
Corsair1963 wrote:Canada isn't going to the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, or Gripen. In the end it will get F-35A's as planned...... :doh:


I agree.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 11:46
by lookieloo
coldman wrote:
gtx wrote:It could also mak it interesting for anything other than the F-35 to win regardless of capability. Will any of the likely rivals (Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen) still be in production then if they don't pick up an order between now and then?

The only one that might not make the cut is the shornet. All of the Eurocanards have orders that will keep their respective lines alive until 2018. And honestly, I'd be surprised if the f-18 was not around for the Canadian competition. The navy has made it clear that they want more gowlers, and even if they don't get them my money is on boeing keeping the line alive out of their own pocket with the hopes of winning big in Canada.
One does not build white-tail fighter jets... period.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 15:09
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:One does not build white-tail fighter jets... period.


Agreed. That is an awful lot of money to spend on "hope" especially when Canada hasn't officially withdrawn from the JSF.

I do think they will get F-35s in the end, I think only the most enthusiastic anti F-35/eurocarnard fanboy thinks that anything else will happen.

2018 will be on the eve of the JSFs FRP as well, it will be about 400 total (?) LRIP JSFs in service and in process of being built too. with As and Bs a few years on from IOC. The writing will be on the wall at that point. And it will still have issues and problems that come up, but by then we are talking about glowing reports from deployments and red flags :mrgreen:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 19:35
by gtx
coldman wrote:All of the Eurocanards have orders that will keep their respective lines alive until 2018.


Not so sure there:

Rafale - would only be in production in India…if they ever get it sorted out. Or if Dassault somehow pics up another order from France.
Typhoon - not sure, but surely it would be winding up by then
Gripen - yeah, probably for Brazil…though surely one of the arguments they use against F-35 (that of single engine) also should count against the Gripen. :wink:

Besides, any of the industrial packages any of these could offer for Canada pales into insignificance against that for the F-35. And I still contend that this aspect will be very high in the minds of any Govt decision.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 06:16
by Corsair1963
Just politics.....Canada will hold off until after the next election in 2015. Plus, by that time the F-35 Program will have matured even more and the price will decrease more. Making any F-35 buy far more attractive.


Remember, Canada is a JSF Partner so Industry supports it along with the RCAF. (strong proponent)



Canada will get the F-35..... 8)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2014, 05:57
by spazsinbad
RAH RAH for CANADAH!

F-35 facts VIDEO INTERVIEW 7.5mins 09 Apr 2014

"Stephen O'Bryan of Lockheed Martin explains why F-35s are the best fighter jets for Canada's military."

SOURCE: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat ... 9577193001

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2014, 06:12
by Corsair1963
Yeah, anybody that thinks Canada is going to give away billions on dollars in contacts to other countries for decades to come is CRAZY! :roll:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2014, 12:08
by cantaz
We've done some pretty dumb stuff. I'm not holding my breath until I touch the jet.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2014, 16:39
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:We've done some pretty dumb stuff. I'm not holding my breath until I touch the jet.



Here is hoping there is no public paper tearing...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 04:52
by maus92
Canadian report allegedly noted a 26% increase in fuel consumption when compared to CF-18s, but the reference was dropped (as well as other issues it seems) in the final report release:

Final report on F-35 dropped references to fuel, IT problems
Postmedia News April 13, 2014

"OTTAWA — A Defence Department report billed as the first step in a more open, transparent era for the F-35 project initially listed many of the stealth fighter’s problems – such as issues around fuel efficiency and software development – but those sections were removed in the final version...."

"...But the Citizen has obtained more than a dozen earlier drafts of the report showing defence officials had originally laid out many of the issues surrounding the F-35’s development, and their potential impact on Canada..."

"Fuel Consumption: The F-35 consumes 26-per-cent more fuel than Canada’s current jet fighter, the CF-18. Public Works and National Defence did not respond to questions last week about why the stealth fighter uses so much more fuel than the CF-18s, which were designed in the 1970s. Rising fuel costs are a concern for militaries around the world, particularly when it comes to aircraft. The Royal Canadian Air Force has said it plans to fly the F-35s about 20-per-cent less per year than the CF-18s to keep costs down, making up the difference with simulators..."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/nation ... z2ypTQM1GQ

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 08:15
by spazsinbad
What would be the benchmark for fuel usage? Is it flying hours so that compared to a Hornet per flying hour the F-35A will use more fuel?

Anyway this last part about the helmet left off the report is bleeding obvious. Why: to those who follow the helmet issues. I guess Canuckian Reporters do not:
"...Helmet Development: A state-of-the-art helmet is essential for pilots to fly the F-35 safely and in a way that maximizes its full potential. However, the helmet’s development has been a serious problem for years. Defence officials acknowledged this in early versions of the report, describing it as a “high risk,” and noting an alternate helmet was being designed and could be used as a “stop gap until the primary helmet is ready.” There is no mention of helmets in the final version."


IF in Doubt read this long thread. Go backwards to the parts where the alternate helmet development was discontinued and peruse statements that the present HMDS II is OK enough whilst the HMDS III will be super dandy. But youse knew that. Roight? :doh: The HMDS II is OK enough for even the USAF to fly at night (poor dears). :mrgreen: I would fly with NOT helmet (or a paper bag over me head as one wag put it). :twisted:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=269077#p269077

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 17:09
by XanderCrews
F-18 Internal Fuel: 10,860 lb (4,926 kg)

F-35A Internal Fuel: 18,200 lb (8,272 kg)

Its the apocalypse alright.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 17:56
by luke_sandoz
XanderCrews wrote:F-18 Internal Fuel: 10,860 lb (4,926 kg)

F-35A Internal Fuel: 18,200 lb (8,272 kg)

Its the apocalypse alright.


Anyone have the data on the actual fuel burn rates (lbs/hr??) for the F-35 vs F-18/CF-18?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 19:42
by gtx

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 19:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
it depends greatly on load, weight, speed, and altitude. The ONLY fuel flow data point AFAIK for the F-35 is 4600pph at Max End and 32,000ft with a 2500lb payload. Fuel flow data for an F-16 at 20,000 ft and Max end ranges from 1670pph clean and empty to 4200pph in a heavy and high-drag configuration. Not a CF-18, but it is the data I have handy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 20:09
by luke_sandoz
F404 dry thrust output is 11,000lb. Times 2 = 22,000 pounds thrust for an F-18 classic Hornet

F135 dry thrust output is 28,000 pounds thrust. Pretty close to a 26% increase in thrust might be convoluted into the report in the newspaper.

Maybe. . .

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 20:26
by sprstdlyscottsmn
luke_sandoz wrote:F404 dry thrust output is 11,000lb. Times 2 = 22,000 pounds thrust for an F-18 classic Hornet

F135 dry thrust output is 28,000 pounds thrust. Pretty close to a 26% increase in thrust might be convoluted into the report in the newspaper.

Maybe. . .


If one makes the assumptian that aircraft are run at full Mil all the time, sure. There could be worse ways to make a guess.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 20:34
by hb_pencil
Decision will come in May if the schedule holds. The view among "interested parties" is that the secretariat report endorsed the F-35 over the other competitors. Nevertheless the decision might still be pushed back till 2016. Also,The liberal party's tune on these matters has changed significantly, likely because of Andrew Leslie's influence. They had backed off on criticizing the purchase, but have recently made moves to do so again.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 23:54
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:F-18 Internal Fuel: 10,860 lb (4,926 kg)

F-35A Internal Fuel: 18,200 lb (8,272 kg)

Its the apocalypse alright.


Anyone have the data on the actual fuel burn rates (lbs/hr??) for the F-35 vs F-18/CF-18?


It may not even be that precise are we really looking at "miles per gallon"or is it just a end of the year total? There isn't much info to go on, and may have zip to do with range or fuel efficiency. Maybe the RCAF should always just fill it 3/4 full? :D

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 00:11
by popcorn
Canada cannot be oblivious to the potential for confrontation in the Arctic with an increasingly aggressive and ambitious Russia who are only too willing to use force to coerce others to it's will. I would think this will influence and reinforce the RCAF preference for the superior capabilities inherent in the F-35.,Seamless integration with treaty allies will be possible as never before.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 06:06
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:Canada cannot be oblivious to the potential for confrontation in the Arctic with an increasingly aggressive and ambitious Russia who are only too willing to use force to coerce others to it's will. I would think this will influence and reinforce the RCAF preference for the superior capabilities inherent in the F-35.,Seamless integration with treaty allies will be possible as never before.




Which, the F-35 will provide just that. As a matter of fact on a level never seen before! :twisted:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 06:08
by Corsair1963
luke_sandoz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:F-18 Internal Fuel: 10,860 lb (4,926 kg)

F-35A Internal Fuel: 18,200 lb (8,272 kg)

Its the apocalypse alright.


Anyone have the data on the actual fuel burn rates (lbs/hr??) for the F-35 vs F-18/CF-18?




Also, don't forget 2- F414's vs a single F135. :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 06:28
by XanderCrews
F-35A has an 80 percent increase in internal fuel weight but only has a 26 percent price increase?

helluva good deal.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 13:39
by luke_sandoz
Corsair1963 wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:F-18 Internal Fuel: 10,860 lb (4,926 kg)

F-35A Internal Fuel: 18,200 lb (8,272 kg)

Its the apocalypse alright.


Anyone have the data on the actual fuel burn rates (lbs/hr??) for the F-35 vs F-18/CF-18?




Also, don't forget 2- F414's vs a single F135. :wink:


Think they are F404s. Canada flies classic Hornets.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 15:43
by maus92
If fuel combustion is to be a major factor driving the Canadian selection, then the Gripen has a distinct advantage if a competition is mandated. Being on record as not a fan of any single engine manned tactical aircraft that routinely operates over vast wastelands and oceans, Gripen possess an attractive set of capabilities better suited for Denmark than Canada.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 19:29
by gtx
Don't forget that two engines = twice as much maintenance and twice as great a chance for things to go wrong.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 20:13
by cantaz
If fuel combustion is to be a major factor driving the Canadian selection, then the Gripen has a distinct advantage if a competition is mandated.


If fuel consumption is a big enough issue to force us to choose the Gripen, we should get out of the fighter business all together. "Marginally better than our R2 Hornets" simply won't cut it for 30 years.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 21:55
by sprstdlyscottsmn
cantaz wrote:
If fuel combustion is to be a major factor driving the Canadian selection, then the Gripen has a distinct advantage if a competition is mandated.


If fuel consumption is a big enough issue to force us to choose the Gripen, we should get out of the fighter business all together. "Marginally better than our R2 Hornets" simply won't cut it for 30 years.

:lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2014, 23:13
by luke_sandoz
Related question - has Canada decided on the A2A refueling system they will use? Assuming they procure the JSF, they are in line for the A model, but somewhere awhile back there was discussion about being able to fit a Probe on the A model so they could use current refueling assets.

Might be very indicative of RCAF procurement dreams for a modern MRTT aircraft.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2014, 23:47
by cantaz
No official word, but the notion that we should get the refuel probe seem to have come from the false experts and the media, forcing an official response that the CF-355 can have either if it's really that big a deal. Which it isn't.

Ultimately, we can standardize all our A2A refuelling by going with the boom on the Lightning, given that our Hercs and Globemasters already use the boom. The only people pushing for a probe on the Lightning are people ignorant of that basic fact.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2014, 03:42
by pushoksti
Along with that, we get most of our airborne refuelling from the USAF anyway.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2014, 03:47
by hb_pencil
cantaz wrote:No official word, but the notion that we should get the refuel probe seem to have come from the false experts and the media, forcing an official response that the CF-355 can have either if it's really that big a deal. Which it isn't.

Ultimately, we can standardize all our A2A refuelling by going with the boom on the Lightning, given that our Hercs and Globemasters already use the boom. The only people pushing for a probe on the Lightning are people ignorant of that basic fact.


No, its official as of last year, the RCAF won't be getting a fuel probe.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2014, 07:13
by lookieloo
cantaz wrote:No official word, but the notion that we should get the refuel probe seem to have come from the false experts and the media, forcing an official response that the CF-355 can have either if it's really that big a deal. Which it isn't.

Ultimately, we can standardize all our A2A refuelling by going with the boom on the Lightning, given that our Hercs and Globemasters already use the boom. The only people pushing for a probe on the Lightning are people ignorant of that basic fact.
Some KC-10s with a lot of life left may be coming available soon at firesale prices. Something to think about...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2014, 00:20
by luke_sandoz
lookieloo wrote:
cantaz wrote:No official word, but the notion that we should get the refuel probe seem to have come from the false experts and the media, forcing an official response that the CF-355 can have either if it's really that big a deal. Which it isn't.

Ultimately, we can standardize all our A2A refuelling by going with the boom on the Lightning, given that our Hercs and Globemasters already use the boom. The only people pushing for a probe on the Lightning are people ignorant of that basic fact.
Some KC-10s with a lot of life left may be coming available soon at firesale prices. Something to think about...


Or when the current A310 based pseudo fleet of sorta MRTTS wears out in a few years, a couple or five KC-46 would be a nice fleet.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2014, 09:26
by thepointblank
Being advised that the senior bureaucrats in Ottawa have completed their report with the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. It seems that the report is telling the government that F-35 is still the best contender unless the requirements are drastically changed, and even then, there exists a very strong possibility F-35 will be picked. Any competition with the technical and financial data obtained by the government, would lead to the selection of the same aircraft.

So yeah, either continue as originally planned (sole sourced), or run a competition and pick exactly the same aircraft as you were planning to sole source. Did anyone expect anything else? :roll:

luke_sandoz wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
cantaz wrote:No official word, but the notion that we should get the refuel probe seem to have come from the false experts and the media, forcing an official response that the CF-355 can have either if it's really that big a deal. Which it isn't.

Ultimately, we can standardize all our A2A refuelling by going with the boom on the Lightning, given that our Hercs and Globemasters already use the boom. The only people pushing for a probe on the Lightning are people ignorant of that basic fact.
Some KC-10s with a lot of life left may be coming available soon at firesale prices. Something to think about...


Or when the current A310 based pseudo fleet of sorta MRTTS wears out in a few years, a couple or five KC-46 would be a nice fleet.


Or when Airbus ends support for the A310... which is coming up in less than a decade. The CC-150's are very lightly used, and are low time aircraft.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2014, 19:20
by gtx
thepointblank wrote:So yeah, either continue as originally planned (sole sourced), or run a competition and pick exactly the same aircraft as you were planning to sole source. Did anyone expect anything else? :roll:


Nope. If they run a contest it will simply be a very expensive way to placate the uninformed masses…money that I am sure could be better spent on other things.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2014, 22:55
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
thepointblank wrote:So yeah, either continue as originally planned (sole sourced), or run a competition and pick exactly the same aircraft as you were planning to sole source. Did anyone expect anything else? :roll:


Nope. If they run a contest it will simply be a very expensive way to placate the uninformed masses…money that I am sure could be better spent on other things.


They would just say its rigged and rife with bribery as usual.

No offense Canada, but I think Korea will be my favorite JSF competition. When the F-15SE "won" and everyone couldn't wait to defend Korea's brilliant decision and how their judgement was pure and the right thing, only to have the F-35 actually win was just too good. That would be hard to top, so heres hoping the Canadains don't have their money wasted.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2014, 19:54
by gtx
Korea was funny because of the constant declarations by Slowman...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 03:40
by popcorn
It's usually a good idea to buy the best insurance that you can afford. Same should apply to one's air force. Never know when Putin will decide that he has to protect the Inuit whose ancestors migrated to Canada from Siberia. Or maybe he decides to take Santa hostage and annex the North Pole, both claimed by Canada. :D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e18063309/

F-35 remains top military replacement option

Ottawa is considering two main options for its plans to commit $45-billion to controversial new fighter jets – and both point back to the Lockheed-Martin F35 as the clear front-runner, sources said...Government and outside sources said the process is nearing completion, and the government is facing two main options: continue with its sole-source plans to buy a fleet of 65 F-35 Lighting IIs, or launch a competition that, based on technical and financial data obtained by the government, would lead to the selection of the same aircraft.

A third option would entail starting over – including rewriting the government’s specs – but the process would take years and is facing resistance from the Canadian Forces.

Ottawa announced on Thursday that it is sending six CF-18s to be based in Poland, as part of NATO’s response to growing tensions in neighbouring Ukraine. The F-35 is more modern and offers greater stealth capabilities than its rivals in the race to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18s, and is seen as outperforming them in the most dangerous types of wartime operations, sources said.

Still, the government will consider simply returning to the F-35 purchase, as first announced in 2010. A senior government source added that the second option – a competition based on the current Statement of Requirements (SoR) – would “automatically lead to F-35.”

In addition to rewriting the SoR, the government could also decide to purchase a mixed fleet of fighter jets – most likely made up of SuperHornets and F-35s. However, there is opposition to the proposal in government, especially the RCAF, sources said...
In the long term, however, the F-35 is seen as the safest choice. The feeling inside the government is that of the main contenders, the F-35 offers the greatest options over the coming decades to remain technologically up to date, with a number of other countries committed to investing in future upgrades.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 16:51
by luke_sandoz
Oh oh . . . this guy has a big bug up his butt about the F-35. Too bad he doesn't have any brain cells in his head.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... he-cf-18s/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 21:33
by cantaz
I don't know why I clicked on that, now I want to throw up.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 21:36
by luke_sandoz
cantaz wrote:I don't know why I clicked on that, now I want to throw up.



the comments are a riot - one or two against the illiterate mob.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 21:52
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:Oh oh . . . this guy has a big bug up his butt about the F-35. Too bad he doesn't have any brain cells in his head.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... he-cf-18s/


IOHSj.gif

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 00:30
by spazsinbad
NOPE (Leslie) - Parks & Recreation is a great show - DOAN chuck the TV RON! [Ron does not GROK hitech -if it ain't made of meat or solid gold he ain't buyin'] :doh: :devil: :mrgreen: Canada - get with it. Ron would BIN this report - useless. :drool:

Conservatives vow to speed release of report on CF-18 replacement 28 Apr 2014 Daniel Leblanc & Steven Chase OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

"Ottawa is relenting to external pressure and now promising to speed up the release of a “public report” on the fighter jets pegged to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18s.

The document, which has been put together for widespread release, lists the risks and benefits of the four fighter jets that were involved in an “options analysis” overseen by the Canadian Forces....

...The government said that the public report will only provide “non-classified and non-commercially restricted information.”

Sources inside and outside government added that the report does not allow for a point-by-point comparison of the four aircraft in the running, but rather describes the risks to the Canadian Forces and taxpayers of the various options.

Sources said the F-35, which is still under development, is performing strongly in terms of its ability to participate in overseas war missions, and its capacity to be modernized over its entire lifecycle. The fighter jet is the newest of the four fighter jets and, with a number of other countries involved in the program, stands to be the one that offers the best access to cheap parts and upgrades in coming decades.

The SuperHornet, sources added, is performing more strongly than its rivals in terms of cost certainty in the short term, including the maintenance budget that is well-known as the aircraft is already in operation. Still, there are questions inside the government about the availability of SuperHornets in coming decades, if new jets are ever needed, given that the production line could be shut down over the next few years."

SOURCE: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e18316359/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 02:29
by geogen
popcorn wrote:It's usually a good idea to buy the best insurance that you can afford. Same should apply to one's air force. Never know when Putin will decide that he has to protect the Inuit whose ancestors migrated to Canada from Siberia. Or maybe he decides to take Santa hostage and annex the North Pole, both claimed by Canada. :D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e18063309/

F-35 remains top military replacement option

Ottawa is considering two main options for its plans to commit $45-billion to controversial new fighter jets – and both point back to the Lockheed-Martin F35 as the clear front-runner, sources said...Government and outside sources said the process is nearing completion, and the government is facing two main options: continue with its sole-source plans to buy a fleet of 65 F-35 Lighting IIs, or launch a competition that, based on technical and financial data obtained by the government, would lead to the selection of the same aircraft....

In the long term, however, the F-35 is seen as the safest choice. The feeling inside the government is that of the main contenders, the F-35 offers the greatest options over the coming decades to remain technologically up to date, with a number of other countries committed to investing in future upgrades.



Hey, Popcorn, I'm going to have to disagree with you again on these recurring sets of issues.

First off, no offense but you seem to be all over the place on the above post. You start off trying to make some rather poor humor about Putin someday threatening to 'invade' in military defense of Inuit peoples. Please, don't even encourage that in the first place by joking! Hello!?! Regardless, humbly speaking... the Inuit themselves were indeed colonists from 1,000+ BC (just as were European Colonists) to North America, displacing and conquering the aboriginal natives previously known as the Dorset peoples (or Tuniit to them). And no, they (Inuit) weren't 'Russian-speaking' (or culturally Russian, or politically aligned, etc) either, as they had migrated/colonized from Siberia many centuries before Siberia was conquered by Russia.

That said, your premise statement seems to pose the following: "What is the best, most cost-effective way Canada should recapitalize and modernize RCAF's TACAIR force structure mix, once the CF-18 is finally retired".

Anyway, to keep it short and concise, let's just say the entire RCAF/CA Gov CF-18 recap drama/estimates/plans have been in constant revision (due to F-35 risks, flaws and uncertainties) since day 1. To make any assertion that today's current 'certainty' that Canadian Gov will be buying 65 F-35s (which currently offer very limited deterrence and flexible capability btw, out to block 4 IOC, or around 2023), as their best and most cost-effective TACAIR 'mix', is certain only to see more significant revision.

Yep, we'll just wait yet another year (unfortunately) and then one can be a little more confident how much more 'set back' RCAF/CA gov will find itself, vis-a-vis today's current 'assumptions' and expectations.

No doubt, USAF will have Canada's back during the gap -- as long as it takes -- just as RCAF has had US's back when security gaps happen over Alaska... Highest respects to RCAF history, personnel and to RCAF contributions to world security around the world.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 04:19
by XanderCrews
First off, no offense but you seem to be all over the place on the above post. You start off trying to make some rather poor humor about Putin someday threatening to 'invade' in military defense of Inuit peoples. Please, don't even encourage that in the first place by joking! Hello!?! Regardless, humbly speaking... the Inuit themselves were indeed colonists from 1,000+ BC (just as were European Colonists) to North America, displacing and conquering the aboriginal natives previously known as the Dorset peoples (or Tuniit to them). And no, they (Inuit) weren't 'Russian-speaking' (or culturally Russian, or politically aligned, etc) either, as they had migrated/colonized from Siberia many centuries before Siberia was conquered by Russia.


yes and popcorn is all over the place...

That said, your premise statement seems to pose the following: "What is the best, most cost-effective way Canada should recapitalize and modernize RCAF's TACAIR force structure mix, once the CF-18 is finally retired".


Its kind of already been answered by the Canadians...

F-35 remains top military replacement option

Ottawa is considering two main options for its plans to commit $45-billion to controversial new fighter jets – and both point back to the Lockheed-Martin F35 as the clear front-runner, sources said...Government and outside sources said the process is nearing completion, and the government is facing two main options: continue with its sole-source plans to buy a fleet of 65 F-35 Lighting IIs, or launch a competition that, based on technical and financial data obtained by the government, would lead to the selection of the same aircraft....

In the long term, however, the F-35 is seen as the safest choice. The feeling inside the government is that of the main contenders, the F-35 offers the greatest options over the coming decades to remain technologically up to date, with a number of other countries committed to investing in future upgrades.


But this is the part where you make is sound like the poor innocent things don't know what they are doing:

Anyway, to keep it short and concise, let's just say the entire RCAF/CA Gov CF-18 recap drama/estimates/plans have been in constant revision (due to F-35 risks, flaws and uncertainties) since day 1. To make any assertion that today's current 'certainty' that Canadian Gov will be buying 65 F-35s (which currently offer very limited deterrence and flexible capability btw, out to block 4 IOC, or around 2023), as their best and most cost-effective TACAIR 'mix', is certain only to see more significant revision.


Canada became a JSF partner in 1997 day 1 was years before the first F-35 flew, and before the the JSF competition had even started. Your other numbers aren't much better. So your history lecture was best used with the Inuit. And the recap estimates and plans in revision are not all entirely due to the F-35 either a lot of it has been Canadian political games, so you can stop "guessing" as such. Its garbage, and you saying it politely and trying to white knight the Canadians doesn't make it any less of a false hood. A lie told nicely is still a lie, and the RCAF knows exactly what their plans are and what their replacement lifespans for the CF-18s are, and their procurement plan.

Once again, you are trying to paint hard studies and plans as wishey-washey unknowns based on your own biases.

Yep, we'll just wait yet another year (unfortunately) and then one can be a little more confident how much more 'set back' RCAF/CA gov will find itself, vis-a-vis today's current 'assumptions' and expectations.


Canada did a full KPMG audit and the fighter secretariat (above) also found that the F-35 is the best option. You are trying to paint the Government waiting to announce its decision post election as hesitation, indecisiveness and confusion. Canada has explored every option and kicked every tire, and in the mean time "todays expectations and assumptions" have explored and analyzed to death. I don't think there is a whole helluva lot more for the Canadians to "explore" at this point. Not to mention that the F-35 is stabilizing more by the day, and of course receiving more orders.

So the Canadians are big boys, who know what they want, and have analyzed it with multiple sources, possibly to a higher degree than any other JSF nation-- and guess what they have found?

No doubt, USAF will have Canada's back during the gap -- as long as it takes -- just as RCAF has had US's back when security gaps happen over Alaska... Highest respects to RCAF history, personnel and to RCAF contributions to world security around the world.
[/quote]

As long as you are trying to suck up to the canadians, maybe you stop condescendingly treating them like they don't know what the hell they are doing and they havn't looked into this to a pretty great degree, and understand what is needed and how to get it?

Instead its "these poor canucks don't know what they are about to buy, and they need to revise and think more because they aren't smart enough to have done that already, nor comprehend, predict, or analyze what the F-35 is and where it will be."

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 12:07
by cantaz
geogen wrote:Anyway, to keep it short and concise, let's just say the entire RCAF/CA Gov CF-18 recap drama/estimates/plans have been in constant revision (due to F-35 risks, flaws and uncertainties) since day 1. To make any assertion that today's current 'certainty' that Canadian Gov will be buying 65 F-35s (which currently offer very limited deterrence and flexible capability btw, out to block 4 IOC, or around 2023), as their best and most cost-effective TACAIR 'mix', is certain only to see more significant revision


F-35A with block 3i software will be superior to our R2 Hornets in most ways. 3F makes our Hornets look like toddlers. The notion that we lose more than we gain with the F-35A until out to block 4 is ludicrous.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 17:43
by luke_sandoz
this Byers guy is like Canada's Eric Palmer.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/04/ ... d-the-u-s/

And behold ! Eric pops up in the comments.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 18:48
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:this Byers guy is like Canada's Eric Palmer.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/04/ ... d-the-u-s/

And behold ! Eric pops up in the comments.


I don't know what Byers background is exactly (thank you for sharing this I hadn't seen it yet) but I will tell you this. Accounting is such an intense discipline that a layman is not going to be able to put the kind of comparative numbers required to even begin to put together a comprehensive report. Even acquiring the data in and of itself is a task. KPMG put all of this together using an team of majority CPAs and at the bare minimum accounting degrees (some with masters in accounting and CPAs) and it still took months. Even the data received must be confirmed, and vetted and approved for use. The rules and regulations, ethics, and acceptable accounting practices are so complex that it literally takes years of formal schooling. Not to mention that accountant that work on this are privy to information and financial information that is not released to the public, and to do so means the end of a career and possibly jail time.

If this guy isn't an accountant, he isn't worth even considering. (He is a lawyer BTW)

This is equivalent of a guy working at star bucks with no aviation background trying to build a 747 in his garage alone based on plans for an R/C airplane.

If I was lockheed my response would simply be "So KPMG accounting firm was wrong?" And then let KPMG go buck wild on him. KPMG is one of the four largest accounting firms IN THE WORLD. And if they put together a report like this guy did it would in violation of a myriad of rules to the point of scandal. Even KPMGs report had to give degree of risk range experessed in percentage, as there is a "5-10 percent chance these numbers are wrong" even that calculation is huge and based on many statistics. Where is the range on this report?

So beyond even the variables of the power of the Canadian dollar, inflation, and fuel fluctuation, its simply not enough to even touch on the price using ACCEPTABLE accounting practices. Unless this guy has CPA after his name, he isn't worth paying attention to, even then he wouldn't have access to the proper info, and it would take years to put together by himself.

I can't express just how complex accounting is, words don't do it justice.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 18:56
by spazsinbad
The Plane That Ate the Canadian Military Life-Cycle Cost of F-35 Fleet Could Reach $126 Billion Apr 2014 Michael Byers, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

http://www.scribd.com/doc/221030164/The ... n-Military (0.7Mb PDF)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 00:22
by maus92
Not too long ago, people were denouncing the KPMG audit as inflated...

Anyway, more on the Canadian imbroglio:

https://screen.yahoo.com/f-35-purchase- ... 00956.html

Seems more like a political cat fight than anything else, but I don't know how system works up north...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 00:47
by hb_pencil
maus92 wrote:Not too long ago, people were denouncing the KPMG audit as inflated...

Anyway, more on the Canadian imbroglio:

https://screen.yahoo.com/f-35-purchase- ... 00956.html

Seems more like a political cat fight than anything else, but I don't know how system works up north...



That's a very old video... I think about a year and a half ago, if not two. The package (including recommendations) have been advanced to cabinet, about two to three weeks ago now, and it is up to our political masters to decide. I have the sense that it reaffirmed previous analysis done between 2005~2010, just with updated data.

Byers piece was a brutal piece of analysis, I'll spend some more time tomorrow going through it, but the fact that the minister of Public Works went out of her way to discredited it, should say volumes about its standing. Basically, they will use the staff's numbers (prepared by dozens of subject matter experts), not Byers shoddy work.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 02:01
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Not too long ago, people were denouncing the KPMG audit as inflated...


II guess you would have to talk to them. I would have been the guy pointing out that it includes everything right up to cost of decommissioning the aircraft over 4 decades into the future.

So this lawyer is saying that KPMG is off by 10-81 billion dollars?

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/ ... nce-10.gif

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 03:34
by spazsinbad
Canukians can do some F-35/EuroAnkleBiter recalculation I guess for this bit of news....
Germany's Eurofighter jet costs to double to 60 billion euros: auditors 30 Apr 2014 Michelle Martin

"(Reuters) - The German defense ministry has no overview of the costs it is incurring for Airbus Group's Eurofighter jets and will spend twice as much as it originally planned on the country's most expensive defense project, federal auditors said.

The German Federal Court of Auditors, which oversees the government's financial management, said in a report the costs for the Eurofighter jets over their life cycle would climb to around 60 billion euros ($83 billion) from an originally planned 30 billion, despite the number of jets having been reduced.

The auditors said operating expenses, especially maintenance costs, had increased particularly strongly.

They also said the budget of 11.8 billion euros the defense ministry had calculated in 1997 for the purchase of 180 Eurofighter jets would only be enough to buy 140 of the planes. ($1 = 0.7237 Euros) "

SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/ ... 6C20140430

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 03:50
by popcorn
Lighten up Geogen..,references to Inuit, North Pole and Santa Claus are all tongue-in-cheek.. anyway, pretty sure Canadian Inuit are happy with their citizenship and any Russian Spetznaz infiltrated in to rile up unrest get a cold reception .., more tongue-in-cheek FYI)

..but in all,seriousness, Putin is not to be taken lightly given his penchant for foreign adventures and the covetous attention he is giving the Arctic region.. helos and UAVs with the Maple emblem emblazoned on the fuselage will be a laughable response, as was proposed by a former,Canadian defense official.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2014, 15:22
by spazsinbad
A couple of things...

The fighter jet ‘reset’: Is it nearly go time? 19 May 2014 Paul Manson

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e18706645/
___________________________________

Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada – Part 1 18 May 2014 David Wu via David Pugliese

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Essential+ ... story.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 17:41
by luke_sandoz
spazsinbad wrote:A couple of things...

The fighter jet ‘reset’: Is it nearly go time? 19 May 2014 Paul Manson

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e18706645/
___________________________________

Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada – Part 1 18 May 2014 David Wu via David Pugliese

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Essential+ ... story.html


Parts 2 and 3. The guy makes a cogent case, better than anything coming out of the government.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... ada-part-2

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... ada-part-3

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2014, 07:11
by popcorn
Published on: May 23, 2014Last Updated: May 23, 2014 12:29 AM EDT
Does a Competition for a New Fighter Really Make Sense? No, Says the Canadian JSF Industry Group

From David Pugliese: This is an open letter sent to me by Larry B. Glenesk,Senior Vice PresidentBusiness Development for Avcorp Industries Inc.

The letter is from the Canadian JSF Industry group, or CJIG, which represents the over 35 Canadian companies from coast-to-coast that are currently performing work in the production phase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. This work ranges from avionics, software, & control systems, to advanced composite, metallic, & machined component & tooling design & manufacturing.
Here is what the group writes:

There has been a great deal of inaccurate information and rhetoric in the news recently about the benefits of a competition for a new fighter aircraft to replace Canada’s aging, and ever-increasingly more expensive to maintain and operate, fleet of CF-18’s. We believe it’s time that Canadian industry – in this case the Canadian JSF Industry Group – weighed in on this topic.

Although competition makes for good sound bites, the reality is it has serious economic consequences.


[...]

More at: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... stry-group

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2014, 15:43
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:
Published on: May 23, 2014Last Updated: May 23, 2014 12:29 AM EDT
Does a Competition for a New Fighter Really Make Sense? No, Says the Canadian JSF Industry Group

From David Pugliese: This is an open letter sent to me by Larry B. Glenesk,Senior Vice PresidentBusiness Development for Avcorp Industries Inc.

The letter is from the Canadian JSF Industry group, or CJIG, which represents the over 35 Canadian companies from coast-to-coast that are currently performing work in the production phase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. This work ranges from avionics, software, & control systems, to advanced composite, metallic, & machined component & tooling design & manufacturing.
Here is what the group writes:

There has been a great deal of inaccurate information and rhetoric in the news recently about the benefits of a competition for a new fighter aircraft to replace Canada’s aging, and ever-increasingly more expensive to maintain and operate, fleet of CF-18’s. We believe it’s time that Canadian industry – in this case the Canadian JSF Industry Group – weighed in on this topic.

Although competition makes for good sound bites, the reality is it has serious economic consequences.


[...]

More at: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... stry-group


Thanks for sharing this. I can't wait to have Geogen stop by and tell us all this how wrong this fellow is.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2014, 13:54
by spazsinbad
UhOh Canada (teletubbies)....
UPDATE 1-Canada signals decision on replacing jet fighters may come soon 28 May 2014 Randall Palmer, Reuters

"OTTAWA, May 29 (Reuters) - Canada signaled on Thursday it is likely to make a decision soon on whether to replace its aging CF-18 fighter jets with F-35 stealth fighters from Lockheed Martin Corp or hold an open competition among aircraft makers.

Public Works Minister Diane Finley said on Thursday the Conservative government will finish its review of reports on how to replace its jet fighters in the coming weeks....

..."Over the next few weeks, ministers will finish reviewing a number of reports relating to the evaluation of options, industrial benefits, costs and other factors," Finley told a defense trade show.

The central question is whether to hold a competitive tender or to buy the F-35 because it is the only plane that can meet the military's needs.

Pressed by reporters as to when the government would decide what to do, Finley said Ottawa would first review the report and then see if it had any more questions.

"We want to get this done soon," she said, declining to be more specific.

The F-35 is billed as the only fighter that can avoid radar detection [oh puhleez], and advocates say participation in its manufacturing program will allow Canadians to bid on supplying components for the thousands of F-35s to be bought around the world.

Opposition parties slammed the decision not to hold a tender to replace the CF-18s, which came into service in the 1980s. The government's spending watchdog said the decision to buy the F-35s had been based on bad data from officials who had downplayed the costs and risks.

"We always knew this was going to be a difficult decision. That's why we've taken so much time," Finley said...."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101715616

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2014, 14:38
by cantaz
"After reviewing all available reports, the minister concluded that additional information is needed before a decision can be made." ...would be my guess.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 21:57
by spazsinbad
Exclusive: Canadian review will recommend buying Lockheed F-35 fighter jet - sources
05 Jun 2014 Andrea Shalal; Additional reporting by David Ljunggren and Randall Palmer in Ottawa; Editing by Alwyn Scott and Ross Colvin)

"(Reuters) - Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters, marking a major renewal of Canada's fighter fleet and helping contain costs of the expensive defense program.

A detailed, 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said.

The decision still must be finalized by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet...

...A spokesman for Harper's office said there was nothing to announce yet...."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/ ... P820140605

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 22:03
by gtx
Stand by for more gnashing of teeth and bemoaning…

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 22:32
by newmanfrigan
This was their last great hope. Alas, all is for nought! Canada has betrayed its greatest friends (random fanboys, communists, Dassault salesmen, anti-military advocates, Russia, Saab, luddites the world over and several journalists and even authors of childrens aviation literature) and sided with its evil ally the United States again. Capability and interoperability have bizaarely been rewarded in this deal, somehow taking precedence over the emotional well-being of the aforementioned interests. Terrible day for Western Airpower.

Hehehehehee. This is probably the best one yet. Love it.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 22:40
by gtx
Even Grumpy Cat managed a smile at this news:

Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 23:40
by cantaz
The Cons may have more balls than we give them credit for.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 01:00
by popcorn
ANNOUNCEMENT DUE SOON

The Canadian government has said it will make an announcement in coming weeks, around the time the Canadian Parliament is dismissed for the summer...


Hahaha... nice timing. Likely to spoil some people's vacations though.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 10:40
by joost
CBC News has learned the Conservative government is expected to make a final decision as soon as next Tuesday, followed soon after by an announcement that will put an end to the debate about whether to hold a competition to buy new fighter planes or to renew the $45-billion plan to sole-source the purchase of F-35s.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-pu ... -1.2666758

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 21:21
by gtx
Have a laugh: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... style.html

Don Bacon's first line in his comment re the Canadian F-35s: "This a shocker, if true." I don't think he can comprehend this happening... :lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 21:36
by spazsinbad
Hey 'gtx' you missed the sour grapes at the end:
"...But while these "decisions" are trumpeted by the fanboys they rarely result in any action.
[QUE?]

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 21:43
by gtx
I think the real sour grapes will be in about a week's time when the rumours are confirmed... :D

Honestly, comments such as "they rarely result in any action" sounds like wishful thinking on their part. Almost like they are trying to convince themselves that it doesn't matter…and yet, if the decision was to go the other way they would be trumpeting this as a monumental decision which is proof of the "Death Spiral"... :lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 22:04
by steakanddoritos
gtx wrote:Have a laugh: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... style.html

Don Bacon's first line in his comment re the Canadian F-35s: "This a shocker, if true." I don't think he can comprehend this happening... :lmao:


Did someone say......
Image

But muh 6gen Gripen!
But muh Super Duper Hornet!
But Muh Eurocanards!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 20:20
by maus92
More fog:

Canada's F-35 Acquisition Plans Still Unclear
Jun. 7, 2014 - 11:17AM | By DAVID PUGLIESE | Defense News

"VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA — An announcement about how Canada will proceed with its multibillion dollar fighter jet procurement is expected as early as June 10, even as conflicting reports emerge about whether the F-35 will be selected.

The Canadian government has confirmed it has received the review it ordered on replacement for the Air Force’s CF-18s. The report was written by senior government bureaucrats, with support from an outside panel of specialists.

Public Works Minister Diane Finley has steadfastly refused to indicate how the government will proceed, pointing out that ministers are still reviewing the details on options, industrial benefits and costs.

But Reuters reported on June 5 that the review concluded the government should not hold a competition and instead proceed with the purchase of the F-35. The same day, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that while a decision is expected sometime after June 10, the review did not specify which fighter aircraft the government should select.

Mike Barton, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Canada, said he had no information on whether the Reuters report, filed out of Washington, is accurate. “We’re waiting for government direction,” he said...."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ll-Unclear

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 20:25
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:More fog:

Canada's F-35 Acquisition Plans Still Unclear
Jun. 7, 2014 - 11:17AM | By DAVID PUGLIESE | Defense News

"VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA — An announcement about how Canada will proceed with its multibillion dollar fighter jet procurement is expected as early as June 10, even as conflicting reports emerge about whether the F-35 will be selected.

The Canadian government has confirmed it has received the review it ordered on replacement for the Air Force’s CF-18s. The report was written by senior government bureaucrats, with support from an outside panel of specialists.

Public Works Minister Diane Finley has steadfastly refused to indicate how the government will proceed, pointing out that ministers are still reviewing the details on options, industrial benefits and costs.

But Reuters reported on June 5 that the review concluded the government should not hold a competition and instead proceed with the purchase of the F-35. The same day, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that while a decision is expected sometime after June 10, the review did not specify which fighter aircraft the government should select.

Mike Barton, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Canada, said he had no information on whether the Reuters report, filed out of Washington, is accurate. “We’re waiting for government direction,” he said...."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ll-Unclear


I will wait another 72 hours

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 23:53
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:Have a laugh: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... style.html

Don Bacon's first line in his comment re the Canadian F-35s: "This a shocker, if true." I don't think he can comprehend this happening... :lmao:


I'm shocked that he is shocked at this point. :D On the supply side the JSF is getting more efficient in production, on the demand side more governments are signing on and making orders. Its won in Korea and Japan there are more countries buying F-35s the last few years rather than fewer, and Canada "reset button" and all never formally withdrew from the JSF program which would be a "strong indicator" to say the least.

It would be nothing short of amazing if the Canadians didn't pick the F-35, its just a matter of when and how its picked.

brb death spiral

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 19:26
by smsgtmac
XanderCrews wrote:
gtx wrote:Have a laugh: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... style.html

Don Bacon's first line in his comment re the Canadian F-35s: "This a shocker, if true." I don't think he can comprehend this happening... :lmao:


I'm shocked that he is shocked at this point. :D On the supply side the JSF is getting more efficient in production, on the demand side more governments are signing on and making orders. Its won in Korea and Japan there are more countries buying F-35s the last few years rather than fewer, and Canada "reset button" and all never formally withdrew from the JSF program which would be a "strong indicator" to say the least.

It would be nothing short of amazing if the Canadians didn't pick the F-35, its just a matter of when and how its picked.

brb death spiral


There's a death spiral or two happening alright. It's just their intended target is no where near one, at the moment at least.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 18:03
by spazsinbad
Hmmmm..... Perhaps Canada better fix their search and rescue issues meanwhile... Seems to me a lot of things are broken in Canada these days. Only last paragraphs excerpted below. I'll assume the F-104 was at low level a lot of the time when birdstrikes occurred? How many birdstrikes will there be at the usual altitude of the F-35s or even the other aircraft? I guess the Snow Geeses :devil: are a worry. Somewhere there is a quote about someone throwing a toaster down the intake of the F35 only to have it come out the back end in bits with the engine still running. Anyway in the Engine section there is a story or two about the reliability and tolerance to damage of the F135. But youse knew that - right?

Getcha Getcha YaYas here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo ... goed-2.pdf (4Mb)
Single-engine F-35 jet risky choice for Canada’s air force, report warns
09 Jun 2014 Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau

"A new report warns that the single-engine design of the F-35 poses unacceptable risk to the pilots who will fly it....

...But officials with rival Boeing, which is trying to pitch the government on its Super Hornet jet, have told the Star that the reliability statistics don’t account for non-mechanical issues, like suffering a bird strike which can cause an engine to lose thrust or fail altogether.

Indeed, Byers cites the record of the CF-104 Starfighter, a single-engine fighter flown for more than 20 years starting in 1961. Nearly half the fleet — 110 out of 239 aircraft — was lost and one-quarter of those were due to bird strikes, Byers said in his report.

He also highlights the record of the F-16, flown by the U.S. air force. According to Byers, since 1979 279 of some 1,300 F-16s have crashed and at least 76 and perhaps as many as 166 were due to engine failures. [Wot no bird strikes?] (Old engine tech? Were not the original F-16 engines not so reliable - hence the two engine competition?)

The Defence Department says that Canada’s fleet of two-engine CF-18s suffered an engine shut down 228 times between 1988 and 2012, though some of those may have been precautionary shutdowns rather than actual failures."

Source: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014 ... warns.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 19:26
by gtx
Seems like people are trying to fight a rearguard action against the F-35…pointless really.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 19:32
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:Seems like people are trying to fight a rearguard action against the F-35…pointless really.


Nothing desperate here:

The United States bases many of its F-22s in Alaska," he adds. "The F-35s will not be based in Alaska because a single-engine plane is inappropriate for the Arctic — the United States Air Force has decided that.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/buying- ... -1.2669476
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... G-f16s.jpg

AK= Tail code for Alaska.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 19:46
by gtx
How long before we start seeing this?
50657701.jpg

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 20:43
by zerion
XanderCrews wrote:
gtx wrote:Seems like people are trying to fight a rearguard action against the F-35…pointless really.


Nothing desperate here:

The United States bases many of its F-22s in Alaska," he adds. "The F-35s will not be based in Alaska because a single-engine plane is inappropriate for the Arctic — the United States Air Force has decided that.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/buying- ... -1.2669476
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... G-f16s.jpg

AK= Tail code for Alaska.


Someone should tell the air force to take Eielson afb off the list of possible bases for the F-35. Canada says its inappropriate.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 20:57
by cantaz
Someone should tell the air force to take Eielson afb off the list of possible bases for the F-35. Some douchbag in Canada who wouldn't know which end of a J79 to get sucked into says its inappropriate.


Fixed it for ya.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2014, 20:58
by steakanddoritos
I wrote up a response on reddit, here it goes:

The article is a load of crap, for multiple reasons:
The report is titled "One Dead Pilot", which is hilarious, because the F-35, with several years of operation and over 100 frames built, has never suffered a fatality or hull-loss. Hornets, on the other hand...[1]
The F-35's engine is far more advanced than the ones on the F/A-18. So far, there have been no major problems with reliability.
Comparing the F-35 to the F-104 is hilarious, considering the difference in rigor of flight test and design programs, and the fact that modern aircraft and engines are far more reliable.
No single engined fighters in AK? Someone didn't do their homework.[2]
This is just another armchair general that has no idea how major military decisions are made, and has no sense of modern air combat.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 03:08
by thepointblank
steakanddoritos wrote:This is just another armchair general that has no idea how major military decisions are made, and has no sense of modern air combat.

Actually, the author is a failed NDP candidate and is formally affiliated with the Rideau Institute... this is a very select company, with strict entry requirements, beginning with an IQ in the negative territory. :roll:

His report is full of bovine excrement. For example, his comparisons to the F-104 is marred by the fact that the F-104 used by various countries in Europe (including our CF-104s) was a low level nuclear strike aircraft which flew in crowded skies plagued by crappy weather. However, in 1971 we got out of the nuke role and then started using it as a close air support vehicle with iron bombs and rockets, a job it was pretty much not made for and which often put it into hazardous situations. The fact that we kept our F-104's on the ramp, exposed to the elements, also played a major factor in the loss rates of the type.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 04:30
by KamenRiderBlade
steakanddoritos wrote:I wrote up a response on reddit, here it goes:

The article is a load of crap, for multiple reasons:
The report is titled "One Dead Pilot", which is hilarious, because the F-35, with several years of operation and over 100 frames built, has never suffered a fatality or hull-loss. Hornets, on the other hand...[1]
The F-35's engine is far more advanced than the ones on the F/A-18. So far, there have been no major problems with reliability.
Comparing the F-35 to the F-104 is hilarious, considering the difference in rigor of flight test and design programs, and the fact that modern aircraft and engines are far more reliable.
No single engined fighters in AK? Someone didn't do their homework.[2]
This is just another armchair general that has no idea how major military decisions are made, and has no sense of modern air combat.


I was thinking the same thing when I read that article.

I've seen plenty of F-16's in Alaska.

So what the heck is this guy talking about?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 05:20
by XanderCrews
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I was thinking the same thing when I read that article.

I've seen plenty of F-16's in Alaska.

So what the heck is this guy talking about?



Incompetent/ignorant or a failed attempt at a deliberate deception? Isn't this the same guy who said KPMG didn't know what they were doing?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 19:28
by spazsinbad
More on the same with a THIRD WAY option for the Guvmnt for delay.... So maybe soon we know?
Panel to back Ottawa’s jet decision on F-35s
10 Jun 2014 Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc Hi Matt! :devil: How you doin'?

"...The main decision facing the government is whether to stick with the untendered purchase of F-35s or launch a full competitive bidding process for new aircraft.

But sources said Ottawa has also been considering a third route forward, one that could buy it more time and possibly delay a decision until after a 2015 election.

The government has also been looking at the possibility of rewriting the requirements for the fighter jet, something it hasn’t touched to date. This is because, as insiders say, the current technical specifications are designed to pick the F-35. No other jet could meet all the existing requirements.

“If the government doesn’t want to make a decision before the election, it can state that it needs to review the statement of requirements based on the work that has been done,” a source involved in the process said. “It would be a way for the government to show action without having to make a commitment.”

Ottawa will hold a technical briefing for media, planned for this Thursday and a source said that during this presentation, the four-member panel is expected to “discuss its work and endorse the methodology that was used.”..."

Source; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19085304/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 00:55
by bumtish
Oh this is just too hilarious, I have to post this, can't resist!

10. F-35 Fleet Will Require Much-Improved Search and Rescue

Lockheed Martin argues that F-35s are appropriate for the Arctic because Norway flies F-16s in the Arctic, while the United States flies F-16s off aircraft carriers.[82]

...

The United States uses F-16s in Alaska and off aircraft carriers for one purpose only, namely, to use as mock enemy aircraft during training exercises. Significantly, a large portion of the United States’ F-22 fleet is based in Alaska, providing twin-engine safety to fighter pilots operating in the American Arctic. The F-16s, in contrast, are kept relatively close to the airports and aircraft carriers, where search and rescue is readily available.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites ... Choice.pdf


...and reference [82] is this youtube video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIMt8NWdTgA

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 01:31
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:More on the same with a THIRD WAY option for the Guvmnt for delay.... So maybe soon we know?
Panel to back Ottawa’s jet decision on F-35s
10 Jun 2014 Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc Hi Matt! :devil: How you doin'?

"...The main decision facing the government is whether to stick with the untendered purchase of F-35s or launch a full competitive bidding process for new aircraft.

But sources said Ottawa has also been considering a third route forward, one that could buy it more time and possibly delay a decision until after a 2015 election.

The government has also been looking at the possibility of rewriting the requirements for the fighter jet, something it hasn’t touched to date. This is because, as insiders say, the current technical specifications are designed to pick the F-35. No other jet could meet all the existing requirements.

“If the government doesn’t want to make a decision before the election, it can state that it needs to review the statement of requirements based on the work that has been done,” a source involved in the process said. “It would be a way for the government to show action without having to make a commitment.”

Ottawa will hold a technical briefing for media, planned for this Thursday and a source said that during this presentation, the four-member panel is expected to “discuss its work and endorse the methodology that was used.”..."

Source; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19085304/


Ah.. those guys have been eating too much kimchi :D

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2014, 22:13
by spazsinbad
UPDATE 2-Panel backs Canada evaluation process for jet fighter replacement
12 Jun 2014 Cameron French

"(Reuters) - Four independent experts endorsed on Thursday the Canadian military's evaluation of options to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, setting the stage for the government to decide whether or not to go ahead with previous plans to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters....

...In a 38-page report, the panel said the military's evaluation process was thorough, comprehensive, conducted professionally and not biased in favor of any of the four aircraft the government is considering.

"The simple bottom line is that we have provided ministers with assurance that the evaluation was rigorous and impartial and the results are comprehensive and understandable," Keith Coulter, panel member and former head of Canada's electronic surveillance agency, CSEC, told reporters at a briefing.

The panel, which also consists of two other retired civil servants and a university professor, did not issue its own recommendation for whether the government should proceed with the F-35 purchase, worth an estimated C$9 billion ($8.29 billion), or launch an open competition.

A senior Canadian government official at the briefing said no decision has been made by the government....

...The government official at the briefing said there was no timetable for a decision.

Sources close to the process have told Reuters the government's multi-agency review has recommended Canada buy the F-35s. The decision must still be finalized by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet...."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/ ... VU20140612

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 03:26
by spazsinbad
Tories given green light for F-35 jet decision
12 Jun 2014 Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc (Hi Matt!)

"...The government will release only a partial version of the RCAF report to the public, excised of all sensitive and commercial information, once Ottawa has announced the next step in buying fighters.

This full report is in the hands of federal ministers, who will be able to compare the four aircraft using a colour-coded scheme that lays out the risks associated with six types of missions that future jet fighters might be called upon to fulfill.

The risk for each mission ranges from low (green) to very high (brown), laying out the capabilities and deficiencies of each aircraft in conducting operations such as patrolling the Arctic or attacking foreign forces in an overseas mission...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19151099/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 06:00
by arcturus
spazsinbad wrote:
Tories given green light for F-35 jet decision
12 Jun 2014 Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc (Hi Matt!)

"...The government will release only a partial version of the RCAF report to the public, excised of all sensitive and commercial information, once Ottawa has announced the next step in buying fighters.

This full report is in the hands of federal ministers, who will be able to compare the four aircraft using a colour-coded scheme that lays out the risks associated with six types of missions that future jet fighters might be called upon to fulfill.

The risk for each mission ranges from low (green) to very high (brown), laying out the capabilities and deficiencies of each aircraft in conducting operations such as patrolling the Arctic or attacking foreign forces in an overseas mission...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19151099/



The reaction that comes from this decision is going to be a meal filled with delicious tears of impotent rage. How will ELP, Don Bacon, and their minions spin this one? Can't wait to see as I'm in need of a good chuckle.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 08:11
by gtx
Don't forget Doug Allen: http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com.au

He seems to be denying it is happening.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 08:15
by arcturus
gtx wrote:Don't forget Doug Allen: http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com.au

He seems to be denying it is happening.


He has been good for a few laughs in the past but lacks the staying power to remain at the forefront of my mind.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 09:01
by popcorn
Great! The report contains pictures with lots of colors... hopefully will help when these are released/leaked to the public. The greenest jet wins, should be simple enough.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:09
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:Don't forget Doug Allen: http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com.au

He seems to be denying it is happening.


Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:38
by mk82
LMAO! :P

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:22
by KamenRiderBlade
I would love to see their faces.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:36
by spazsinbad
F-35 (Canada) News. One Dead Pilot Analysis...
Don Bacon Friday, June 13, 2014 11:19:00 AM

"Canada is one of the three (of eight) F-35 "partners" -- meaning it has money in F-35 R&D -- which has not yet put money down to procure a faulty F-35 prototype. It's rather embarrassing since Canada is normally a reliable US lap-puppy in military matters. But the F-35 fiasco contributed to a fall of the Canada government Mar 25, 2011, involving a coverup of facts similar to what we're now seeing again, so .....once burned twice shy."

Source: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... lysis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ca ... _elections [Forgot to include that according to this website the Conservative (current) Government have been in power since 2006 - so what 'fall'? Don is definitely from the 'conspiracy'/'coverup' world]

I'm waiting for the Don Bacon F-35C Hook Conspiracy and Max Carrier Landing Rate of Descent Conspiracy article.....

[ADDITION] Well Well Well - right on cue - here is the 'foreign' F-35 conspiracy:
"The Pentagon test organization DOT&E is testing US F-35 prototypes but not foreign ones...."

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 18:05
by XanderCrews
arcturus wrote:
gtx wrote:Don't forget Doug Allen: http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com.au

He seems to be denying it is happening.


He has been good for a few laughs in the past but lacks the staying power to remain at the forefront of my mind.


So... What makes me special? Nothing.

I'm not employed by any aerospace industry, military, or media outlet. My training consists of flunking out of engineering (calculus is hard) and journalism (personal problems, long story). My "day job" is that of an Advanced Care Paramedic, which usually consists of a fancy taxi service interrupted by brief stints of delivering babies on the side of the road, restarting hearts, searching for amputated arms, and other, weirder stuff.

Being a "base brat" growing up near CFB Greenwood, with a father in the RCAF, I became interested in fighter jets at a young age, before my attention got diverted more towards fast cars and other teenage stuff. I never really outgrew my interest in aircraft, though... Must have been the Testor's model glue.

I started this blog, and another, as a sort of therapy to deal with some PTSD I was dealing with at around the same time as Canada's controversial F-35 purchase announcement. I didn't expect much, since I am certainly no expert... I'm just a guy with an iMac and a decent skill in Google-Fu... But the damn thing took off anyway.

I make no money off this blog. The only reward I have received have been the many commenters and members of these blogs and the gripen4canada and bestfighter4canada Facebook groups. That in and of itself has proven incredibly rewarding.

So why does my opinion matter? Well... It doesn't really. What matters is that, hopefully, you follow the links provided or do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Thanks for reading.


http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com/p/bes ... -alec.html


Ignorant and proud of it!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 18:14
by XanderCrews
But the F-35 fiasco contributed to a fall of the Canada government Mar 25, 2011, involving a coverup of facts similar to what we're now seeing again, so .....once burned twice shy.


WTF does that even mean? :doh:

Why is "partner" in quotes? Is Canada not a JSF Partner?

If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate.


Zapp Brannigan

Why does Sol whine about an airplane he is convinced will never make it into production? For a guy who is convinced collapse is inevitable he sure does worry a lot.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 18:54
by spazsinbad
Forces Friday: Get those jets! [VIDEO] naysayer for F-35 but GO NAVY! :mrgreen:
June 13, 2014

"Is the federal government ready at last to place the order for F-35 fighter jets?"

Source: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat ... 1430684001

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 20:40
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote:Why does Sol whine about an airplane he is convinced will never make it into production? For a guy who is convinced collapse is inevitable he sure does worry a lot.


It boils down to Sol needing a platform, any platform, to preach about. He does this to appear relevant, while arguing absolutely irrelevant points of view. This is an issue revolving around ego and vanity with a smattering of Napoleon complex thrown in for good measure. At this point he needs something to complain about so he can continue to listen to himself speak. One can only attract so much attention with rants about Gen. Amos, Sgt. Bergdahl, and gun rights. So, he has a fallback. Sad really.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:09
by gtx
A summary of some of the responses so far:

Giovanni de Briganti (defense-aerospace.com editor): Posts both stores but uses the deliberately misleading titles of:
  • Canada Issues Vague F-35 Statements But No Decision
  • Canada Seen Selecting F-35 Without Holding A Competition.

Interpretation: Is trying to deliberately mislead readers and put his biased slant on it. He can't deny it though.

Solomon at SNAFU!: Posts a copy of a biased piece of crap under the heading of "F-35 (Canada) News. One Dead Pilot Analysis…"

Interpretation: This is the only news I know of….don't tell me anything else. I don't want to know or acknowledge it…and if you do try to post something, I will delete your comment!!!

Doug Allen at Gripen for Canada: Posts the announcements but tries to downplay them with comments such as "The report makes no recommendations. No decisions. Nothing set in stone." Also dreams that perhaps there could be "a mixed fleet of fighters".

Interpretation: It's not happening, its not happening…I wonder if they might still want some Gripens as a lower tier...

Eric Palmer at ELP: Posts nothing.

Interpretation: I know nothing and if I post nothing it didn't happen!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:45
by XanderCrews
arcturus wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Why does Sol whine about an airplane he is convinced will never make it into production? For a guy who is convinced collapse is inevitable he sure does worry a lot.


It boils down to Sol needing a platform, any platform, to preach about. He does this to appear relevant, while arguing absolutely irrelevant points of view. This is an issue revolving around ego and vanity with a smattering of Napoleon complex thrown in for good measure. At this point he needs something to complain about so he can continue to listen to himself speak. One can only attract so much attention with rants about Gen. Amos, Sgt. Bergdahl, and gun rights. So, he has a fallback. Sad really.


I think what I love about Sol is a how "No one saw this coming" Except when "I saw this coming a mile away" And "everyone knows" except when "I had no idea" Also the Navy is declaring war on the army or marines or whoever. War is always being declared or in the works espeically amongst the services. again for a guy who claims to be a Marine he seems to have a dour mindset and little faith in the Marine Corps' ability to accomplish missions.

The "man" is the worlds biggest drama queen. And then the next week, whatever is todays biggest apocalypse is ancient history. A total idiot who is surprised when he doesn't know something LOL

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 22:35
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote:
arcturus wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Why does Sol whine about an airplane he is convinced will never make it into production? For a guy who is convinced collapse is inevitable he sure does worry a lot.


It boils down to Sol needing a platform, any platform, to preach about. He does this to appear relevant, while arguing absolutely irrelevant points of view. This is an issue revolving around ego and vanity with a smattering of Napoleon complex thrown in for good measure. At this point he needs something to complain about so he can continue to listen to himself speak. One can only attract so much attention with rants about Gen. Amos, Sgt. Bergdahl, and gun rights. So, he has a fallback. Sad really.


I think what I love about Sol is a how "No one saw this coming" Except when "I saw this coming a mile away" And "everyone knows" except when "I had no idea" Also the Navy is declaring war on the army or marines or whoever. War is always being declared or in the works espeically amongst the services. again for a guy who claims to be a Marine he seems to have a dour mindset and little faith in the Marine Corps' ability to accomplish missions.

The "man" is the worlds biggest drama queen. And then the next week, whatever is todays biggest apocalypse is ancient history. A total idiot who is surprised when he doesn't know something LOL



You can't really expect logic about service interaction from someone I highly doubt ever served.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2014, 21:12
by spazsinbad
Don't forget to pay for the Canadian share of ACURL - youse bludgers.
No CF-18 replacement contract until 2018
16 Jun 2014 Murray Brewster The Canadian Press

"OTTAWA – A contract to replace Canada’s aging fleet of jet fighters won’t be finalized until at least 2018.

The Harper government has released its long-anticipated defence acquisition guide, which is meant to provide industry a snapshot of the military’s expected equipment needs over the next two decades....

...The guide says the replacement program for the CF-18s will remain in the definition phase between 2015 and 2017, meaning a decision could be pushed out past the next federal election, slated to take place in less than 18 months.

Thee will be a request for proposals between 2017 and 2019.

It goes on to say the awarding of the contract is expected between 2018 and 2020, which is around the time when many of the CF-18s are expected to reach the end of their service life.

The guide also proposes upgrades to the CF-18 electronic warfare suites, as well as software and training improvements for the fighters, originally purchased in the 1980s.

What that means for the fate of the controversial F-35 program is unclear....

...It’s not the first time the 2018 date has been floated in relation to the fighter replacement.

Earlier this year, the manufacturer of the F-35 indicated that the Harper government had pushed its potential delivery date for the first aircraft off until that year, holding its place in the line of countries that have already agreed to buy the jet.

But Steve O’Bryan, vice president of business development at Lockheed Martin, said in order to meet the timeline, Canada would have to make a decision and begin making payments next year.

The federal government has not signed a delivery contract, but the partnership arrangement among nations requires them to put begin putting money down three years before the first plane arrives
."

Source: http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1067610 ... ntil-2018/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 00:28
by arrow-nautics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/100b-defence-spending-plan-laid-out-for-industry-1.2677510

The Conservative government is proposing more than $100 billion in defence spending on a series of projects that would see the Department of National Defence get new fighter jets, rescue planes, helicopters, drones, ships, satellites, uniforms and even rifles.....

...F-35 decision may come Tuesday

At stake are the political ramifications of a decision that is widely expected to result in a $45-billion government plan to sole source the purchase of F-35 joint strike fighters.

The government could put the question of which fighter will replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet jets to a competition.

It could also order the military to make over its statement of requirements, a decision which could amount to a future reset of the whole program.

Industry sources tell CBC News they believe cabinet could decide this week which way to go — perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 05:20
by arrow-nautics
This has to be one of the most embarrassing things for a Canadian living next to an elephant. Canadians are so stupid in their ideals about peacekeeping, not starting wars & what's the worst? Disdaining the US?!

We have contributed much in blood but our NATO dues have been so low for so long. We did an excellent job in Afghanistan & that's something as a Canadian I'm very proud of. Any American troop on the ground or in the USAF or the Marines will tell you our boys were awesome.

Here's where it gets murky. The voting base here abandoned the idea of Bush (still have a hangover) due to our predisposed idea that to feel Canadian, you must first insult the American so you can have self esteem.

I remember getting a D in grade 6 but most of the class did. I pointed out to my mother that she shouldn't be worried since everyone basically failed. She told me never to negatively compare myself to anyone else.

Lefty Canadians want their cake & eat it too. Most of these Canadians complain about the USA more & cite the heritage minutes & why we have CF-18s? They want their sovereignty one million kilometers from the USA, but they won't endorse any military at all to protect sovereignty?

Why in the (expletive) do Canadians define themselves on being better or comparing themselves to Americans beats me. Have some pride for crying out loud.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 08:16
by popcorn
The recently concluded study was intended,to provide the Government cover and the feedback is it was a thorough and professional job.,,grow a pair and decide already!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 09:11
by mk82
Perhaps Stephen Harper needs to take a page out of the Oz PM's (Tony Abbott) playbook - even if it is a bad idea....just do it!!!!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2014, 17:45
by XanderCrews
https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/ent ... lot-report

The rebuttal to the one dead pilot report. 8)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 00:12
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/f-35-flight-safety-examining-the-one-dead-pilot-report

The rebuttal to the one dead pilot report. 8)

Unfortunately,such reasoned articles as this will largely go unnoticed and,if read, unappreciated by the the masses.,Their attention span is attuned to the shock value of catchy phrases, which is what the,detractors are counting on.


Still, it's important to shine a light in the darkness ... the dawn is coming at Mach speed and all the creepy-crawlies wither away or go,scurrying back to the sewers.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 01:45
by thepointblank
mk82 wrote:Perhaps Stephen Harper needs to take a page out of the Oz PM's (Tony Abbott) playbook - even if it is a bad idea....just do it!!!!

Considering the government recently made what I would call a politically brave decision, regarding giving the approval for the Northern Gateway oil pipeline despite strong objections made from environmental groups that could cost them seats in the next election, the decision could fall in one of a couple of ways:

1. Approve F-35 purchase and try to weather the storm politically for the next election with an aim to get another majority government;

2. Approve F-35 purchase and create clauses in the contract so onerous that any new government that tries to cancel the project will find politically unpalatable;

3. Bump the decision to after the 2015 election and hope that the current government gets re-elected;

I would rank the options of likelihood as being 3 being the most likely (the government's focus will be on re-election), followed by 2 and 1.

The government has already made one "brave" decision, it doesn't need to escalate and make a "courageous" decision (in the manner of the old British sitcom Yes, Minister, where a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" one was one that would lose you the election).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 03:01
by Corsair1963
I don't even think a Liberal Government could cancel the F-35. As the outcry and loss of work share would hit Canada Extremely Hard.


Yet, I can see why they're waiting. Which, has less to do with the next election than some think. Just delay the program slightly until more orders come in a price continues to drop. Then the JSF Program will appear far more stable and this will go a long ways to calming down the Canadian Public.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 06:40
by thepointblank
Corsair1963 wrote:I don't even think a Liberal Government could cancel the F-35. As the outcry and loss of work share would hit Canada Extremely Hard.


Yet, I can see why they're waiting. Which, has less to do with the next election than some think. Just delay the program slightly until more orders come in a price continues to drop. Then the JSF Program will appear far more stable and this will go a long ways to calming down the Canadian Public.

No, but a Liberal minority government, propped up by the NDP, who are most adamant about not buying F-35, might have their hands forced on the matter.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 08:26
by arrow-nautics
thepointblank wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I don't even think a Liberal Government could cancel the F-35. As the outcry and loss of work share would hit Canada Extremely Hard.


Yet, I can see why they're waiting. Which, has less to do with the next election than some think. Just delay the program slightly until more orders come in a price continues to drop. Then the JSF Program will appear far more stable and this will go a long ways to calming down the Canadian Public.

No, but a Liberal minority government, propped up by the NDP, who are most adamant about not buying F-35, might have their hands forced on the matter.
Not necessarily if there's a Liberal minority. The Grits position has not been overly loud at all on capabilities & specifications of the F-35 for the RCAF. They keep hitting home the spending scandal of the Conservatives claiming acquisition cost included maintenance cost. Quoting the Auditor General. Marc Garneau seems to be the only voice on this. On the other hand it is almost obvious the NDP are working diligently with Boeing lobbyists. The Grits have not blatantly crossed this line more than the NDP have

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 19:15
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/f-35-flight-safety-examining-the-one-dead-pilot-report

The rebuttal to the one dead pilot report. 8)

Unfortunately,such reasoned articles as this will largely go unnoticed and,if read, unappreciated by the the masses.,Their attention span is attuned to the shock value of catchy phrases, which is what the,detractors are counting on.
.


Well I didn't think "One Dead Pilot" was titled for calm reasonable information to contribute positively to the debate. I do however appreciate his restraint in not going with "The F-35 will Kill Canadians" :mrgreen:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 23:03
by arrow-nautics
One thing about the peaceniks (especially strongly anti-military) in this country that drive me batty is the insistence that Canada not have a jet fighter capability. Put the money in to boosting health care etc. :bang: These people automatically in turn HATE the F-35 & typically have no alternative opinion of Gripen, SH, Rafale or Typhoon.

What irks me the most about these idiots & I'd like to say this loud & clear (queue caps lock, bold & font size) is that the THREE MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE JET POLICIES. WE'RE BUYING JETS SO GO SHUT UP BUNCH OF WHINERS.

It's sadly pathetic how many anti-F-35 voters out there are also anti-jet. You'll never please them even if you could get water from the moon.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 15:30
by spazsinbad
More blah blah blah from Canadah:

Ottawa to put fighter jet purchase on hold
26 Jun 2014 Steven Chase OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

"The Harper government is pressing pause on a decision to buy new jet fighters, including whether to purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II without holding a competition, because it feels ministers need more information on other options before selecting a course of action.

There will be no decision this month on the next step – whether to hold a competition for a new plane or purchase the F-35 outright – and it is very unlikely anything will be announced even by mid-July, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper removed the item from the agenda of a recent meeting of cabinet’s priorities and planning committee to give ministers more time to deliberate and gather information, people familiar with the matter say. Priorities and planning is the main cabinet committee that provides strategic direction.

Sources say the government feels it’s being rushed and pressured by the Canadian Armed Forces and parts of the civil service to purchase the F-35 without a competition. The government, which took a serious credibility hit in 2012 over its poor management of the procurement process, is now concerned only one fully fleshed-out option has been presented for review and that it resembled a decision to be ratified rather than a well-developed option.

Ottawa appeared on track to decide before the end of June after Public Works Minister Diane Finley announced in April that cabinet would take the “next several weeks” to review all reports on jet options that had been prepared as part of a “reset” of the fighter procurement process. As recently as mid-June, senior officials were talking privately about a decision in the next couple of weeks, and the government paved the way with a news conference where arm’s-length experts praised fighter option deliberations on a replacement as “rigorous and impartial.”

Now, however, the Conservatives are trying to take it slower, concerned that the civil service was pushing too heavily for a decision to buy the F-35 fighters without competition before Ottawa had sufficiently considered the matter. These would replace Canada’s aging CF-18 jets.

“Cabinet hasn’t decided when they will decide, and haven’t determined what they’ll decide,” a senior government official said. “What has been determined is that they will take the necessary time to review the reports, and make a careful, considered decision.”

The government was irritated by what it saw as a growing perception among defence lobbyists and foreign governments that it had already selected a plane even before ministers had formally gathered to deliberate. It blames the bureaucracy for communicating this impression.

“There has been an assumption that the F-35s were selected and that cabinet would just rubber-stamp the decision. That is not the case. They will review all of the options and make a decision.”..."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19346094/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2014, 01:13
by popcorn
The Canadians are actually making the SOKORs look good... the latter were willing to do a very public 180-deg. turn to ensure they got the right jet.. UK still the wishy-washy standard though with its full 360 pirouette :D

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 11:41
by arrow-nautics
Talk about poisoning the well. Blast the CBC. Conveniently published after Canada day to get the most views. This goes to show how low our public broadcaster has fallen. What is this, 10 days or more late?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/f-35-fighter-jets-to-be-inspected-after-major-engine-fire-in-u-s-1.2694798

This isn't even a proper report, moreso it's infotainment/tabloid quality, or lack thereof on any quality. Beware the JSF boogeyman Canada.

That incident was the latest to hit the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, the $398.6 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and came as the plane was preparing for its international debut at two air shows in Britain.


costliest, $398.6 billion, costliest, $398.6 billion, costliest, $398.6 billion, costliest, $398.6 billion...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 11:51
by arcturus
arrow-nautics wrote:Talk about poisoning the well. Blast the CBC. Conveniently published after Canada day to get the most views. This goes to show how low our public broadcaster has fallen. What is this, 10 days or more late?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/f-35-fighter-jets-to-be-inspected-after-major-engine-fire-in-u-s-1.2694798

This isn't even a proper report, moreso it's infotainment/tabloid quality, or lack thereof on any quality. Beware the JSF boogeyman Canada.

That incident was the latest to hit the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, the $398.6 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and came as the plane was preparing for its international debut at two air shows in Britain.


costliest, $398.6 billion, costliest, $398.6 billion, costliest, $398.6 billion, costliest, $398.6 billion...



Yet another example of journalism tailored for the lowest common denominator. Sad really.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 16:38
by stobiewan
popcorn wrote:The Canadians are actually making the SOKORs look good... the latter were willing to do a very public 180-deg. turn to ensure they got the right jet.. UK still the wishy-washy standard though with its full 360 pirouette :D



At least we're buying some!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 20:01
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:The Canadians are actually making the SOKORs look good... the latter were willing to do a very public 180-deg. turn to ensure they got the right jet.. UK still the wishy-washy standard though with its full 360 pirouette :D

Maybe the Australians should say to the Canadians "You order both the F/A-18Fs and F-35s, and if don't want to keep both jets, we'll buy them from you"

I would be surprised if both Canada and Australia don't order at least a squadron of F-35s each. Politics is just delaying the obvious.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 20:09
by spazsinbad
QUE? Why include Australia in any way shape or form with Canada? Australia knows what she is doing thanks very much. Sheesh.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 20:59
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:QUE? Why include Australia in any way shape or form with Canada? Australia knows what she is doing thanks very much. Sheesh.

I didn't mean to imply the Australian MoD doesn't knows what they are doing. One question though, Carlo Kopp doesn't work for MoD does he? :D

Australia is the only country other than the US that operates the Super Hornet. Australia also one of the few countries that purchased LRIP F-35s.

Its pretty obvious the Australians are not planning on buying another 48+ F/A-18E/Fs to replace the F/A-18A/Bs. They are buying F-35s. The minor detail is that if another 4 or 8 F/A-18Fs became available at the right price, the RAAF might be interested. Similarly, a few extra F-35s used for training and evaluation could be a bonus for the RAAF.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 21:44
by spazsinbad
Thanks for your explanation. I was worried there for a bit. Perhaps if someone buys some unwanted F-35Bs then Oz may be interested in these cast offs? KoppUlater was a Professor of some kind at a Melbourne University last I read (which is now a very long time a go).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2014, 20:41
by gtx
Kopp is a part time Computer Science Lecturer at the Monash University Clayton School of Information Technology. He dreams of being in the MoD but has never served a day in the military or related Defence organisation in his life. Nor has he ever worked for any Defence company or had any involvement in Weapon's System (be that aircraft or otherwise) in his life. In summary, he is nothing more than a armchair general who is noisier than most (though he has been quiet for a while lately).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2014, 17:23
by luke_sandoz
more smarmy commentary from Canadian journalists

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... ck-at-dnd/


The comments are a hoot.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 17:20
by zerion
The F-22 for Canada, Shirley you can't be serious?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 19:47
by neurotech
zerion wrote:The F-22 for Canada, Shirley you can't be serious?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html

Congressional approval? Shouldn't be an issue for Canadian procurement. Cost? Definitely. :wtf:

I've wrote about why the USAF F-22 production had to stop when it did. A refresh F-22 based on F-35 technology would be an option after about FY2018, assuming the F-35 program stays relatively on track. It would still cost billions in development costs, and probably require new engines to match the F135 tooling and technology improvements. This is just to get the same basic airframe into stable production. Most of the avionics would need replacing with either late block versions or F-35 / F/A-18F / F-15C versions. The APG-82 radar for the F-15C is one example.

My back-of-the-envelope numbers for the Super F-22 are about $10Bn in R&D costs, and a FY2020 $160-200m Flyaway cost. Could Canada afford a decent number of these jets? Around 40 Super F-22s.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 22:29
by zerion
I figured if Canada were to take the entire cost of restarting the line and procurement there would be no way they could afford it on their own. If the US restarted the line then it's more feasible for canada or anyone else like Japan or Israel. Your plan sounds great. But I can't imagine buying two fighters unless there are some changes financially. But hey what do I know?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 22:38
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:The F-22 for Canada, Shirley you can't be serious?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html


Other than it not being in production and being illegal to export, sure why not? Can we put our neighbors to north down for 8-12 total when all the cost is settled?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 22:50
by spazsinbad
US starts NEW F-22 production. Eventually Canada buys all the old F-22s whilst US retains all the new models (updated with no expense spared). Yeah right.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2014, 17:34
by arrow-nautics
If memory serves the buy must occur by September 30th for a FY18 buy (I think) but I'm pretty sure it is September. Time is running out & it's looking very likely this question is going to a summer 2015 election

:doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2014, 21:28
by archeman
zerion wrote:I figured if Canada were to take the entire cost of restarting the line and procurement there would be no way they could afford it on their own. If the US restarted the line then it's more feasible for canada or anyone else like Japan or Israel. Your plan sounds great. But I can't imagine buying two fighters unless there are some changes financially. But hey what do I know?


You know enough Zerion.

Imagine trying to re-align all the subcontractors and restart their own component assembly lines as well as the Primary assembly line.
Then you have to hire, retrain and staff those.
Then the tricky choice of using/updating the painful system OS with all it's known limitations.
Or you try to hack a newer adaptation of the F-35 system?
Then we get to argue for a few years about how much of the source code Canada gets only to let China steal from their computers...

This F-22 for Canada (or anybody else) is an idea that brings warm comfort only for those who don't want to think very hard or long.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 02:36
by arcturus
Let me just leave this link for Canada to consider.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... -35as.aspx

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 03:20
by blindpilot
You know this is actually just getting silly. As much as I admire the Canadian Military folks, the politicians are just off their rocker..

sooooooo,,,

I hear Cessna is making a solid little jet down in Kansas. http://www.scorpionjet.com/ It even made it to the Brit air show. They are cheap, sort of remind you of the beloved A-10, and shucks .. they are cheap to fly!

I recommend the Canadians just forget being a part of the big boy network and buy 100 of those. That way they can keep an eye on the sky .. sort of ... and the real Canadian Pilots can just go join the USAF or RAAF or RAF, and everyone will be happy. Hopefully the real Air Forces (USAF and RAF) will keep an eye on the Russians for you. and you will not have to give up ownership of an oil well.

This game is just head shaking to us down south... What a bunch of idiots our politicians are.

Scorpion.jpg
TextronAirland Scorpion


My 2 cents,
BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 04:02
by alloycowboy
blindpilot wrote:You know this is actually just getting silly. As much as I admire the Canadian Military folks, the politicians are just off their rocker..

sooooooo,,,

I hear Cessna is making a solid little jet down in Kansas. http://www.scorpionjet.com/ It even made it to the Brit air show. They are cheap, sort of remind you of the beloved A-10, and shucks .. they are cheap to fly!

I recommend the Canadians just forget being a part of the big boy network and buy 100 of those. That way they can keep an eye on the sky .. sort of ... and the real Canadian Pilots can just go join the USAF or RAAF or RAF, and everyone will be happy. Hopefully the real Air Forces (USAF and RAF) will keep an eye on the Russians for you. and you want have to give up ownership of an oil well.

This game is just head shaking to us down south... What a bunch of idiots our politicians are.

Scorpion.jpg


My 2 cents,
BP


As a Canadian I have one thing to say to that, see video......

[YouTube]DEBATERS EP#124: http://youtu.be/gN7oTzONplE[/YouTube]

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 04:17
by alloycowboy
blindpilot wrote:You know this is actually just getting silly. As much as I admire the Canadian Military folks, the politicians are just off their rocker..

sooooooo,,,

I hear Cessna is making a solid little jet down in Kansas. http://www.scorpionjet.com/ It even made it to the Brit air show. They are cheap, sort of remind you of the beloved A-10, and shucks .. they are cheap to fly!

I recommend the Canadians just forget being a part of the big boy network and buy 100 of those. That way they can keep an eye on the sky .. sort of ... and the real Canadian Pilots can just go join the USAF or RAAF or RAF, and everyone will be happy. Hopefully the real Air Forces (USAF and RAF) will keep an eye on the Russians for you. and you want have to give up ownership of an oil well.

This game is just head shaking to us down south... What a bunch of idiots our politicians are.

Scorpion.jpg


My 2 cents,
BP


As a Canadian I have one thing to say to that, see video......

[YouTube]DEBATERS EP#124: http://youtu.be/gN7oTzONplE[/YouTube]

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 08:23
by popcorn

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 08:39
by lookieloo
blindpilot wrote:You know this is actually just getting silly. As much as I admire the Canadian Military folks, the politicians are just off their rocker..

sooooooo,,,

I hear Cessna is making a solid little jet down in Kansas. http://www.scorpionjet.com/ It even made it to the Brit air show. They are cheap, sort of remind you of the beloved A-10, and shucks .. they are cheap to fly!
I'm gonna keep saying it until someone listens... the Su-25's vulnerabilities in Ukraine apply directly to the A-10/Scorpion. We're not even talking about near-peers here, just two-bit rebels with a little state-support have managed to swat-down one after another. Hell, they even shot-down a Mig-29 today.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 13:47
by blindpilot
lookieloo wrote:
blindpilot wrote:You know this is actually just getting silly. ...
sooooooo,,,

I hear Cessna is making a solid little jet down in Kansas. http://www.scorpionjet.com/ It even made it to the Brit air show. They are cheap,...and shucks .. they are cheap to fly!

I'm gonna keep saying it until someone listens... the Su-25's vulnerabilities in Ukraine apply directly to the A-10/Scorpion. We're not even talking about near-peers here, just two-bit rebels with a little state-support have managed to swat-down one after another. Hell, they even shot-down a Mig-29 today.


ROFL ... Ooookay , let me make a slight edit here ....

"[/sarcasm]" I hear Cessna is making a solid little jet down in Kansas. http://www.scorpionjet.com/ It even made it to the Brit air show. They are cheap,...and shucks .. they are cheap to fly! "[/end sarcasm]"

Canada just needs to decide whether they want to follow Australia or New Zealand. That's the only study they need. New Zealand has some cute helicopters. Just keep in mind Putin thinks he owns all of the Arctic. Things are a bit dicier than down under. If you want to join the dance, you have to pay the piper. Stop playing like little girls at a tea party.

my 2 cents,
BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 16:59
by zerion

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2014, 18:13
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:Sshthh, don't tell Canada.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... ed-Eielson


LOL nice

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2014, 05:32
by thepointblank
Noticed these two ads placed by the Eurofighter Consortium and Lockheed Martin for their respective fighters in my program guide for the Abbotsford Air Show:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2014, 03:28
by Corsair1963
Canada will never purchase the Typhoon over the Lightning,,,,,,,,,, :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2014, 20:30
by spazsinbad
I must admit I know absolutely NOTHING about Canada except what I have read over the last several years about their 'involvement' with the F-35 and stuff. So is this true? I thought the JSF/F-35 was a Joint Strike FIGHTER?
Why Canada needs a competitive process to choose a fighter jet
11 Aug 2014 C.S. Sullivan

"C.S. Sullivan is a former general officer and fighter pilot, has served in senior command and leadership positions in the Canadian Forces, NATO and NORAD, and commanded international combat operations in Afghanistan....

...Canada’s strategic military planners use a capability-based methodology, not the U.S.-styled threat-based approach, to identify future military capabilities and equipment. Recognizing that Canada’s military “can’t do everything”, a capability-based approach allows planners to focus on defence and security scenarios that are most relevant and most likely for Canadian foreign and defence policy goals and objectives. The U.S. threat-based approach focuses on worst-case scenarios and threats that, no matter how unlikely such scenarios might be, are unavoidable for the world’s preeminent global superpower. Countries that have purchased the F-35 have non-discretionary defence missions far different than Canada.

For this reason, Lockheed-Martin designed the F-35 to be a stealthy strike fighter with the ability to carrying out pre-emptive and retaliatory strikes against China and Russia. Although assessed as highly unlikely that Canada would participate in these types of “discretionary” combat missions, it was this type of threat-based scenario that Canada’s Air Force surprisingly used to justify its selection of the F-35....

...As F-35 users in the U.S., Australia and the U.K. have confessed – but seemingly not to Canada – the narrowly-focused strike capability of the F-35 will require close integration with other air superiority and multi-role fighters for decades to come [WAIT - WHAT!?]. A mixed fleet approach is required to address the narrowly-focused capabilities of the F-35, which are capabilities that are not a good fit for Canada’s non-discretionary missions...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e19985970/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2014, 20:46
by archeman
zerion wrote:Sshthh, don't tell Canada.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... ed-Eielson



Wait Wait Wait!
What does the AF think that it is doing?
There is way too much Open Space up there in Alaska to risk a single engine aircraft flying around.
I'm sure cooler heads will soon prevail. :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 01:20
by blindpilot
Why Canada needs a competitive process to choose a fighter jet
11 Aug 2014 C.S. Sullivan

"C.S. Sullivan is a former general officer and fighter pilot, has served in senior command and leadership positions in the Canadian Forces, NATO and NORAD, and commanded international combat operations in Afghanistan....

"...
For this reason, Lockheed-Martin designed the F-35 to be a stealthy strike fighter with the ability to carrying out pre-emptive and retaliatory strikes against China and Russia. Although assessed as highly unlikely that Canada would participate in these types of “discretionary” combat missions, "

... not a good fit for Canada’s non-discretionary missions...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e19985970/


Again I note. It is true that Canada shouldn't have to respond to real threats. NORAD (read ultimately in a crunch US) will respond for Canada's interest (at least before the current US administration that was assumed ..) They do it for the Baltic countries now.

However, make no mistake.
A. Putin wants the Arctic resources.. (see current oil deals in the midst of sanctions)
B. He will push if no one pushes back (see Crimea)
C. He tests regularly the boundaries and edges .. (see recent Bear flights)

There is only one thing that will give Putin (and his AF Generals) pause ... if the US in a F-22/35 or Canadian pilot in an F-35 pulls up unannounced on the wing of the aircraft testing boundaries. Ask the Iranian F-4 pilot ... that tends to change ... perspectives. Canada needs replenished Arctic icebreaking patrol ships and a real 5th gen fighter (ie. F-35) if wants to play in the big league games and protect its own Arctic interest. But the General is right. It's discretionary for them. The US/UK and other NATO Air Forces will probably come to their aid... so frankly, if they don't want to, the little Scorpion would work fine for "pretending to assert air sovereignty."

BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:40
by luke_sandoz
""C.S. Sullivan is a former general officer and fighter pilot, has served in senior command and leadership positions in the Canadian Forces, NATO and NORAD, and commanded international combat operations in Afghanistan...."

Seems pretty clueless about the F-35. So many errors in one article. Wonder what the back story is here because this comes across as a sensationalistic drive by rather than a call to reason. Maybe has a career axe to grind with current RCAF officers in the JSF program and is just trying to dish up some payback? Wouldn't be the first time a retired officer tried to monkey wrench guys still climbing the ladder. Has to be something because this article is mostly drivel and will make him into a laughingstock in the retired fighter pilot community.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 17:12
by spazsinbad
On another forum (and for the life of me I cannot find the story again but will continue to look) there was an article and video of a former Canadian Fighter Jock bad mouthing the F-35 whilst he was now some bigwig in a Canuk firm selling satellite comms. I thought: WHY? After a while I find that said civvie was angling to be a candidate for the opposition in Canada who are against the F-35. Ah Huh. So perhaps this sully van chap above is angling for some political job soonish?

Found it. This chap Steve Fuhr was on some TV show in 2011 and only recently was he nominated for the politician opposition team....

JSF 35 vs F18 superhornet Uploaded on Sep 25, 2011


Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 02:17
by maus92
Canada’s second thoughts on F-35 Lightning show concerns about plane’s high cost
By Christian Davenport August 18 | Washington Post

"As in the United States, the fighter plane [F-35] has become a rancorous political issue. What once looked like a sure buy of 65 planes has been bogged down by infighting and un-Canadian vitriol, and the purchase is on hold while Canadian officials consider whether to buy another plane...."

"But as Canada shows, not everyone is sold on what has become the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history. In addition to being a symbol of power, might and mind-bending technology, the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter has, to some, come to represent waste and unwieldiness — in the United States and abroad.

Many thought that by now Canada would have decided whether to buy the planes — a move that would help drive down costs in the nearly $400 billion program — or instead force the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, to compete for its business. But it’s now unclear when that will happen.

Some fear that if nations such as Canada balk, there could be questions about the long-term affordability of the program. Meanwhile, Boeing, one of Lockheed Martin’s fiercest competitors, has pounced on what it sees as an opportunity in Canada and other countries to tout its F/A-18 Super Hornet as a proven, affordable alternative.

Facing budget constraints, Italy and the Netherlands have already curtailed the number of F-35s they said they plan to buy. Denmark is holding a competition that would pit the F-35 against other fighters. Meanwhile, the production line at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant has been limited to a little over 30 the past two years, as tightened U.S. budgets and technical problems have forced the Pentagon to significantly slow its procurement as well.

“The program is stuck in low production rates and high costs,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry for the Teal Group. “The production rates are low because costs are high and costs are high because production is low.”..."

"“It gets to the fundamental tension within the JSF — you want to buy more of them because the quicker we buy them, the cost will come down,” Harrison said. “But the faster we buy them, that just increases the concurrency in the program. We’re buying planes that haven’t completed testing and are going to require modifications.”

The slowed production rate could have another consequence he said.

“One of the concerns has been as we’ve reduced the production rate, people have floated the idea of cutting back on the number of planes the U.S. is going to buy. Then you spook the allies.”..."

"Potential customers are one thing. Signed contracts are another.

It initially appeared as if Canada was definitely going to buy. Defense officials praised the F-35’s speed and stealth. At a news conference announcing the purchase to buy 65 F-35s in 2010, then-Defense Minister Peter MacKay called it “the best that we can provide our men and women in uniform.”

But two years later, the government put the acquisition on hold after an auditor general’s report suggested the government misled Parliament, saying that key costs over the course of the fleet’s life were much higher than previously stated...."

"Liberals attacked the conservative government. John McKay, a member of Parliament, called it “deceit and incompetence at the highest levels.” Another member, Ralph Goodale, wrote that the “F-35 fiasco exposes dishonesty and incompetence.”

As a result, the Harper administration, while denying it misled Parliament, put the purchase on hold and appointed a National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to ensure the Canadian military acquires the right plane.

But Goodale thinks that the government will put off any decision until after the upcoming elections. “This is a hot potato for them,” he said. “Their process up to now has been terribly flawed, and they have very little public support for how they’ve gone about this.”

The cost has been a big issue, and there was also “concern here in some circles that the F-35 was the anointed choice without having gone through the formality of a competitive process,” said Martin Shadwick, a Canadian defense analyst and a professor at York University.

Still, he said, “My personal anticipation is that we’ll still buy.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ml?hpid=z1

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 02:36
by Corsair1963
Far more pressure would be needed to cancel the F-35 for Canada. Then if they keep it............Something the critics don't even touch on. :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 06:13
by geogen
Although... let it be said that the superior US-sold alternative to an F-35 for Canada would not be a relatively slow and range-restricted CF-18 E/F strike fighter, but rather a next-gen tactical derivative CF-15 Northern Eagle. (along the lines of an F-15SA + upgraded AGP-82 radar + MAWS + possible upgrade path LO treatments).

Superior endurance and intercept range (requiring less reliance on in-flight tankers), superior cruise speed and dash speed, superior situational awareness (sensor capabilities) and superior loadout capacity and flexibility. All-around more strategic platform comparative to F-35, than the F-18 E/F strike fighter.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 10:14
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Although... let it be said that the superior US-sold alternative to an F-35 for Canada would not be a relatively slow and range-restricted CF-18 E/F strike fighter, but rather a next-gen tactical derivative CF-15 Northern Eagle. (along the lines of an F-15SA + upgraded AGP-82 radar + MAWS + possible upgrade path LO treatments).

Superior endurance and intercept range (requiring less reliance on in-flight tankers), superior cruise speed and dash speed, superior situational awareness (sensor capabilities) and superior loadout capacity and flexibility. All-around more strategic platform comparative to F-35, than the F-18 E/F strike fighter.


let it be said you've said it, and Its getting old. The expense to buy and operate would make it a complete non-starter.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 13:14
by popcorn
geogen wrote:Although... let it be said that the superior US-sold alternative to an F-35 for Canada would not be a relatively slow and range-restricted CF-18 E/F strike fighter, but rather a next-gen tactical derivative CF-15 Northern Eagle. (along the lines of an F-15SA + upgraded AGP-82 radar + MAWS + possible upgrade path LO treatments).

Superior endurance and intercept range (requiring less reliance on in-flight tankers), superior cruise speed and dash speed, superior situational awareness (sensor capabilities) and superior loadout capacity and flexibility. All-around more strategic platform comparative to F-35, than the F-18 E/F strike fighter.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 17:06
by flighthawk128
Actually, I like that idea of putting in Eagles (probably just the Charlies, not Echos).
I know, the costs and how its an old gen fighter and the time and training and everything, but would it be feasible to buy (at a much reduced cost of course), the F-15's that are being phased out for the F-35's and that have already been phased out by the F-22's?
I mean, its not like the US are going to keep using those old Eagles, and so can Canada purchase them and make use of them?
To my understanding, they're more versatile and capable then the old legacy Hornets (plus, if they're the ones being phased out, they should have at least have some upgrades USAF already did).
That way, while my stupid government keeps arguing about whether to buy F-35's, we have an air force capable of air superiority (F-15) and ground attack (CF-18).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 17:52
by luke_sandoz
flighthawk128 wrote:Actually, I like that idea of putting in Eagles (probably just the Charlies, not Echos).
I know, the costs and how its an old gen fighter and the time and training and everything, but would it be feasible to buy (at a much reduced cost of course), the F-15's that are being phased out for the F-35's and that have already been phased out by the F-22's?
I mean, its not like the US are going to keep using those old Eagles, and so can Canada purchase them and make use of them?
To my understanding, they're more versatile and capable then the old legacy Hornets (plus, if they're the ones being phased out, they should have at least have some upgrades USAF already did).
That way, while my stupid government keeps arguing about whether to buy F-35's, we have an air force capable of air superiority (F-15) and ground attack (CF-18).


Kinda looks like the Canadian Air Force folks are just ignoring the Moron Class, or as we like to call them "journalists". Also looks like Canada made the decision years ago to go with a single F/A airframe solution - eases up on the logistics footprint big time and for a small Air Force is the only realistic solution. They have said over and over they are buying now for the next 40+ years, so any of the current 4th gen fleet really can't be a viable solution.

And I would think they are looking at the Ukraine where some ragtag militia types are almost weekly blowing MIG29s out of the sky with simple and deadly SAMs. Well deadly to 4th gen aircraft. They are all rapidly becoming more targets than anything else.

Quick check of the Canadian military website shows a small, very professional force with for the most part really good equipment. Can't see them, despite the torqued up anti F-35 stories, buying death trap aircraft for their aircrew.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 19:55
by flighthawk128
Well, the reason why the F-18 was chosen was because the F-14, F-15, and Panavia Tornado were eliminated from contention from their high purchase cost. It was basically the F-16 vs F-18, and the F-18 was chosen because it had 2 engines (outdated mindset now).
I get that our (Canada's) air force would want to buy an airframe that lasts a long time, but we're so busy dealing with politics that I cannot foresee a decision being made any time soon (maybe within this decade, but I doubt it). As someone mentioned earlier, Putin believes he owns the Arctic, and the amount of probing flights from Russia has increased. If the Russians decide to become more aggressive, the CF-18's might, and only might, be able to hold their own against certain aircraft, but the airframes are old, outdated, and are a compromise (they're naval fighters, but Canada is using them as land-based fighters). That's why F-15C's might be better suited as an interim purchase, as they were designed from the outset to be an air superiority aircraft taking off from a land base.
I get that Alaska has F-22's and F-35's but I still worry, especially if the Russians are flying over CANADIAN north, that the Canadian Air Force will not be able to deal with that threat with our current equipment.
As for buying flying death traps, if you consider an F-15C to be a flying death trap, what on earth is the Canadian Air Force flying at the moment? :shock:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 21:11
by cantaz
Sorry buddy, but the very basis of a RCAF interim fighter is deeply flawed.

Fighter jets are very complex system of systems, of hardware and training, you don't just buy it and it's 100% good to go. It's the antithesis of buying a car or a smartphone. There are huge financial costs associated with getting a new fleet to operational readiness, and just importantly, a huge investment in time. Even if the Eagles start landing in Bagotville and Cold Lake tomorrow morning, we have absolutely zero means (people, time, space, etc) to do anything with them other than park them outside, much less start figuring out how we're suppose to manage the Hornets, transition partway into Eagles, and something else shortly after.

If we look at the whole process of adopting an interim fighter (measured in years, like, close to ten from start to readiness), one quickly realizes any interim fighter is not going to come online any sooner than the next gen replacement. Any interim fighter program would've had to been started a decade ago.

There is no time, no money and no everything else to get an interim fighter fleet ready to go. The very idea that Canadian government would embark on the additional cost of a short term interim fighter fleet while they're struggling with the cost of the long term replacement fleet is unrealistic.

Finally, the USAF is phasing out the F-15 because they've flown the life out of them. They're being retired because they cannot be used much longer. They'll be as useless to us as they are to the USAF.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 22:04
by XanderCrews
flighthawk128 wrote:Actually, I like that idea of putting in Eagles (probably just the Charlies, not Echos).
I know, the costs and how its an old gen fighter and the time and training and everything, but would it be feasible to buy (at a much reduced cost of course),


So you know it will cost a lot but the hope is it won't cost so much? Even if you get them at a deep discount, its like buying a "fixer upper" their maintenance requirements and down times will be that of 30 + year old aircraft, because thats what they are. Any dollar saved on the initial purchase is going straight into maintenance and then some, CPFH in for an F-15C is $42K American.

To my understanding, they're more versatile and capable then the old legacy Hornets


US F-15Cs are not equipped for Air to Ground. So they aren't versatile.


(plus, if they're the ones being phased out, they should have at least have some upgrades USAF already did).

The USAF is phasing out the oldest and least upgraded ones first for obvious reasons, even then
Geogens F - ##Letter++ standard formula won't apply to these made in 1978 birds that are hitting the bone yard. They would have to be completely new built, and developed depending on how many bells and whistles he threw on this time.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 02:53
by popcorn
Planes grow old and wear out.. simple as that.

http://www.defencetalk.com/82-f-16ds-re ... cks-60364/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 05:57
by thepointblank
flighthawk128 wrote:Well, the reason why the F-18 was chosen was because the F-14, F-15, and Panavia Tornado were eliminated from contention from their high purchase cost. It was basically the F-16 vs F-18, and the F-18 was chosen because it had 2 engines (outdated mindset now).


Not really correct, this is what I've heard from those closely involved in the CF-18 decision:

Basically, the Air Force wanted F-15 to begin with as the new Canadian fighter to replace the Voodoo's. That would never have happened, so the requirements was boiled down to a number of key factors:

1. BVR capability. The F/A-18 was out of the box capable of BVR combat. It could carry the AIM-7 Sparrow missile, and had a decent radar to guide the missile. The F-16 at the time was basically a point-defence fighter with some air to ground capabilities. It wasn't until later on in the F-16's development was the F-16 given BVR capabilities.

2. Multi-role capability. The FA-18 at the time was able to conduct both air superiority and ground attack at the same time. In short, when carrying bombs, the F/A-18 was capable of self-escorting. The F-16 at the time the decision was being made was still a point defence platform.

3. Industrial Benefits. McDonnell Douglas was offering significant industrial benefits for Canada to pick the F/A-18. They proposed manufacturing a number of F/A-18 components in Canada, and moving production of major components of their DC-10, MD-80, and development of certain components for their upcoming MD-11 airliner up in Canada.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 10:47
by cantaz
One of the old ex-maint guys told me that the F-4 was also being looked at for backwards compatibility in terms of servicing and logistics. Wonder why they didn't go with the Phantom. :roll:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2014, 23:39
by arrow-nautics
@ thepointblank
thepointblank wrote:Not really correct, this is what I've heard from those closely involved in the CF-18 decision...1. BVR capability...2. Multi-role capability...3. Industrial Benefits....
Have you heard anything from those involved about the F/A-18 being able to carry the AIM-7 & that the AIM-7 wasn't available on the F-16 until the C variant was produced? I recall from my Air Cadet days that this was also a factor in the F-18 decision over the Falcon (Viper).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2014, 23:40
by thepointblank
arrow-nautics wrote:@ thepointblank
thepointblank wrote:Not really correct, this is what I've heard from those closely involved in the CF-18 decision...1. BVR capability...2. Multi-role capability...3. Industrial Benefits....
Have you heard anything from those involved about the F/A-18 being able to carry the AIM-7 & that the AIM-7 wasn't available on the F-16 until the C variant was produced? I recall from my Air Cadet days that this was also a factor in the F-18 decision over the Falcon (Viper).

I remember that BVR capabilities was a major factor in the decision to pick the F/A-18 over the F-16. At the time of decision, the F/A-18 was able to demonstrate BVR capabilities with the AIM-7 Sparrow missile, while that capability with the F-16 only existed in proposals. The F/A-18 thus got higher marks on capabilities and risks, because the F/A-18 had the capability already.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2014, 17:45
by luke_sandoz
Seems odd that a country that can get its act together to do this:

"a Royal Canadian Air Force CC-177 Globemaster III strategic airlifter has completed its first delivery of military equipment, donated by the Republic of Albania, to security forces in Iraq fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Operation IMPACT is Canada’s contribution to international efforts to deliver military supplies, such as small arms and ammunition, to those fighting ISIL. Staged out of locations in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, the Canadian Air Task Force Iraq (CATFI) is working in concert with our Allies – including the United States and the United Kingdom – and the Government of Iraq to provide this critical aid"

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/08/29/can ... hting-isil

. . . can't make up its mind about the no-brainer F-35 acquisition.

Very odd.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2014, 20:52
by blindpilot
BEIJING, Aug. 29 (UPI) -- "China suggested the United States end its reconnaissance flights near Chinese territory...
Yang Yujun, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman said Thursday the United States should take "concrete measures" to stop surveillance flights if relations between the two countries are to improve, adding, "... the U.S. [is] reluctant to give up these frequent close-in reconnaissance activities against China." Yang ... saying: "... we do urge the U.S. side to decrease these close-in reconnaissance activities against China towards a complete stop."


and

Aug 29 (Reuters) - "Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Moscow had to strengthen its position, economically and militarily, in the resource rich Arctic region, where other countries are vying for influence.
"Our interests are concentrated in the Arctic. And of course we should pay more attention to issues of development of the Arctic and the strengthening of our position (there)," Putin told a youth camp outside Moscow, enumerating military and economic plans for Russia's Arctic."

(Reporting by Alexei Anishchuk, Writing by Thomas Grove; Editing by Christian Lowe)


Perhaps the Canadian opposition should be put in C-17's and flown up to the North Pole to negotiate in pretty pink jumpsuits?

They need to either get their act together or

Stop Flying over Russia's Ocean...
- - - -
What part of "this is serious business," do they not get?

MHO
BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2014, 23:27
by cantaz
There's an unfortunate component of bungling by the current government and massive, consistent misrepresentation by the media as well.

For Canada, even the best run fighter replacement program with a zero issue fighter would've seen a lot of bellyaching by any opposition and the public. We have not had a well run program, and the F-35 has not been without issues.

All one can do is hope for the best at this point.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2014, 23:14
by spazsinbad
Canada Oh Canada - JUST GET ON WITH IT.
Exclusive - Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe: source
04 Sep 2014 Randall Palmer, David Ljunggren and Andrea Shalal

"(Reuters) - Canada is likely to choose between two major U.S. firms when it buys a new fleet of jet fighters, excluding two European competitors, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter and Boeing Co's F-18 E/F Super Hornet were deemed more suitable for the variety of tasks the military has laid out....

...Polls show the Conservatives of Prime Minister Stephen Harper could lose the next federal election, which is set for October 2015.

The source said that while the F-35 had scored well on the various tests laid out by the secretariat, the Super Hornet was almost as capable and had the advantage of being cheaper....

...Three other sources familiar with the deliberations said Ottawa had been poised last month to announce it would buy the F-35s. That plan changed when Harper – concerned about the political fallout - suggested that Canada could wait since it did not need to replace its existing CF-18 jets until 2020.

One of the three sources, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said Harper could still announce in coming weeks Canada would buy the F-35 and skip a new competition but that "ultimately, it will be a political decision."...

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/0 ... M820140904

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 06:30
by Corsair1963
The whole point in the case of Canada it's now a Political Decision. Has nothing to do with merit as the F-35 wins hands down in any contest . Just shows you how Politics can get in the way of military procurement.


Regardless, I still don't see the F-35 losing. As the Military wants it and so does business. As the loss of the F-35 would cost Canada Billions of Dollars for decades to come! So, to the F-35 Critics in Canada. I dare you to try and seriously cancel the F-35 Order. As the outcry would be ten times as loud as it is today...... :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 11:17
by cantaz
Corsair1963 wrote:Regardless, I still don't see the NHP getting cancelled. As the Military wants it and so does business. As the cancellation of the NHP would cost Canada Billions of Dollars for decades to come!


:-|

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 11:24
by popcorn
Hopefully the Canadian delegation take the hint in between roads of golf. :D
IIRC the Marines are planning to test VL on dirt and grass so not so far-fetched an idea.
Note Meteor prominently displayed.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/s ... ato-summit

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 00:46
by alloycowboy

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 02:25
by spazsinbad
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/canadia ... 1.2772440/

YEP. RETRY GO BACK it says

IF 'm' is for mobile then that URL above does not work for desktop computers. CURSE the freakin' mobiles and Win8! :-)

TRY THIS ONE desktop army: :devil:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian- ... -1.2772440

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 03:27
by cantaz
I've met a couple people in blue uniform who'd still rather get SH when one points out the Russian activity.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 14:50
by smsgtmac
alloycowboy wrote:Lets see what critics have to say about the F-35 now.

I'd like to see the A2A escort pics to see how many bags of gas they had slung under them and a description of the mission including duration of escort time(s), and number and timing of handoffs and tanker touches, if any. :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 17:04
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:I've met a couple people in blue uniform who'd still rather get SH when one points out the Russian activity.


Did they give any specifics as to why exactly?

One of the things I learned in the service (US at least) is that I was ecstatic if my peers were actually split 50/50 on something LOL. Everyone seem to have about 6 different arguments if you go more than about 20 or more of us in a room. :doh: happened with everything, weapons, sports, politics, religion, fitness, girls, etc.

So it doesn't surpise me that some favor X, others Y, and even a few Z.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 19:58
by cantaz
Some BS about the F-35 being too much capability and too expensive for the RCAF, at least for one of them.

The best informed and articulate guys I've talked to are always on the F-35 side (or at least not anti-F-35). The other side is literally a mass of lack of information or sheer willful ignorance, and often full of themselves. I kinda want to say I'm exaggerating or biased, but I didn't start off a proponent of the F-35 (I was tentatively in the SH camp). I can come up with a few points against us buying the F-35, so I'm not setting an impossible goal for the other when I get into a debate. It's that they literally just regurg the same dumb BS from CBC and never wander anywhere near actual legitimate reasons.

In the RCAF, we literally have an one-week course on the RCAF. The fact that it's not used to better indoctrinate people on the basics of air power and operation is a massive waste, IMO. Who the hell cares what we did in Korea or what we used to fly, if you don't make them understand why their job still matters.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2014, 23:37
by delvo
cantaz wrote:Some BS about the F-35 being too much capability and too expensive for the RCAF, at least for one of them...
It's funny to watch the anti-F-35 crowd flip back and forth between claiming that it's too capable and that it's not capable enough. In a thread I was in at another forum, I saw one person post this...
It's an over-priced, under-equipped pig in a poke. It's the wrong plane for the wrong reason and there are better planes for our needs at better price-points.
...then was asked for an example of a "better plane" and answered "Super Hornet"... to which I replied with 126 words briefly listing ways F-35 is more functional & capable and pointing out that it's actually about the same immediate price to get started but cheaper down the road. The same person's very next post in that thread was this:
What's the mission, though? All this bickering back and forth about the relative merits of this platform vs. that is meaningless. Someone's pushing for a change in our traditional defense posture, jonesing for a Ferrari answer to a Corolla need.
So the under-equipped pig-in-a-poke ends up as the Ferrari in a Ferrari-Corolla analogy. So regardless of whether you figure its ability is high or lower compared to anything else, either way, F-35 still has to be the wrong answer in any case.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2014, 05:53
by joost
Just a matter of time and the decision is made for the Canadians:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... -jets.html


Boeing shifts focus off fighter jets

....As funding dries up for Boeing fighter planes, the company is targeting other aircraft — such as military versions of its commercial jets — to keep annual sales in its St. Louis-based defense unit above $30 billion.

The U.S. and other countries have been focusing spending on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter made by Boeing rival Lockheed Martin Corp. The Wall Street Journal reports that Chris Chadwick, head of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, is preparing a blueprint for the future that concedes the fighter market to Lockheed and focuses on opportunities with other aircraft.... bit more at the link

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2014, 04:18
by Corsair1963
smsgtmac wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Lets see what critics have to say about the F-35 now.

I'd like to see the A2A escort pics to see how many bags of gas they had slung under them and a description of the mission including duration of escort time(s), and number and timing of handoffs and tanker touches, if any. :wink:




Clearly, the F-35's vast amounts of internal fuel is a big advantage in such scenarios. :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2014, 04:21
by Corsair1963
joost wrote:Just a matter of time and the decision is made for the Canadians:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... -jets.html


Boeing shifts focus off fighter jets

....As funding dries up for Boeing fighter planes, the company is targeting other aircraft — such as military versions of its commercial jets — to keep annual sales in its St. Louis-based defense unit above $30 billion.

The U.S. and other countries have been focusing spending on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter made by Boeing rival Lockheed Martin Corp. The Wall Street Journal reports that Chris Chadwick, head of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, is preparing a blueprint for the future that concedes the fighter market to Lockheed and focuses on opportunities with other aircraft.... bit more at the link



Which, is why the Canadian Leadership is just playing the waiting game. Until the choice is so obvious the critics won't even be heard......... :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 06:27
by spazsinbad
CAN ADA pay such a small amount to reap great benefits? Sure CAN!
Canada to funnel money into upgrades to keep CF-18 fighter jets flying
30 Sep 2014 Steven Chase

"The Canadian government will pay for maintenance and upgrades to extend the life of the country’s aging CF-18 fighters so they last until about 2025, sources say – a strong sign that Ottawa is far from ready to pick a new warplane.

The federal government will also make the next required payment to keep alive its partnership in the Joint Strike Fighter program producing the controversial F-35 fighter-bomber, the sources say. The contribution, in the $25-million to $30-million range, means Canada will still be able to buy the plane at a slight discount if it chooses and, in the meantime, Canadian companies remain eligible to bid on supply contracts for the project....

...It’s looking increasingly unlikely that the government will choose a new jet fighter before the 2015 election...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e20852764/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 23:18
by XanderCrews

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2014, 05:25
by Corsair1963
The whole issue with the F-35 in the case of Canada is "Pure Political". So, debating the merits of the F-35 is "Pure Folly" in my opinion........ :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2014, 18:16
by blindpilot
Corsair1963 wrote:The whole issue with the F-35 in the case of Canada is "Pure Political". So, debating the merits of the F-35 is "Pure Folly" in my opinion........ :doh:


I agree 100% except for one small issue.

The Russians continue to drill with Exxon in the Arctic, and fly bombers over Canadian ID zones, if not Canadian territory. You can be certain Putin has every intention of drilling for oil in the Canadian Arctic.

There comes a time when little five year olds need to grow up and put on big boy pants, or the bully in the neighbor hood will give you a wedgy with your diapers. If Canadian politicians knew how they looked to folks down south, they'd be humiliated.

Of course we elected a president who was qualified ... for absolutlely nothing, with experience doing ... absolutely nothing. So living in glass houses and all ... It appears the inmates have taken over the asylum after all. But yeah debating has become pretty much folly.

MHO
BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 05:17
by KamenRiderBlade
Can somebody explain what has been happening with Canadian politcs for the recent years cause I haven't been following Canadian politics, just US.

Is the current Canadian Prime Minister a lame duck? If so what kind of idiotic things did he do?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 05:48
by thepointblank
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Can somebody explain what has been happening with Canadian politcs for the recent years cause I haven't been following Canadian politics, just US.

Is the current Canadian Prime Minister a lame duck? If so what kind of idiotic things did he do?

Defence isn't a very important or sexy issue in Canada. That's what boils down to it. People in Canada would rather see money spent on the every increasing sinkhole called healthcare over defence.

J.L. Granatstein, a respected political scientist and military historian in Canada recently wrote an article in The Globe and Mail that basically summarizes it up:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e20859264/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 06:40
by Corsair1963
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Can somebody explain what has been happening with Canadian politcs for the recent years cause I haven't been following Canadian politics, just US.

Is the current Canadian Prime Minister a lame duck? If so what kind of idiotic things did he do?



In the case of Canada the Government said why spend all of the money to hold a competition. When the F-35 is just going to win anyways and already meets the requirement. Yet, the opposition made it look like the "fix" was in and used the issue to create a controversy for political gain! :roll:


Makes me sick.......

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 11:58
by cantaz
thepointblank wrote:People in Canada would rather see money spent on the every increasing sinkhole called healthcare over defence.


Leave our universal healthcare out of this. :roll:

Many people in Canada would rather spend the money on perms for dogs than the military. Legitimate competing demands from other areas of spending, social or otherwise, is one things, but the problem is that the CF is seen as a waste of money. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that many supporters of the CF are just as ignorant when it comes to replacing the Hornets as the media, hence our continual "buy SH/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen/Arrow" nonsense.

At this point, I'm just thankful that the "buy Russian" faction was taken out into the streets and publicly hung by the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. I expect the situation in HK to do the same for whatever's left of the "buy Chinese" faction.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2014, 22:15
by arrow-nautics
The RAAF 1st flight is just an embarrassment for Canadians. I for one am ashamed. This is pathetic.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2014, 22:19
by arrow-nautics
cantaz wrote:
thepointblank wrote:...thankful that the "buy Russian" ...."buy Chinese" faction.
Don't the Russians & Chinese use different jet fuel formulas than the west? I'm pretty sure they do? If so, how in the heck could we make a Russian or Chinese acquisition an affordable one considering our close ties to the US, NATO & their refueling tanker support?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2014, 23:03
by cantaz
"Re-engine Russian airframe with western engines and avionics, we can then export the aircraft to other western customers!"

Not even remotely joking.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2014, 06:50
by Corsair1963
cantaz wrote:"Re-engine Russian airframe with western engines and avionics, we can then export the aircraft to other western customers!"

Not even remotely joking.



You may not be joking but that doesn't mean you suggestion is within the realm of reality! :doh:


That said, a possible merger of the Russian PAK-FA with French Avionics and Weapons. "May" have been possible with the Indian FGFA Fighter. Yet, with Russia's foray into Ukraine. That wouldn't even be possible anymore! :shock:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2014, 06:54
by Corsair1963
Still believe Canada will in fact purchase the F-35 and in the end will be very happy with it! Just to bad to see them waste so much money for nothing............. :bang:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2014, 04:24
by smsgtmac
Corsair1963 wrote:Still believe Canada will in fact purchase the F-35 and in the end will be very happy with it! Just to bad to see them waste so much money for nothing............. :bang:


Yeah. The trouble with democracies is we waste a lot of time and effort getting the herd all going the same way, then in retrospect look back at the moment with nostalgia for 'the days back when' we were all "united" on the same side of things.
This is why democracies are slow to arouse, but once aroused are slow to stop spreading carnage. We'd have a lot fewer jihads and tinpot dictators if we just played whack-a-mole the first time they popped up out of their little holes.

But it IS a little known fact that Themistocles had his greatest difficulty getting the Canadian expats living in Athens to get on board with his plans to defeat Xerxes./sarc :whistle:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 12:11
by popcorn
The perspective from BS... refreshingly free from snarkiness.
]http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/canada-s-hornet-upgrade-delays-new-fighters

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 18:48
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:The perspective from BS... refreshingly free from snarkiness.
]http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/canada-s-hornet-upgrade-delays-new-fighters


Are we sure its him? Pretty amazing when the guy decides to report and explain instead of snarky politics.

LOL at slowman comments. Crazy to think that guy is Bill's "target audience"

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 20:13
by SpudmanWP
Sloman wrote:Canada's best option is simply to order the Advanced Super Hornet, the same level of RCS as CF-35 at half the price.


That pretty much sums up the lack of understanding, ability to do research, or even the presence of common sense (or lack thereof) that most F-35 haters display.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 22:42
by peck420
This is not as simple as saying that it is Canadian politicians playing politics.

Our military has not exactly made high dollar procurement an easy sell. Between them and the boobs in Ottawa, it has been one boondoggle after another. Helicopter replacement take 1, cancelled with a very expensive fee. Helicopter replacement take 2, wrapped in delays and excess. Submarines...paint them yellow and send them to Edmonton...they will be outclassed. Supply ships, ice breakers, F-35's, etc, etc, etc.

It is not that Canadians are adverse to spending on our military, they are adverse to watching limited tax dollars get pissed away in the wind, and in most cases leaving us with nothing...literally nothing, not even a damn puddle of piss.

Now, we are being asked to pony up for an aircraft that was decided upon with no competition, is far in excess of what we want per our national identity (defensive vs projective), and is so expensive that so few can be had (by Canada) that it does nothing to mitigate the simple fact that we can't even buy enough aircraft to actually defend our own borders.

If it was as simple as Canadians being against military spending, the C's would have never even made office. They ran a large portion of their campaign based on upgrading Canada's capabilities (militarily), but have done no more (possibly even way less) than any Liberal government has.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 23:23
by hb_pencil
peck420 wrote:This is not as simple as saying that it is Canadian politicians playing politics.


No, its clearly as simple as saying that.

peck420 wrote:Our military has not exactly made high dollar procurement an easy sell. Between them and the boobs in Ottawa, it has been one boondoggle after another. Helicopter replacement take 1, cancelled with a very expensive fee.


Uhh, that's ALL on the Chretien Government. The CF clearly said they wanted it, CDS Anderson even said so publicly after the Liberals got into power. He gets axed just for saying that. Certainly the CF is not blameless in the second instance, where it was allowed to bloat the capabilities and caused cost/schedule growth. But in a lot of cases, political interference is a major cause.

peck420 wrote:Submarines...paint them yellow and send them to Edmonton...they will be outclassed.


Had the Chretien government had purchased the Upholders in the 1996 spring rather than dithering for two extra years we would not have had the same number of issues. Moreover they are not terrible submarines either... they are very quiet and effective at what they do. The problem is that because of its early troubles ANY expenditure on them (including ones that you would have to pay regardless, like scheduled refits) gets thrown out by the media as another failure.

peck420 wrote:Supply ships, ice breakers.


If it was up to the military, I believe Canada would not be purchasing ships from domestic yards. It reeks of Mulroney's "jobs for the boys" because purchasing them in Canada makes little military sense and only serves domestic politico-economic interests.. i.e. votes in Vancouver, Quebec and St. Johns.

peck420 wrote:It is not that Canadians are adverse to spending on our military, they are adverse to watching limited tax dollars get pissed away in the wind, and in most cases leaving us with nothing...literally nothing, not even a damn puddle of piss.


No they are willing to watch their tax dollars get wasted, the public indignation of not buying canadian is pretty evident as is the dithering on the F-35 project.

peck420 wrote:Now, we are being asked to pony up for an aircraft that was decided upon with no competition, is far in excess of what we want per our national identity (defensive vs projective), and is so expensive that so few can be had (by Canada) that it does nothing to mitigate the simple fact that we can't even buy enough aircraft to actually defend our own borders.


Frankly, this is about the most contradictory notion I've seen yet. The aircraft is both too capable, and not capable enough to meet our national requirements? Please show me, operational analysis or ANYTHING that supports the idea that 65 aircraft is not sufficient. I'll give you a hand... it doesn't exist. Would it surprise you to know that we basically only have 70 CF-18s operational at this time? Why aren't you complaining about that? And In reality, a competition was and still is a total waste of resources and cash. All it really it is a spectacle that will make people feel better, when every honest assessments, undertaken in Canada and outside keep saying the exact same thing: F-35.

The reality is that the F-35 is the cheapest option and the most effective one to defend the state for the mid to long term future. Its not even close for the other capabilities. This board is littered with evidence of that, but if you want we're happy to walk you through it if you so desire.

The Canadian public, which has no idea about this area at all has been completely mislead by a fifth estate that has even less of a clue about this area and really does not have the interests of the public at heart, but to sell copy and, to a lesser extent, embarrass the government. Its being pushed by the opposition who simply wants to get into power. Unfortunately by further delaying the country just loses out on more lucrative contracts, with nothing to gain whatsoever.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 23:58
by cantaz
peck420 wrote:Now, we are being asked to pony up for an aircraft that was decided upon with no competition, is far in excess of what we want per our national identity (defensive vs projective), and is so expensive that so few can be had (by Canada) that it does nothing to mitigate the simple fact that we can't even buy enough aircraft to actually defend our own borders.


Reg force RCAF member here. Your sentiments are terribly misplaced.

One, the RCAF has always been a "projective" air force, whether it be combat or support: WWI, WWII, Korea, NATO during the Cold War, ODS, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Iraq again. Your idea that we're defensive is contrary to history and more about what you want the RCAF to be than what it actually is.

Two, if you actually bothered to sit down and parce the numbers, you'd realize that the F-35A isn't the most expensive aircraft we can buy. The Eurofighter is. Not to mention that the military has never, ever been required to have open competitions for everything we purchase. We're not always retarded, maybe trust us to sometimes know what we need.

Three, we can't have more fighters because we don't have the people or infrastructure to support a larger number of aircraft. End of discussion. The legislated personnel cuts in the 90s were deep, very deep. The number of fighter jets we have now is left over from when we had a lot more people, the number of fighter we are going to buy reflects how many people we have now and expect to have in the future.

So, thank you for supporting the military, but if you don't get your facts right you are hurting us just the same.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 04:42
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:
Sloman wrote:Canada's best option is simply to order the Advanced Super Hornet, the same level of RCS as CF-35 at half the price.


That pretty much sums up the lack of understanding, ability to do research, or even the presence of common sense (or lack thereof) that most F-35 haters display.



Typical critic..... :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 04:55
by Corsair1963
Honestly, the Canadian Taxpayer should be furious on how the "left" has turned this whole F-35 selection process into some Redneck Soap Opera! As in the end Canada will buy the F-35. The only difference being it will just pay more..... :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 17:46
by lookieloo
... been just listing for awhile; and guess what? I still think Canada should be kicked out of the program, its workshare re-absorbed into more reliable customers.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 17:58
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:... been just listing for awhile; and guess what? I still think Canada should be kicked out of the program, its workshare re-absorbed into more reliable customers.


And who might those be? Italy, UK and Netherlands who cut their orders by over 30% or more? Or how about Denmark who is now having a competition? In truth we'll still buy 65 in the end, the same number we said we would at the start. We will also provide a lot of value added when the RCAF joins the fleet.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 02:04
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:... been just listing for awhile; and guess what? I still think Canada should be kicked out of the program, its workshare re-absorbed into more reliable customers.



The F-35 controversy in Canada and Italy (and lessor degree Australia) has more to do with local politics than the plane itself or its true capabilities!


Honestly, I am not to happy with Italy. As the current Government has joined the critics and bashed the F-35 for political gain. Then came running to the US this past summer with there hand out. Asking for a larger share of the F-35 pie! Honestly, talk about nerve.........Yet, like someone reminded me on another thread. You can't cut off your nose in spite of you face.

So, I guess the best course of action is to just let it pass and things will work themselves out with a little time.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 02:20
by spazsinbad
Are you kiddin' me? 'lesser degree of controversy in Australia'. In a political sense there is NONE. No major political party (of the two) has a problem with the aircraft. I hear a lot of noise from USofA CongressCRITTERs however. Nevertheless the F-35 goes ahead in these two places - because why? No one listens to the negative criticisms I guess. Why is this so? :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 02:32
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Are you kiddin' me? 'lesser degree of controversy in Australia'. In a political sense there is NONE. No major political party (of the two) has a problem with the aircraft. I hear a lot of noise from USofA CongressCRITTERs however. Nevertheless the F-35 goes ahead in these two places - because why? No one listens to the negative criticisms I guess. Why is this so? :doh:



I said "lesser" degree of controversy compare to Canada and Italy. Which, I believe is supported by current events. As the Australian Government has pressed ahead with the F-35 ordering 72. The commitment of the Canada and Italy is still very much up on the air............


Chill we are both on the same side here.... :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 02:36
by spazsinbad
You appear to be concerned about sides overly much. I'm concerned about the truth. There is no controversy over the purchase of the F-35As for Oz. NONE. Yes the mouthbreathing peanut gallery make gas on the internet but so do I! :devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 02:52
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:You appear to be concerned about sides overly much. I'm concerned about the truth. There is no controversy over the purchase of the F-35As for Oz. NONE. Yes the mouthbreathing peanut gallery make gas on the internet but so do I! :devil:



Honestly, no controversy in Australia??? Funny, I have an Australian friend and I think he would beg to differ with you. Plus, I have read articles and seen several Australian News Programs which hardly print a pretty picture!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hV8W4EzXRU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaqQkk

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 03:08
by spazsinbad
Get a grip: "...In a political sense there is NONE...." There is no controversy about the F-35s from the politicians who matter - the two major political parties which make Defence Decisions are as one. Otherwise the cripples crap on about it because - what else can they do. Go figure. :drool:

You can cite Ubend videos and articles but not from the politicians who matter - who make decisions. Why the current government (Liberal/Country Party) are so enamoured of the aircraft that they expressed interest in having Bees on our two LHDs. What an endorsement. No problem from the former Labor Federal Guvmnt either. Again who cares about the also rans?

And I HAVE NO FRIENDs in your country and DO I give a toss? Nope.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 03:16
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Get a grip: "...In a political sense there is NONE...." There is no controversy about the F-35s from the politicians who matter - the two major political parties which make Defence Decisions are as one. Otherwise the cripples crap on about it because - what else can they do. Go figure. :drool:

You can cite Ubend videos and articles but not from the politicians who matter - who make decisions. Why the current government (Liberal/Country Party) are so enamoured of the aircraft that they expressed interest in having Bees on our two LHDs. What an endorsement. No problem from the former Labor Federal Guvmnt either. Again who cares about the also rans?

And I HAVE NO FRIENDs in your country and DO I give a toss? Nope.



Well, we will have to agree to disagree. Here in the US both "Political" parties support the F-35 by enlarge. Yet, to say there is no controversy. Would be like saying the sun isn't bright........ :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 03:33
by spazsinbad
I'll repeat and hope you pay attention. Look at my words "...In a political sense there is NONE (no controversy)...."

Any dipstick can spray BS all over where ever because it is a free country and a good one to boot. So make something out of nothing and pretend to be 'on my side'. I have no side (there is a joke there). Go figure.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 10:54
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:I'll repeat and hope you pay attention. Look at my words "...In a political sense there is NONE (no controversy)...."

Any dipstick can spray BS all over where ever because it is a free country and a good one to boot. So make something out of nothing and pretend to be 'on my side'. I have no side (there is a joke there). Go figure.



I don't know what your problem is??? As while I am a strong supporter of the F-35. Even I have to admit the F-35 has had its fair shore of controversy. Which, clearly also reached Australia.


Nonetheless, this is from the Australian Senate.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... hV8W4EzXRU

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 11:21
by spazsinbad
As I will say again - get a grip. You cite a Ubend video highlighting a GREEN party Senator. This chap has no clout whatsoever. He is not a member of the either main party so get over yourself.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 17:45
by hb_pencil
Well... that about resolves that.



Although its unfortunate that Peck420 did not reply or engage.... I guess I should have expected as much... it seems that even when confronted with a differing opinion on a topic they are not well versed in Canadians just disengage but don't change their views. Its kinda funny, because when pressed, many will say "Well I don't believe you, I read it in the papers/internets/news." IT makes me wonder why the people give those sources so much authority when the people they are citing have little background knowledge on the subject and are doing it in part to manufacture outrage in order to sell copy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2014, 15:44
by popcorn
Well, what do you know? Doesn't hurt to dream.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -whip-out/



We can’t afford to simply plan for what threats seem likely today. We need an air fleet that is large enough, and therefore flexible enough, to respond to all threats we may realistically face over, probably, the next 40 years. By that time, maybe we’ll be using drones instead of manned planes, but we aren’t yet. We need planes, lots of planes — enough to them to meet all our obligations at once, even ones that may seem unlikely today.

The Harper government had originally said it intended to buy 65 F-35s. That’s 15 fewer jets than our current total CF-18 fleet. That’s not good enough. Canada needs enough planes to contribute to international missions abroad while patrolling our skies at home, with jets left over to spare for miscellaneous jobs and the unexpected. The most basic responsibility of any government is securing the sovereignty and security of the nation. In Canada, that means more planes.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2014, 17:33
by luke_sandoz
Given that a uniformed Canadian soldier was murdered yesterday by a local kid gone radical wannbe jihadi

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.2807078

maybe it will wake some people up to the reality of a bad and getting worse global situation and to get ready for it.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2014, 17:35
by thepointblank
luke_sandoz wrote:Given that a uniformed Canadian soldier was murdered yesterday by a local kid gone radical wannbe jihadi

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.2807078

maybe it will wake some people up to the reality of a bad and getting worse global situation and to get ready for it.

Add the just happening shooting at Parliament Hill:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliam ... -1.2808710

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2014, 18:27
by luke_sandoz
thepointblank wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Given that a uniformed Canadian soldier was murdered yesterday by a local kid gone radical wannbe jihadi

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.2807078

maybe it will wake some people up to the reality of a bad and getting worse global situation and to get ready for it.

Add the just happening shooting at Parliament Hill:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliam ... -1.2808710



Holy crap. Live gun fight videoed inside the Canadian parliament . . .

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/new ... e21219457/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2014, 18:37
by blindpilot
thepointblank wrote:... Add the just happening shooting at Parliament Hill:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliam ... -1.2808710

that and
Moscow (AFP) - Russia on Saturday sent six ships carrying personnel and equipment to a Soviet-era military base in the Arctic that it is reopening to bolster its presence in the region, Russian news agencies reported.

Moscow is ramping up its military presence in the pristine but energy-rich region as other countries such as Canada and Norway are also staking claims to access its resources.

President Vladimir Putin last year ordered the military to return to a base on the far-Northern New Siberian Islands that was abandoned in 1993.

On Saturday, a fleet of six ships including two large landing ships set off from the port of Severomorsk in northern Russia, a spokesman for the Western military district, Vadim Serga, told ITAR-TASS news agency.

The ships will be accompanied by several icebreakers.

"The main task of the latest expedition by a number of Northern Fleet ships to the Arctic is to deliver staff, equipment and supplies to the taskforce that from this year will serve on the New Siberian islands on a permanent basis," said the northern fleet's commander, Admiral Vladimir Korolyov.


and
"15 October 2014

Starting from 2017, the Russian Air Force will base MiG-31 interceptor jets and tactical aircraft at a Russian Arctic airfield in the urban settlement of Tiksi in northernmost Sakha Republic, Commander Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said Wednesday.

There is no terrorism/Russian threat to Canada... We can just have Cessna 172s for our "non aggressive military."

Move along. Nothing to see here.
Better learn to speak Russian and Arabic .... Eh?

BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2014, 21:12
by spazsinbad
Solution for USAF A-10 issue? Sell 'em to Canananananananananadddddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Canada needs a fighter jet that matches its missions
23 Oct 2014 Michael Byers

"...It is true that the F-35 is designed for ground attack, but only against “peer adversaries” such as Russia or China. Its stealth characteristics are only needed in the face of radar-guided anti-aircraft systems, while its precision-guided bombs are best suited for clear military targets such as command and communication centres, anti-aircraft emplacements, and supply lines.

And, like the CF-18, the F-35 is not designed to fly low and slow.

The F-35 is also remarkably expensive. In the United States, the cost of the F-35 has led the Air Force to recommend retirement of the A-10 Warthog – to the consternation of the US Army, whose soldiers are appreciative of the protection provided by these basic but highly effective planes.

Air forces, in fact, are rarely interested in optimizing their capabilities against irregular ground forces. They desire expensive, high-tech aircraft capable of fighting peer adversaries.

Canada still needs at least some supersonic aircraft that can dogfight. But we also need aircraft that can fly low and slow, protect our troops, and identify and kill irregulars. One possibility is the BAE Hawk, a popular subsonic jet that the Royal Canadian Air Force already uses for training.

Sending supersonic jets to Iraq is like using a sledgehammer to fix your laptop...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e21263091/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2014, 21:43
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Solution for USAF A-10 issue? Sell 'em to Canananananananananadddddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Canada needs a fighter jet that matches its missions
23 Oct 2014 Michael Byers

"...It is true that the F-35 is designed for ground attack, but only against “peer adversaries” such as Russia or China. Its stealth characteristics are only needed in the face of radar-guided anti-aircraft systems, while its precision-guided bombs are best suited for clear military targets such as command and communication centres, anti-aircraft emplacements, and supply lines.

And, like the CF-18, the F-35 is not designed to fly low and slow.

The F-35 is also remarkably expensive. In the United States, the cost of the F-35 has led the Air Force to recommend retirement of the A-10 Warthog – to the consternation of the US Army, whose soldiers are appreciative of the protection provided by these basic but highly effective planes.

Air forces, in fact, are rarely interested in optimizing their capabilities against irregular ground forces. They desire expensive, high-tech aircraft capable of fighting peer adversaries.

Canada still needs at least some supersonic aircraft that can dogfight. But we also need aircraft that can fly low and slow, protect our troops, and identify and kill irregulars. One possibility is the BAE Hawk, a popular subsonic jet that the Royal Canadian Air Force already uses for training.

Sending supersonic jets to Iraq is like using a sledgehammer to fix your laptop...."

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e21263091/


'
Cool Story Bro, But who was "honest facts" and "actual research" ?? Maybe those guys should be included in the next cool story? so much wrong with that article but am I surprised? nope!

Also WTF do people think the best "low and slow" aircraft for hunting out insurgents is a fixed wing asset? If you want low and slow you can't beat a helicopter. Just buy helicopters. Canada has a great history with procuring helicopters too! LOL

America used Apaches and A-10s to support our troops in Afghanistan.

Oh? what should we buy then? Apaches? A-10s?

No Hawks of course.

:| ?


LOL at him saying Harriers are super sonic. WOW

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2014, 21:11
by cantaz
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/f ... -1.2821267

I'm going to guess that the sale of Rafales and Mistrals came up during the visit.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 23:17
by zerion

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 00:59
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:Canada to continue JSF program

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-co ... 58086.html


Shocking.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 04:06
by eskodas
More bullshit http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-pu ... -1.2868894

For some reason Canada's sustainment and operations are twice the cost of the USAF.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 20:56
by XanderCrews
eskodas wrote:More bullshit http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-pu ... -1.2868894

For some reason Canada's sustainment and operations are twice the cost of the USAF.


Read the PDF attached to it... shockingly the article selectively quotes bad news. Shockingly.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 23:47
by cantaz
Don't feel that bad about CBC funding cuts, given their shitty journalistic standards. How long until Dassault buy some ad time?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 00:02
by jtcreate
Its just the same old crap. Canada consistently debates again and again and again and again over another new platform acquisition and while time ticks by so do the cost savings. Talk about beating a dead horse! :bang: Or maybe I'm just missing something here.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 00:09
by XanderCrews
jtcreate wrote:Its just the same old crap. Canada consistently debates again and again and again and again over another new platform acquisition and while time ticks by so do the cost savings. Talk about beating a dead horse! :bang: Or maybe I'm just missing something here.


According to that PDF if they don't start buying by 2020, the cost starts climbing for them. I don't think they will wait that long but in the meantime everyone can have a laugh at Canada's expense. I've seen guys caught by their wives screwing a dead hooker handle the situation better than the Canadian Government has handled the F-35 situation with its people.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 12:07
by Corsair1963
Honestly, in the case of Canada. It maybe a good idea to wait. As the F-35 program continues to improve day by day. Reaching milestone after milestone as the prices drops. (just as predicted) This of course reflects poorly on the political opposition in Canada. As much of the criticism proves to be faults..... :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 14:29
by sferrin
Here is the kind of brilliance you don't see every day:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... anada.html

OTTAWA --- A highly-anticipated, government-commissioned report on the F-35 and its competitors shows little difference between the four warplanes when it comes to the vast majority of missions they will be required to perform.

The only major exception is fighting against another country, though the report says such an event is “highly unlikely” to occur in the future, and even then, “the government is not obliged to undertake such a mission.”

In other words, if you just want to go fly around there are cheaper options, but if you want to fight the F-35 is better. But "we don't have to go fight if it's going to be dangerous". I don't know what's worse, the stupidity or the sheer self-centered, gutless, cowardice on display.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 16:39
by SpudmanWP
government-commissioned report

Who prepared it and with what access to the program?

With the recent report on the CIA which was so obviously driven by politics, I have lost faith in anything labled "government-commissioned report".

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 17:00
by XanderCrews
A highly-anticipated, government-commissioned report on the F-35 and its competitors shows little difference between the four warplanes when it comes to the vast majority of missions they will be required to perform.

The only major exception is fighting against another country,


Thought it was a fake news article LOL

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 17:19
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:In other words, if you just want to go fly around there are cheaper options, but if you want to fight the F-35 is better. But "we don't have to go fight if it's going to be dangerous". I don't know what's worse, the stupidity or the sheer self-centered, gutless, cowardice on display.


It's often said that Canada came of age at Vimy, in northern France, in the Easter of 1917, when a nation of seven million lost over three-and-a-half thousand in a few days. Ninety years later, a nation of 30 million cannot absorb four dozen dead in half a decade without recoiling from the very notion of soldiering, which is--as our forebears understood at Vimy and the Somme--central to the idea of nationhood: "It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade," recalled Brigadier-General Alexander Ross of the Dominion troops' advance in the dawn of Easter Monday. "In those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation." It is perhaps crediting too much to Ipsos-Reid to read into the few minutes of a poll respondent's time the death of a nation. Nonetheless, in the space of one human life--four score and ten--we have gone from "coming of age" to a descent into a second adolescence full of frivolous posturing.

One of the oldest lessons of human history is that will trumps wealth: advanced prosperous societies are not beaten by even more advanced, more prosperous societies; the Roman Empire did not fall to the Even More Roman Empire, but to cruder forces on the fringes of the map driven by the old primal impulses when you no longer have even a vestigial survival instinct and, indeed, when such a lack is pointed out, you trumpet it as a virtue, evidence of your more highly evolved state. As Lee Harris writes in his perceptive book Civilization and Its Enemies:
"Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe."

- Mark Steyn, Canadian.


TLDR: Man up again Canada.


SpudmanWP wrote:
government-commissioned report

Who prepared it and with what access to the program?

With the recent report on the CIA which was so obviously driven by politics, I have lost faith in anything labled "government-commissioned report".


I assume this one:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1 ... 014-en.pdf

Edit: Corrected it is this one:

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/do ... al-eng.pdf

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 18:27
by archeman
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:In other words, if you just want to go fly around there are cheaper options, but if you want to fight the F-35 is better. But "we don't have to go fight if it's going to be dangerous". I don't know what's worse, the stupidity or the sheer self-centered, gutless, cowardice on display.


It's often said that Canada came of age at Vimy, in northern France, in the Easter of 1917, when a nation of seven million lost over three-and-a-half thousand in a few days. Ninety years later, a nation of 30 million cannot absorb four dozen dead in half a decade without recoiling from the very notion of soldiering, which is--as our forebears understood at Vimy and the Somme--central to the idea of nationhood: "It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade," recalled Brigadier-General Alexander Ross of the Dominion troops' advance in the dawn of Easter Monday. "In those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation." It is perhaps crediting too much to Ipsos-Reid to read into the few minutes of a poll respondent's time the death of a nation. Nonetheless, in the space of one human life--four score and ten--we have gone from "coming of age" to a descent into a second adolescence full of frivolous posturing.

One of the oldest lessons of human history is that will trumps wealth: advanced prosperous societies are not beaten by even more advanced, more prosperous societies; the Roman Empire did not fall to the Even More Roman Empire, but to cruder forces on the fringes of the map driven by the old primal impulses when you no longer have even a vestigial survival instinct and, indeed, when such a lack is pointed out, you trumpet it as a virtue, evidence of your more highly evolved state. As Lee Harris writes in his perceptive book Civilization and Its Enemies:
"Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe."

- Mark Steyn, Canadian.


TLDR: Man up again Canada.


SpudmanWP wrote:
government-commissioned report

Who prepared it and with what access to the program?

With the recent report on the CIA which was so obviously driven by politics, I have lost faith in anything labled "government-commissioned report".


I assume this one:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1 ... 014-en.pdf



Xander, I think that there are SOME Australians that are with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5UqTgGJ8Fg

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 19:57
by SpudmanWP
Am I the only one who actually read the report?

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/do ... al-eng.pdf

Reading through the report I noticed that they conveniently did not gauge the fighters individually, but as a group.

For example, for the "Range of Risk Ratings: Critical Enabling Factors Assessment" in the "Beyond 2030" category of the "Defence of Canada" row, the result is "Low to High Risk". Gee, I wonder what plane is a Low Risk and which are High Risks? The report is stuffed full of this sort of confusing information.

Image


What is very clear at this point is that FG was completely talking out of their A$$ by stating that:
All aircraft were deemed low-risk candidates to perform each of the missions up to 2030 and beyond, except in fighting another peer nation. In that category, all the aircraft were deemed a higher risk platform beyond 2030 and none distinguished itself.


The fact that this report does not once break out the assessments on a fighter-by-fighter basis makes my point.

The only saving grace that this report has is the last line:

A classified report with detailed results of the evaluation has been provided to the Government to
inform a decision on the path forward to replace Canada’s CF-18 fighter fleet.


Here are the other two charts:
Image
Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 20:39
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:Am I the only one who actually read the report?

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/do ... al-eng.pdf



Of course you are, you don't expect people to actually read it for themselves when a Canadian Journo just told them all they need to know do you?

F-35, where its specs are rate to a tenth of a G, but no one bothers to read and analyze an entire report. :bang:

The purpose of the assessment was not to compare the four aircraft
that participated, nor was it meant to identify the best option. Rather, it was to present a summary
of risk-based assessments.


Ayyy LMAO

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 22:51
by luke_sandoz
and then they have reporters filing this kind of vewy, vewy scawy story about the F-35.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Tandt+sag ... story.html

The question is, did he get even one thing right?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 23:17
by cantaz
I'm not even going to click on any of those links. :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 23:23
by archangel117
One thing I've noticed is that the projected FRP F-35s cost about 93 million with engine in FY2012 dollars and when you adjust the CF-18s 35mill FY1977 cost to FY2012 it's suddenly 104 million. So In terms of loss of money due to airframe loss the F-35 Is cheaper & safer (1.872 billion vs 1.023 billion FY2012 lost)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2014, 00:14
by spazsinbad
Aahh this dissolution had me guffawing.... [from immediately above source]
"... It has been speculated in defence circles that the ultimate solution would be Solomonic... ...But let’s face it: Such a plan would be madness..."

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2014, 06:49
by Corsair1963
One word...........LUDICROUS :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2014, 19:03
by spazsinbad
Earlier on page 24 of this thread and in another post is the name Steve Fuhr - supposedly only a former miljet Canuk concerned citizen of the Great White UP trashing the F-35 - and I - in particular - wondered why. ALL IS REVEALED:

Earlier mentions: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=14129&p=207555&hilit=Fuhr#p207555
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=276812&hilit=Fuhr#p276812

AND NOW: (I'll not post any of this rubbish)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/maj-stephe ... 02482.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2014, 19:59
by luke_sandoz
Seems he is about two years out of date in his information. Wonder what he will do when he finds out The Eurofighter and Rafale are both more expensive than the F-35 even without buying all the add on pods needed to bring them into an equal capability comparison?

More expensive, less capable. Hell of a deal!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2014, 20:27
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:Seems he is about two years out of date in his information. Wonder what he will do when he finds out The Eurofighter and Rafale are both more expensive than the F-35 even without buying all the add on pods needed to bring them into an equal capability comparison?

More expensive, less capable. Hell of a deal!


This is one of the reasons I am all for an open Canadian competition.

1. I want KPMG reports done on all competitors including Gripen NG even tho they withdrew, and published for the public
2. Open cost comparisons, including all fees and additional add ons (like the pods you mention)
3. To Further waste money, flyoffs. (event 1: 2 bombs+targeting, 2 AAMs, internal fuel only-- first to tank loses)
4. Comparison of offsets/industrial participation. preferably actual dollar amounts, and amount of jobs for duration.
5. RCAF allowed to openly share their thoughts, LOL "we really just want the F-35"
6. The number of aircraft that will need to be purchased based on their capability (IE 65 F-35, or 80 Super hornet)

And of course after the F-35 gets selected (again) I want the bill for all of the above shown to the Canadians. With a note that this is what they asked for and demanded, and that taxes will go up to pay for the competition. Youre welcome.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2014, 22:00
by quicksilver
luke_sandoz wrote:Seems he is about two years out of date in his information. Wonder what he will do when he finds out The Eurofighter and Rafale are both more expensive than the F-35 even without buying all the add on pods needed to bring them into an equal capability comparison?

More expensive, less capable. Hell of a deal!


Same ole same ole.

Boeing has gotten away with that kind of sophistry on SH for the life of the program, quoting URFs that dont include the costs for an "as close to equivalent capability" as possible. They dont include the engines; they dont include the TPOD; they dont include the IDECM; they dont include the JHMCS, they dont include the System Capability Sets; and when they talk O&S they quote SAR data that uses things like the cost of JP-5 in FY2000 at 70ish cents a gallon.

If they aint lying, they aint tryin...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2014, 19:49
by spazsinbad
More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2014, 23:10
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html



:roll: Bill does it again. What a joke

Again I'm all for an open competition, and I want all the numbers for F-35 competitors as well. I don't fear an open competition one bit. Canadians should though, because they are going to spend extra money and time to arrive at the same conclusion, and should they officially leave the JSF program in the interest of further "openness" and lose out on all the lucrative contracts thats on them.

I've kind of come to the conclusion at this point that no one can protect them from themselves, so if they want to take the longest most expensive and least beneficial path to the JSF, thats on them. And should they pick something else that's on them too.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2014, 07:42
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html



:roll: Bill does it again. What a joke

Again I'm all for an open competition, and I want all the numbers for F-35 competitors as well. I don't fear an open competition one bit. Canadians should though, because they are going to spend extra money and time to arrive at the same conclusion, and should they officially leave the JSF program in the interest of further "openness" and lose out on all the lucrative contracts thats on them.

I've kind of come to the conclusion at this point that no one can protect them from themselves, so if they want to take the longest most expensive and least beneficial path to the JSF, thats on them. And should they pick something else that's on them too.


I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2014, 15:51
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:


Hell I would love just separate KPMG reports for all the contenders out to 42 years in the interest of fairness. At 2 million a pop each though, I don't know if we would see them. (maybe that first before an even more expensive competition?) One of the biggest mistakes the Canadian government made was not having other numbers to compare with other airplanes. So for Joe Q Public the F-35 costs 46 billion dollars, and Boeing is claiming their super hornet is 55 million. We don't have a KPMG Super Hornet report that shows its to be 42-50 billion over 42 years for example. Boeing has the advantage because they can make bold claims. Don't expect them to volunteer what a fleet of 65 F-18Es would cost Canada over 42 years...

They gave no comparison numbers! :bang:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2014, 20:19
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:


Hell I would love just separate KPMG reports for all the contenders out to 42 years in the interest of fairness. At 2 million a pop each though, I don't know if we would see them. (maybe that first before an even more expensive competition?) One of the biggest mistakes the Canadian government made was not having other numbers to compare with other airplanes. So for Joe Q Public the F-35 costs 46 billion dollars, and Boeing is claiming their super hornet is 55 million. We don't have a KPMG Super Hornet report that shows its to be 42-50 billion over 42 years for example. Boeing has the advantage because they can make bold claims. Don't expect them to volunteer what a fleet of 65 F-18Es would cost Canada over 42 years...

They gave no comparison numbers! :bang:


Think about it this way, if they knew their numbers were going to be better given current actual data as evidence for future projection, they would've gladly shown it.

Since they didn't bother to, especially when they have the records for the current F-18 Super Hornets and the older regular Hornets as evidence, there is probably a damn good reason why they aren't in a rush to volunteer those numbers.

Food for thought =D.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2014, 23:40
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:


Hell I would love just separate KPMG reports for all the contenders out to 42 years in the interest of fairness. At 2 million a pop each though, I don't know if we would see them. (maybe that first before an even more expensive competition?) One of the biggest mistakes the Canadian government made was not having other numbers to compare with other airplanes. So for Joe Q Public the F-35 costs 46 billion dollars, and Boeing is claiming their super hornet is 55 million. We don't have a KPMG Super Hornet report that shows its to be 42-50 billion over 42 years for example. Boeing has the advantage because they can make bold claims. Don't expect them to volunteer what a fleet of 65 F-18Es would cost Canada over 42 years...

They gave no comparison numbers! :bang:

"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 18:03
by maus92
neurotech wrote:"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.


Apples to apples please: GWSUC for F-35A in FY14 is $167.5M, *forecast* to be $104.8 in FY19, and $121.1M for a total buy of 1,763 units for USAF service, assuming a buy rate of 60 starting at FRP. If the Super Hornet / Growler was purchased in those numbers, its unit cost number would be similar to when it was under a MYP agreement. For reference, GWSUC for E/F in FY13 (no order in FY14) is $70.5M, and $77.2M for 563 programmed units - pretty solid numbers since E/F procurement almost complete (for now.) Meanwhile, F-35C FY14 GWSUC is $264.7M, again *forecast* to be $135.6 in FY19, and $147.2 for 336 at program completion. Growler FY13 GWSUC was $80.6M, FY14 (no MYP) GWSUC $91.2M, and the GWSUC for the programmed run of 135 (does not include the 15 additional units added for FY15) is $100.1M.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 21:26
by optimist
XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html



:roll: Bill does it again. What a joke

Again I'm all for an open competition, and I want all the numbers for F-35 competitors as well. I don't fear an open competition one bit. Canadians should though, because they are going to spend extra money and time to arrive at the same conclusion, and should they officially leave the JSF program in the interest of further "openness" and lose out on all the lucrative contracts thats on them.



I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:

What can one say about AviationFail, that hasn't already been said? Their review of 12 Military Aircraft highlights In 2014, just reinforces it.

"Brazil Signs for Gripen
Brazil signed a contract in October for 36 Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen NGs for delivery in 2019-24, with the potential to increase to 108 aircraft by 2032. Brazil will help develop the two-seat -F and integrate its own missiles on the Gripen.."

"F-35 Misses Debut
A fire caused by an engine failure in an F-35A in June forced a grounding that caused the Joint Strike Fighter to miss its international debut at two major events in the U.K."

http://aviationweek.com/CombatAircraft2 ... es-1241031

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 22:03
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.


Apples to apples please: GWSUC for F-35A in FY14 is $167.5M, *forecast* to be $104.8 in FY19, and $121.1M for a total buy of 1,763 units for USAF service, assuming a buy rate of 60 starting at FRP. If the Super Hornet / Growler was purchased in those numbers, its unit cost number would be similar to when it was under a MYP agreement. For reference, GWSUC for E/F in FY13 (no order in FY14) is $70.5M, and $77.2M for 563 programmed units - pretty solid numbers since E/F procurement almost complete (for now.) Meanwhile, F-35C FY14 GWSUC is $264.7M, again *forecast* to be $135.6 in FY19, and $147.2 for 336 at program completion. Growler FY13 GWSUC was $80.6M, FY14 (no MYP) GWSUC $91.2M, and the GWSUC for the programmed run of 135 (does not include the 15 additional units added for FY15) is $100.1M.


Oh puleez...save it for those who dont know any better.

Your SH or G numbers are all CFE and therefore do not include the engines, the radar, DECM, TPOD, helmet and the SCS in the baseline URF. That's before we ever get to an APUC or PAUC. Your Growler numbers also do not include the ALQs.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 22:45
by maus92
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.


Apples to apples please: GWSUC for F-35A in FY14 is $167.5M, *forecast* to be $104.8 in FY19, and $121.1M for a total buy of 1,763 units for USAF service, assuming a buy rate of 60 starting at FRP. If the Super Hornet / Growler was purchased in those numbers, its unit cost number would be similar to when it was under a MYP agreement. For reference, GWSUC for E/F in FY13 (no order in FY14) is $70.5M, and $77.2M for 563 programmed units - pretty solid numbers since E/F procurement almost complete (for now.) Meanwhile, F-35C FY14 GWSUC is $264.7M, again *forecast* to be $135.6 in FY19, and $147.2 for 336 at program completion. Growler FY13 GWSUC was $80.6M, FY14 (no MYP) GWSUC $91.2M, and the GWSUC for the programmed run of 135 (does not include the 15 additional units added for FY15) is $100.1M.


Oh puleez...save it for those who dont know any better.

Your SH or G numbers are all CFE and therefore do not include the engines, the radar, DECM, TPOD, helmet and the SCS. in the baseline URF. That's before we ever get to an APUC or PAUC. Your Growler numbers also do not include the ALQs.


QS, are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the numbers and confuse the under informed , like the LM shills and plants who troll the various media outlets - not unlike paid Chinese opinion shapers? You know very well these numbers come directly from the FY15 PBs. They are verbatim, and include new GFE engines, GFE electronics, CFE, ECO, non recurring costs, PGSE, pubs, engineering support, and other related support costs - for the F-35s, and the SH/G. Apples to apples. You are correct that they don't include the previously purchased ALQs, capitalizing on the advantage of configuring to the threat and sharing resources between airframes.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 23:00
by spazsinbad
'maus92' How about a link to these 'FY 2015 PBs' then? Is that too much to ask (for the sake of all the nameless ones here).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2014, 23:58
by optimist
neurotech wrote:"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.

I also think you will find the $55m cost is in base year dollars, around year 2000 at a guess?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 17:17
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:'maus92' How about a link to these 'FY 2015 PBs' then? Is that too much to ask (for the sake of all the nameless ones here).


IDK, I though you might complain because they've been linked in this forum many times before :)

USAF: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 10-041.pdf
Exhibit P-5 Cost Analysis: PB 2015 Air Force, page 3-5 of 26, in the F-35 program section. Look at lines that contain:
"Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost ($ in Millions)"

Navy: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/15pr ... 4_BOOK.pdf
Exhibit P-5, Cost Analysis: PB 2015 Navy, pages 2-4 of 4 in the "0143 EA-18" program section. Look at lines that contain:
"Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost ($ in Thousands)"

Exhibit P-5, Cost Analysis: PB 2015 Navy, pages 2-4 of 4 in the "0145 F/A-18E/F" program section. Look at lines that contain:
"Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost ($ in Thousands)"

Exhibit P-5, Cost Analysis: PB 2015 Navy, pages 3-4 of 4 in the "Joint Strike Fighter CV" program section. Look at lines that contain:
"Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost ($ in Thousands)"

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 17:36
by count_to_10
maus92 wrote: like the LM shills and plants who troll the various media outlets

Irony, or just hypocrisy?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 17:50
by spazsinbad
Well then thanks 'maus92'. You may notice I provide links - most of the time - why not you?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 20:01
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote: QS, are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the numbers and confuse the under informed , like the LM shills and plants who troll the various media outlets - not unlike paid Chinese opinion shapers? You know very well these numbers come directly from the FY15 PBs. They are verbatim, and include new GFE engines, GFE electronics, CFE, ECO, non recurring costs, PGSE, pubs, engineering support, and other related support costs - for the F-35s, and the SH/G. Apples to apples. You are correct that they don't include the previously purchased ALQs, capitalizing on the advantage of configuring to the threat and sharing resources between airframes.

Ah. More 'Bob Dorr Dumb Math'. It is most definitely NOT "Apples to apples", even discounting the fact the Shortnet/Growler numbers do not account for the ALQs.
Since there are Shornet/Growler costs for categories above and beyond the Flyaway Cost which are largely sunk costs paid for and prorated against the initial acquisition units 'way back when', they are not accounted for on the current books [See Red Box Figure 1, and underlined in Red below ]. I say 'largely' because there could be some relatively trivial 'marginal costs' for adding new Shornet/Growlers to the fleet: But it is not anywhere near the amount for a new fleet for several reasons, not the least of which the initial spares costs are much lower because with an existing fleet you can not only use the existing supply stocks, but are able to cannibalize off of the existing fleet while keeping completely off the 'Gross Procurement' books. Those costs are well-buried in the support costs of the existing fleet.
Maus-Tutorial.jpg

Now note the green underlined text in the same attachment (link) above (boldface mine):
Note: DoD 5000.4-M defines flyaway cost as being funded out of the RDT&E and Procurement appropriations, but in practice, only the Procurement-funded portion of flyaway is considered relevant by decision-makers in DoD and in Congress

One therefore should keep in mind that what is relevant is the "Procurement-funded portion of flyaway" costs and be leery whenever one runs into someone deliberately trying to misdirect their audience by obfuscating the numbers to confuse the under informed, such as anti-defense media shills or POGO/CDI plants and fellow-travelers who troll the various media outlets.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2014, 20:29
by quicksilver
"QS, are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the numbers and confuse the under informed , like the LM shills and plants who troll the various media outlets - not unlike paid Chinese opinion shapers?"

Nope, just pointing out those who are...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 00:54
by arrow-nautics

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 03:09
by popcorn

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 08:34
by thomonkey
sometimes i see these articles and I think, this has to be a joke. This HAS to be a joke. Then i read the article, and it's :bang: not. And im like :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 17:20
by cantaz
Good thing we don't have an army general as a CDS right now.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 17:29
by XanderCrews
I wasn't sold on it until I saw "Clear Canopy" as a feature...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 18:56
by archeman
I believe I'm repeating myself.....but so are those Canada Arrow kooks.

If the newly re-conceived CF105 isn't substantially better (and we're talking much better) than a late model F-15 why bother?
Just run over to Japan, buy up the idle Mitsubishi F-15 assembly line gear for a firesale price, set it up in the great white north, make a workable engine/radar/systems deal, and then you have the following boxes ticked:

* Built in Canada
* Cost: Well understood and under local control (plus or minus)
* Better kinetics and larger absolute performance envelope than the F-35
* Two Engines (cause that matters - we're told)
* Design Risk almost non-existent
* Vast Array of weapons, combat tested
* Pilot/Aircraft/Sensors/Weapons interfaces already well laid out, combat tested
* Huge # of communication integrated systems with allies, combat tested
* R&D phase almost non-existent
* Upgrade paths shared with large body of other F-15 owner/operators
* --possible-- stealthy external conformal tank and add-ons being hawked by Boeing

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2015, 23:02
by sergei
archeman wrote:I believe I'm repeating myself.....but so are those Canada Arrow kooks.

If the newly re-conceived CF105 isn't substantially better (and we're talking much better) than a late model F-15 why bother?
Just run over to Japan, buy up the idle Mitsubishi F-15 assembly line gear for a firesale price, set it up in the great white north, make a workable engine/radar/systems deal, and then you have the following boxes ticked:

* Built in Canada
* Cost: Well understood and under local control (plus or minus)
* Better kinetics and larger absolute performance envelope than the F-35
* Two Engines (cause that matters - we're told)
* Design Risk almost non-existent
* Vast Array of weapons, combat tested
* Pilot/Aircraft/Sensors/Weapons interfaces already well laid out, combat tested
* Huge # of communication integrated systems with allies, combat tested
* R&D phase almost non-existent
* Upgrade paths shared with large body of other F-15 owner/operators
* --possible-- stealthy external conformal tank and add-ons being hawked by Boeing

If they want to develop their military aviation industry it is better to do something themselves.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 01:52
by arrow-nautics
sergei wrote:If they want to develop their military aviation industry it is better to do something themselves.


What is so ridiculous about this is: Go for Mach 2 & dump the vectoring idea amongst other bogus claims. Come down to earth. 3.5 Mach? WHAT? While possible, why bother?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 04:08
by blindpilot
arrow-nautics wrote:
sergei wrote:If they want to develop their military aviation industry it is better to do something themselves.


What is so ridiculous about this is: Go for Mach 2 & dump the vectoring idea amongst other bogus claims. Come down to earth. 3.5 Mach? WHAT? While possible, why bother?


Without getting specific, two things I think I learned about Mach 3 flight, half drunk at the O Club bar, - was that turn radius and fuel consumption can be a bear. The fuel consumption I sort of got since it took more than a couple of us tankers to support one mission. However I never really considered the turn radius ... but you can probably calculate it at combat G's for yourself. I simply know it was .... more than vectored thrust would fix very easily. Even Mach 3 + missiles pulling kzillion Gs cut a pretty wide circle. It's basic physics. Try it at even 5 Gs and it gets bigger. You need more than one training area :D Gentler turns can take two plus western states to pull a 180.

Solid M 1.7 supercruise at very high altitudes (up to blood not boiling. IE no pressure suit) gives you 99% of any useable advantage getting above Mach 3 will provide. Raptor is tweeked just about right. No surprise there.

Anecdotal aside. I have a hard time giving this Canadian debate any technical credibility at all. My 2 year old daughter got closer, than the yahoos who pull numbers like 3.5 out of the ... she kicked a tire that had been Mach 3, and almost got arrested by the "mean man with the rifle." I've heard nothing from Canadian dreamers that even matches that 2 year old's knowledge. I've got to stop reading this thread.

BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 04:31
by archeman
arrow-nautics wrote:
sergei wrote:If they want to develop their military aviation industry it is better to do something themselves.


What is so ridiculous about this is: Go for Mach 2 & dump the vectoring idea amongst other bogus claims. Come down to earth. 3.5 Mach? WHAT? While possible, why bother?


There are many layers of 'Why Bother' here with that CF-105 proposal.
Why make an aircraft with lots of 'stealth' features and appearances and then not invest the rest of the hard work and time to make it actually stealthy.
If you just build a CF-15 then you automatically dump the costly thrust vectoring, you skip the costs of stealth AND you get Mach 2.5 --- no risk there.

There is confusion here on the goal, some want to defend Canada with Gen 4 aircraft, some with Gen 5 and others want to create a half-baked Canadian combat aviation industry with themselves at the design and financial helm (Beaurdeau) -- and that last one will probably never come to fruition thereby defending Canada with nothing at all. Except a sea of ice water.

But, the foremost barrier to success for the CF-105 is that Canadian's don't want to pay for ANYTHING up there so the idea that they are going to create a top flight combat aviation industry from scratch for a low quantity production run and it will all be homemade is like wishing in a well.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 20:28
by arrow-nautics
It's true, the uneducated "Canadian Joe Public" is so lame

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 20:41
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote:It's true, the uneducated "Canadian Joe Public" is so lame


I think this is crux of the issue, and one I have tried to relay to Canadians who balk at the cost of the F-35, but then give me a wish list or a dream sheet of what they would like instead that would have santa claus shaking his head.

The Arrow there would take so much money to produce build fields and sustain, that surely Canadians would have to raise taxes or shift fund away from much more popular programs (like healthcare) to buy it

I just don't see the Canadians cutting civil perks to build weapons, especially when a lot of Canadians think that the F-35 is overkill and some don't think they need fighters at all anyway. Its what they call a "tough sell" in my little fishing village

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 20:46
by arrow-nautics
XanderCrews wrote:I think this is crux of the issue, and one I have tried to relay to Canadians who balk at the cost of the F-35....


It's sad how foolish Joe Public can be. It's a foregone conclusion that any platform is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer 40 B + over 40 years regardless of what we choose. By 2020, the CF-18 will have cost 20 billion to maintain.

I get the most angry at those who claim we don't even need fighters. Fine then, let's just cut to the chase & fly a Star Spangled Banner & get on with it already. What is sovereignty? What did WWII teach us about the air?

Also, has this scenario occurred to Canadians? The USA is just going to patrol for free & increase their budget to do so without any return in consideration?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 21:02
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I think this is crux of the issue, and one I have tried to relay to Canadians who balk at the cost of the F-35....


It's sad how foolish Joe Public can be. It's a foregone conclusion that any platform is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer 40 B + over 40 years regardless of what we choose. By 2020, the CF-18 will have cost 20 billion to maintain.

I get the most angry at those who claim we don't even need fighters. Fine then, let's just cut to the chase & fly a Star Spangled Banner & get on with it already. What is sovereignty? What did WWII teach us about the air?

Also, has this scenario occurred to Canadians? The USA is just going to patrol for free & increase their budget to do so without any return in consideration?


LOL^ I have saved that image... I bet it comes in handy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 21:09
by arrow-nautics
XanderCrews wrote:LOL^ I have saved that image... I bet it comes in handy.

It's funny because it has every ring of truth to it :devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 00:13
by arrow-nautics
While not F-35 related this certainly is Canada related as it applies to the Lockheed AMIRS system, similar systems & the LTLM. Many Canadians are surprised to have learned that Canada is the ONLY allied force that is painting ISIL targets for all allied jet strikes.

Sorry no link but I heard it on our Global TV news. Has anyone heard anything on this or has anyone come across a link in the news to confirm?

Little help? :)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 00:57
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:While not F-35 related this certainly is Canada related as it applies to the Lockheed AMIRS system, similar systems & the LTLM. Many Canadians are surprised to have learned that Canada is the ONLY allied force that is painting ISIL targets for all allied jet strikes.

Sorry no link but I heard it on our Global TV news. Has anyone heard anything on this or has anyone come across a link in the news to confirm?

Little help? :)

With all respect to our Canadian friends, but are you sure? I realize these CF-18s are more than holding their own against ISIS, but being the only jets painting targets is a stretch.

The AMIRS pod is basically a LM Sniper targeting pod (I had to look it up). USAF F-16s can carry the Sniper pod and paint their own targets. The F/A-18E/F jets use a Raytheon ATFLIR pod for targeting optically.

Slightly back on topic, its quite probable the F-35s will paint targets in high threat airspace so the F/A-18s carrying JSOW can take them out at reduced risk.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 04:40
by thepointblank
neurotech wrote:
arrow-nautics wrote:While not F-35 related this certainly is Canada related as it applies to the Lockheed AMIRS system, similar systems & the LTLM. Many Canadians are surprised to have learned that Canada is the ONLY allied force that is painting ISIL targets for all allied jet strikes.

Sorry no link but I heard it on our Global TV news. Has anyone heard anything on this or has anyone come across a link in the news to confirm?

Little help? :)

With all respect to our Canadian friends, but are you sure? I realize these CF-18s are more than holding their own against ISIS, but being the only jets painting targets is a stretch.

The AMIRS pod is basically a LM Sniper targeting pod (I had to look it up). USAF F-16s can carry the Sniper pod and paint their own targets. The F/A-18E/F jets use a Raytheon ATFLIR pod for targeting optically.

Slightly back on topic, its quite probable the F-35s will paint targets in high threat airspace so the F/A-18s carrying JSOW can take them out at reduced risk.

Actually, what he meant was that Canadian advisers in Iraq working with Kurdish forces are the ones directing, coordinating, and painting targets for air strikes.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 05:30
by popcorn
[quote="thepointblank]Actually, what he meant was that Canadian advisers in Iraq working with Kurdish forces are the ones directing, coordinating, and painting targets for air strikes.[/quote]
Interesting, Canadians are actually embedded with Kurds? Got a link?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 06:46
by thepointblank
popcorn wrote:[quote="thepointblank]Actually, what he meant was that Canadian advisers in Iraq working with Kurdish forces are the ones directing, coordinating, and painting targets for air strikes.[/quote]
Interesting, Canadians are actually embedded with Kurds? Got a link?[/quote]

Sure:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e22651756/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 00:39
by arrow-nautics
Thanks for the responses to my question. And now, getting back to the F-35 & Canada. There are numerous political forces in this country that continually cite safety in regards to one engine versus two. But, if we are on the subject of safety shouldn`t Canadians also be weary of legacy aircraft as it relates to the ISIL situation? Canadian special forces are doing all the painting with the LTLM. Last time I checked this is a hazardous job & is far from being a `safe` option.

Due to the AESA & other systems, wouldn`t this be safer under these mission parameters? I noticed in LM`s F-35 CAS video that the LTLM was being used but someone very knowledgeable I know said it doesn`t need it.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 01:16
by eskodas
That engine report confuses me in that they completely ignore advances in technology, F-15s using the exact same engine have far more trouble's, one can easily argue that a single F100-PW-229 is safer then two. http://i.imgur.com/ELelAYu.png

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 02:53
by cantaz
That report is written by a guy without any necessary skills to make such an analysis.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 06:13
by thepointblank
arrow-nautics wrote:Thanks for the responses to my question. And now, getting back to the F-35 & Canada. There are numerous political forces in this country that continually cite safety in regards to one engine versus two. But, if we are on the subject of safety shouldn`t Canadians also be weary of legacy aircraft as it relates to the ISIL situation? Canadian special forces are doing all the painting with the LTLM. Last time I checked this is a hazardous job & is far from being a `safe` option.

Due to the AESA & other systems, wouldn`t this be safer under these mission parameters? I noticed in LM`s F-35 CAS video that the LTLM was being used but someone very knowledgeable I know said it doesn`t need it.

Canadian CF-18's use the Sniper XR targeting pod to aim PGM's. The purpose of having eyes on the ground is to properly identify and verify targets, and coordinate with forces on the ground.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 21:43
by arrow-nautics
@ thepointblank, thanks for your responses.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2015, 01:35
by arrow-nautics
What the Canadian media isn't telling Canada:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2015, 08:18
by Corsair1963
Canada will get the F-35A all of what we hear today is just political theater....... :doh:



USAF_F-35A_Lightning_II_Canopy_Sectiona.jpg

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2015, 14:45
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote:What the Canadian media isn't telling Canada:


WTF?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2015, 20:35
by arrow-nautics
XanderCrews wrote:WTF?


This movie (debt clock) is simply meant to reinforce a point of view & something coming to fruition NOT being reported in Canadian media. That is, the SH is going up. So it is a generalization

All our media is doing is F-35 this & bad F-35 that. But the SH is going up. This is relevant to Canadians. Is the media afraid to discuss SH rising costs out of fear the JSF might appear more attractive? That's BS. So, I'm counter attacking so to say

It's not in any way a pro Canada F-35 commentary, it's more so a wake up call that a particular product we might be interested in is going up

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 17:19
by luke_sandoz
Oh oh! Might be a new record for how much ignorance, lies. distortions & stupid that can be packed into a single article.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... ighter-jet

Apparently he's a lawyer.

The comments are comedy gold.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 22:39
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:Oh oh! Might be a new record for how much ignorance, lies. distortions & stupid that can be packed into a single article.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... ighter-jet

Apparently he's a lawyer.

The comments are comedy gold.



That whole article ignores fundamental Canadian requirements. So the Goal now is partial replacement of CF-18s :doh: and maintaining a mixed fleet? And this is supposed to last Canada how many decades?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 23:33
by cantaz
Seems like Byer's usual vomit-worthy crap, so I'll pass. Only someone utterly ignorant about the state of the RCAF would suggest a mixed fighter fleet.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 23:40
by spazsinbad
Last sentence of artstickle above: "...It is time for the opposition parties to speak up and make the prime minister carry the full weight of his mistake." :devil: SO... have the 'oppo partlies' seen the ERROR of their FORMER contrary Ways? :mrgreen:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 02:43
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Last sentence of artstickle above: "...It is time for the opposition parties to speak up and make the prime minister carry the full weight of his mistake." :devil: SO... have the 'oppo partlies' seen the ERROR of their FORMER contrary Ways? :mrgreen:


Selective memory

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 06:21
by popcorn
http://www.canadianmetalworking.com/loc ... der-99466/
Lockheed Martin says $10.5 billion of Canadian work on F-35 at risk without order

Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of the U.S. defence giant, says Lockheed will honour $500 million worth of business already awarded to Canadian partners but that other work would be in jeopardy without a Canadian jet order.

“If in fact the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35 we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane,” he said in an interview after officially opening its new engine overhaul facility in Montreal...Carvalho said Lockheed continues to reduce the F-35’s cost. He said each plane will cost Canada around $75 million in today’s dollars, or about $85 million including inflation once they are expected to be delivered to Canada in 2018.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 06:50
by spazsinbad

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 08:59
by geogen
popcorn wrote:http://www.canadianmetalworking.com/lockheed-martin-says-10-5-billion-of-canadian-work-on-f35-at-risk-without-order-99466/
Lockheed Martin says $10.5 billion of Canadian work on F-35 at risk without order

Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of the U.S. defence giant, says Lockheed will honour $500 million worth of business already awarded to Canadian partners but that other work would be in jeopardy without a Canadian jet order.

“If in fact the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35 we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane,” he said in an interview after officially opening its new engine overhaul facility in Montreal...Carvalho said Lockheed continues to reduce the F-35’s cost. He said each plane will cost Canada around $75 million in today’s dollars, or about $85 million including inflation once they are expected to be delivered to Canada in 2018.


Firstly, it's probably premature to pre-conceive how much ultimately in business Canadian firms will receive in F-35 contracts, as the number of F-35 units procured world wide is still highly unknown and speculative.

But one thing is for sure, that the unit cost to Canada being quoted here of $85m per unit by 2018 (FY16 buy) for a delivered F-35 is a bit confused.

The unit weapon system cost (or equivalent to a WSC), including the usual initial spares, is what it will cost Canada to receive a functional jet being delivered. There are some quotes floating around which are in part based on assumed numbers of follow-on orders over the next 5+ years, but the fact is that the quoted unit cost will be much higher -- perhaps in the neighborhood of $150m to buy each operational jet and have it delivered.

Then there will be the costs to upgrade them to follow-on Block 4.3/4.4 by the mid-20s (according to requirements of a replacement capability) in order to be competitive and credible with other next-gen front-line tactical jets et al.

Moreover, until such time as Block 4 can finally be developed 5+ years later than originally estimated and originally factored into the recap formula by allies...it might be determined indeed that at least a squadron or two of existing CF-18s will need to be further life-extended and systems' upgraded as a stopgap to any particular (unexpected) capabilities gap in the interim. That would come with an added cost to RCAF for her Tacair procurement budgets.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 09:19
by Dragon029
Canada's already gone with a SLEP on their CF-18s (I believe it was ordered last year). As for Block 4, it's my understanding that most, if not all of the Block 4 upgrades will be software-based, which therefore won't add much / if any cost to Canada's purchase.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 14:39
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Firstly, it's probably premature to pre-conceive how much ultimately in business Canadian firms will receive in F-35 contracts, as the number of F-35 units procured world wide is still highly unknown and speculative.



The numbers come from multiple Canadian sources, and would probably be higher if Canadians weren't playing coy with this whole thing. Canadian firms have lost millions on this Canadian procurement, which has unfortunately been run like a Canadian Procurement (no offense northern neighbors)

The unit weapon system cost (or equivalent to a WSC), including the usual initial spares, is what it will cost Canada to receive a functional jet being delivered. There are some quotes floating around which are in part based on assumed numbers of follow-on orders over the next 5+ years, but the fact is that the quoted unit cost will be much higher -- perhaps in the neighborhood of $150m to buy each operational jet and have it delivered.


I thought we didn't know Geogen? Whats your source for the "fact"???

Invented numbers not supported by a single Canadian Government report, nor by the independent audit.

Then there will be the costs to upgrade them to follow-on Block 4.3/4.4 by the mid-20s (according to requirements of a replacement capability) in order to be competitive and credible with other next-gen front-line tactical jets et al.


source?

Moreover, until such time as Block 4 can finally be developed 5+ years later than originally estimated and originally factored into the recap formula by allies...it might be determined indeed that at least a squadron or two of existing CF-18s will need to be further life-extended and systems' upgraded as a stopgap to any particular (unexpected) capabilities gap in the interim. That would come with an added cost to RCAF for her Tacair procurement budgets.


Geogen has amazing imagination. :roll:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 00:55
by cantaz
geogen wrote:Moreover, until such time as Block 4 can finally be developed 5+ years later than originally estimated and originally factored into the recap formula by allies...it might be determined indeed that at least a squadron or two of existing CF-18s will need to be further life-extended and systems' upgraded as a stopgap to any particular (unexpected) capabilities gap in the interim. That would come with an added cost to RCAF for her Tacair procurement budgets.


Well geogen, since you're such a goddamn expert on everything you've never been part of or worked on/near, what exactly are the substantive capability gaps between a blk 3F F-35A and a current RCAF Hornet, with respect to our mission set priorities? In what ways does the capability RCAF gains at 3F fail to offset any temporary capability losses? Why cannot the gaps, if any, be mitigated procedurally?

Additional question, as we head into the second half of 2020s-early 2030s, how would the capability gaps presented by the lack of longevity in platform alternatives to the F-35A offset any lack of capability gap as compared to the blk 3F? In other words, how does having a few capabilities that a blk 3F doesn't make up for missing a lot of capabilities compared to blk 3F or 4+ down the road?

Bonus question, please provide justification for why the capability gap you identified between the blk 3F and the R2 Hornets provide sufficient cause to delay sunset of the Hornets and prolong what's effectively a mixed fleet. I'm sure you're familiar enough with our manning issues to include that in your analysis.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 03:16
by thepointblank
Well, Billie Flynn has made his appearance at the Abbotsford Air Show to talk fighters:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3183655

I'm going to the Air Show tomorrow, so I'll see if he's there.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 04:40
by cantaz
Damn, if I had been keeping track, I could've tried to book leave for that.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 09:58
by geogen
cantaz wrote:
geogen wrote:Moreover, until such time as Block 4 can finally be developed 5+ years later than originally estimated and originally factored into the recap formula by allies...it might be determined indeed that at least a squadron or two of existing CF-18s will need to be further life-extended and systems' upgraded as a stopgap to any particular (unexpected) capabilities gap in the interim. That would come with an added cost to RCAF for her Tacair procurement budgets.


Well geogen, since you're such a goddamn expert on everything you've never been part of or worked on/near, what exactly are the substantive capability gaps between a blk 3F F-35A and a current RCAF Hornet, with respect to our mission set priorities? In what ways does the capability RCAF gains at 3F fail to offset any temporary capability losses? Why cannot the gaps, if any, be mitigated procedurally?

Additional question, as we head into the second half of 2020s-early 2030s, how would the capability gaps presented by the lack of longevity in platform alternatives to the F-35A offset any lack of capability gap as compared to the blk 3F? In other words, how does having a few capabilities that a blk 3F doesn't make up for missing a lot of capabilities compared to blk 3F or 4+ down the road?

Bonus question, please provide justification for why the capability gap you identified between the blk 3F and the R2 Hornets provide sufficient cause to delay sunset of the Hornets and prolong what's effectively a mixed fleet. I'm sure you're familiar enough with our manning issues to include that in your analysis.


Sure, as a hedge, it might be prudent to maintain a mixed fleet through the mid-20s as postulated.

Such retained squadron or squadrons of legacy CF-18 platforms might be justified in the interim transitional phase (mid-20s) until F-35s can prove reliable air-refueling operations, be upgraded w/ sat com, and potentially receive EFT as a means to ensure credible and sufficient patrol range.

Ironically, it is probable that a CF-18 when equipped with 3x EFT can maintain superior endurance for Air Sovereignty patrols and intercept sorties, not to mention in strike/CAS role (a la loitering time).

That and some potential retained anti-maritime capabilities via Maverick G/K as an interim capability if required? Retaining some GBU-24 penetrator capability in the interim might also be assessed as warranted?

Hence potential requirement for a phase III systems/integration upgrade for at least one squadron to ensure more credible/competitive operation beyond 2020...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 10:10
by spazsinbad
'geogen' you make some insinuations that need explanation specifically this one: "...F-35s can prove reliable air-refueling operations...". What is this about? AND... as far as is known today this is not happening: "... potentially receive EFT...". Why? Because the F-35 carries external fuel internally.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 14:52
by cantaz
geogen wrote:Sure, as a hedge, it might be prudent to maintain a mixed fleet through the mid-20s as postulated.


Well, the fleet will be mixed until the mid-2020s but not for the reasons you're suggesting.

Such retained squadron or squadrons of legacy CF-18 platforms might be justified in the interim transitional phase (mid-20s) until F-35s can prove reliable air-refueling operations, be upgraded w/ sat com, and potentially receive EFT as a means to ensure credible and sufficient patrol range.


"Reliable" air-refueling operations? You're literally making up sh*t to scare people.

SATCOM's role is limited and their introduction's relative recent. We made to before, and we'll make do without. That's all I can say about that.

Ironically, it is probable that a CF-18 when equipped with 3x EFT can maintain superior endurance for Air Sovereignty patrols and intercept sorties, not to mention in strike/CAS role (a la loitering time).


You're talking about of your a$$. A legacy Hornet with 3 tanks has a combat radius of under 570nm. A F-35A has a combat radius of 590nm on just internal fuel.

That and some potential retained anti-maritime capabilities via Maverick G/K as an interim capability if required? Retaining some GBU-24 penetrator capability in the interim might also be assessed as warranted?


There are no more Mavericks. If we wanted to anti-maritime something, it'll be on the receiving end of a GBU.

And we don't drop enough GBU-24s to miss them that much for a few years.

With the slow pace of our modernization/recapitalization, the Hornets will be around for a while yet. But to suggest that it's because the F-35's shortcomings are relevant is foolish.

I noticed you've answered none of my questions regarding justification. You're happy to point out what the blk 3F is missing, but you're silent about why it should matter to us. You're happy to point out what the blk 3F is missing, but you're silent about how it's much better than our legacy Hornets in all other areas.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 15:19
by madrat
Canada needs to get off it's a$$ and just commit to 60 F-35's, but make it for later blocks. Lease some of the RAF's T1 Typhoons that are being idled in the next three years. They can probably lease 50-60 Typhoon for 10-12 years, enough time for F-35 to mature.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 18:24
by geogen
madrat -- an interim LEASE strategy of some form (perhaps to include F-18E/F) could be argued to have been the more prudent, less risky and seamless recap strategy for RCAF. The pre-conceived and decided F-35 procurement roadmap for RCAF has put credible Tacair capability at risk in staying the course, given the delays (and uncertainties still today) of an expected fully operational Block III -- let alone a block IV, which should have been a baseline requirement in my humble opinion.

But then again, the LEASE concept would have likely eaten into the fundamental recap budget thus requiring a restructuring in the overall recap and modernization plans/calculations. All which is part of the conundrum and setback to those parties determined to procure the F-35 as their respective replacement model. Call it a catastrophic SNAFU if you wish.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 18:32
by geogen
Cantaz, sir,

With all due respect...and thanks for your service by the way if you are indeed a service member to your fine nation, but I continue to disagree with some of your reasoning and assessments.

With respect to CF-18 range, I referenced the RCAF website and checked tech specs for what is presumed to be a Ferry range of around 1800nm for the CF-18. Add 2x wing-tip rounds for Air sovereignty and patrol, and it would likely have a greater range than the F-35A with 2x AAM.

Air-refueling for RCAF F-35 is arguably an issue as far as reliability and strategy is concerned.

Sat coms and recon pods are arguably a valid issue.

And a further MLU would arguably be required to keep extended life operating CF-18s through mid-20s by default of unreliable F-35 delay/procurement strategy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 19:40
by madrat
The CF-118 Hornets are indisputably better for multirole than Typhoon. But this is a gap filler. If the USN needs the Hornets, let them pay for the MLU. Typhoon gives you performance for the NORAD mission and is able to do other jobs. By 2025 the F-35A will be mature.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 20:05
by spazsinbad
'geogen' said above: "...Air-refueling for RCAF F-35 is arguably an issue as far as reliability and strategy is concerned...."

This is not related to the F-35 but to how the CanUks are going to provide air refuel aircraft assets in future - a non issue for the F-35 itself.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 21:22
by tincansailor
geogen wrote:madrat -- an interim LEASE strategy of some form (perhaps to include F-18E/F) could be argued to have been the more prudent, less risky and seamless recap strategy for RCAF. The pre-conceived and decided F-35 procurement roadmap for RCAF has put credible Tacair capability at risk in staying the course, given the delays (and uncertainties still today) of an expected fully operational Block III -- let alone a block IV, which should have been a baseline requirement in my humble opinion.

But then again, the LEASE concept would have likely eaten into the fundamental recap budget thus requiring a restructuring in the overall recap and modernization plans/calculations. All which is part of the conundrum and setback to those parties determined to procure the F-35 as their respective replacement model. Call it a catastrophic SNAFU if you wish.


geogen I'm sure your have more knowledge about Canadian defense issues then I do, but it just seems Canada is dragging it's feet. Because they procure so few new weapons systems when an issue like F-18 replacement comes up it's even more politicized then in the States. It seems what ever fighter is ultimately procured major upgrades of existing Hornets, or leasing an interim fighter while delaying the final choice won't be saving any money.

F-35A with 3F soft ware is still better then anything in the world, and will be a available in 2018. Just what are you going to do with an F-18 between now and then to make it better then the base line air force F-35A? Only the most advanced F-18E/F/G comes even close, and what would be the cost of buying or leasing a few squadrons of them? Why spend all the money on stop gap measures? Pick an aircraft and move on with it. If it's not the F-35 so be it, but make a choice so you can make the best deal possible with the manufacturer. For what it's worth that's just a Tin Can Sailors opinion.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 21:52
by spazsinbad
IMHO that is a good summary for Canada 'tincansailor' but sadly the politics of the 'next frickin'Fighter for the GREAT WHITE UP!' seems to be lethal. AND it does not need to be - Australian Federal bi-partisanship on the purchase of the 100 or so RAAF F-35As is a great example - with a small minority of naysayers - but they exist everywhere.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 00:52
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:madrat -- an interim LEASE strategy of some form (perhaps to include F-18E/F) could be argued to have been the more prudent, less risky and seamless recap strategy for RCAF. The pre-conceived and decided F-35 procurement roadmap for RCAF has put credible Tacair capability at risk in staying the course, given the delays (and uncertainties still today) of an expected fully operational Block III -- let alone a block IV, which should have been a baseline requirement in my humble opinion.

But then again, the LEASE concept would have likely eaten into the fundamental recap budget thus requiring a restructuring in the overall recap and modernization plans/calculations. All which is part of the conundrum and setback to those parties determined to procure the F-35 as their respective replacement model. Call it a catastrophic SNAFU if you wish.


With all those spare Super Hornets lying around? What is the point of going through all the trouble of retraining and re-qualifying for a Lease of how many aircraft for how many years? needless to say smarter people than you asked these questions and quickly (unlike yourself who have been going on about this for years) realized it simply wasn't worth it.


Please stop with this stupidity.

You have no clue what the situation is and are just guessing using the same tired tropes you always wield out. You are completely ignorant of what you speak of.

You constantly complain to the point where you are now whining about individual weapons and upgrades, anything to create the notion that its a great idea to keep airplanes that will be a distant 2nd class by 2025

geogen wrote:Cantaz, sir,

With all due respect...and thanks for your service by the way if you are indeed a service member to your fine nation, but I continue to disagree with some of your reasoning and assessments.


Rather than patronizing, do you think its possible that actual respect would be understanding and going to the trouble to learn the reality of the situation rather than inventing issues and then theorizing? arguably that would be a lot more viable for debate and intelligent assessment with respect to godspeed.

There is enough subterfuge in Canada with the F-35 program as there is, stop adding to it. Adults are speaking.

With respect to CF-18 range, I referenced the RCAF website and checked tech specs for what is presumed to be a Ferry range of around 1800nm for the CF-18. Add 2x wing-tip rounds for Air sovereignty and patrol, and it would likely have a greater range than the F-35A with 2x AAM.


Wrong.

This goes right into the same issue you have always had here. Someone actually knows their stuff and you challenging it based on bad information. You presume the bad information is true, mix in some supposition, and then add your opinion. But your entire argument is based on a false premise.

Its clear you haven't even bothered to do any research.

Air-refueling for RCAF F-35 is arguably an issue as far as reliability and strategy is concerned.


How?

Sat coms and recon pods are arguably a valid issue.


arguably if you got your facts straight things would seem far less nebulous and debatable.

And a further MLU would arguably be required to keep extended life operating CF-18s through mid-20s by default of unreliable F-35 delay/procurement strategy.


Presuming things even shake out that way...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 03:01
by thepointblank
cantaz wrote:Damn, if I had been keeping track, I could've tried to book leave for that.

I can report that beyond the F-22 demo, Lockheed Martin did have a good presence there with a tent with information and brochures.

geogen wrote:
And a further MLU would arguably be required to keep extended life operating CF-18s through mid-20s by default of unreliable F-35 delay/procurement strategy.


You mean place aircraft already getting very old and worn out under ANOTHER major upgrade and overhaul? We've already replaced the centre barrel of about 40 of the remaining 80 operational CF-18's. The rest have either crashed or been retired to CFD Mountain View with delaminated centre sections.


spazsinbad wrote:'geogen' said above: "...Air-refueling for RCAF F-35 is arguably an issue as far as reliability and strategy is concerned...."

This is not related to the F-35 but to how the CanUks are going to provide air refuel aircraft assets in future - a non issue for the F-35 itself.

Correct. The CC-150 Polaris tankers are expected to retire in a decade, once Airbus pulls support for the Airbus A310. Besides, there are only two of them, plus a couple of older C-130H tankers as well, which are fairly limited in terms of capabilities. The majority of the time the RCAF tanks is from USAF tankers that fly supporting NORAD patrols.

In RCAF use, the CC-150's are primarily used to support long range overseas deployments because they have the performance for our fighters to keep station with them. The C-130-based tankers don't have the raw performance necessary for long range fighter drags.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 03:16
by geogen
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:madrat -- an interim LEASE strategy of some form (perhaps to include F-18E/F) could be argued to have been the more prudent, less risky and seamless recap strategy for RCAF. The pre-conceived and decided F-35 procurement roadmap for RCAF has put credible Tacair capability at risk in staying the course, given the delays (and uncertainties still today) of an expected fully operational Block III -- let alone a block IV, which should have been a baseline requirement in my humble opinion.

But then again, the LEASE concept would have likely eaten into the fundamental recap budget thus requiring a restructuring in the overall recap and modernization plans/calculations. All which is part of the conundrum and setback to those parties determined to procure the F-35 as their respective replacement model. Call it a catastrophic SNAFU if you wish.


With all those spare Super Hornets lying around? What is the point of going through all the trouble of retraining and re-qualifying for a Lease of how many aircraft for how many years? needless to say smarter people than you asked these questions and quickly (unlike yourself who have been going on about this for years) realized it simply wasn't worth it.


An 8-10yr F-18E/F LEASE could have been doable and feasible with delivered aircraft starting in 2015, in my humble assessment, if such a procedure was part of a national strategy revision back in say 2012.

That would have been a superior alternative in my view at least, to further SLEP and further MLU existing geriatric CF Hornets through mid-20s.

It would have bought time critical time for RCAF and Defence to make more strategic and prudent longer-term, follow-on recap and modernization solutions with respect to a more proper 'mix' of next-gen platforms and systems. That's my answer.

Respects to you, sir.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 03:38
by geogen
thepointblank wrote:
You mean place aircraft already getting very old and worn out under ANOTHER major upgrade and overhaul? We've already replaced the centre barrel of about 40 of the remaining 80 operational CF-18's. The rest have either crashed or been retired to CFD Mountain View with delaminated centre sections.


Extremely worn out and geriatric. Yes, a very good point! You're catching on! And yes, RCAF was most likely indeed originally intending to replace said geriatric worn out CF-18s starting by around 2017-2018... with actual operational, reliable, cost-effective platforms!

Unfortunately however...the gamble was taken on a pre-determined decision to go with an uncertain and unknown 'leap-ahead' platform with very high risks associated (costs, reliability and schedules) and RCAF is now facing the situation it faces to adjust and continue to adjust (with other associated high risks) accordingly, unexpectedly.


spazsinbad wrote:'geogen' said above: "...Air-refueling for RCAF F-35 is arguably an issue as far as reliability and strategy is concerned...."

This is not related to the F-35 but to how the CanUks are going to provide air refuel aircraft assets in future - a non issue for the F-35 itself.

Correct. The CC-150 Polaris tankers are expected to retire in a decade, once Airbus pulls support for the Airbus A310. Besides, there are only two of them, plus a couple of older C-130H tankers as well, which are fairly limited in terms of capabilities. The majority of the time the RCAF tanks is from USAF tankers that fly supporting NORAD patrols.

In RCAF use, the CC-150's are primarily used to support long range overseas deployments because they have the performance for our fighters to keep station with them. The C-130-based tankers don't have the raw performance necessary for long range fighter drags.[/quote]

At least half newly acquired CC-130J should be converted as tactical tankers for Air Sovereignty patrols. Arguably a more reliable, autonomous and strategic plan. Contract with USAF tankers for any future, relevant, over-seas ferry-tanking requirements. In my opinion.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 03:48
by SpudmanWP
A lease will never work because it's not economically feasible for the seller.. ie Boeing.

In order for a lease to work, you have to show that someone else is willing to buy the fighters after the lease is up.

That's the way it works in the auto business and that's the way it works in the fighter business.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 04:56
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
An 8-10yr F-18E/F LEASE could have been doable and feasible with delivered aircraft starting in 2015, in my humble assessment, if such a procedure was part of a national strategy revision back in say 2012.



Based on what?

What "assessment"? What did it all cost geo? Year by year if you could


That would have been a superior alternative in my view at least, to further SLEP and further MLU existing geriatric CF Hornets through mid-20s.


You would be wrong. And that really isn't surprising given what you post.


It would have bought time critical time for RCAF and Defence


Stop right there. The RCAF and DND have done numerous amounts of work showing their work and justifying their assessments, all of which contradict your claims. The issue is not the RCAF or Defence, which have been steadfast in their decision. So once again you are missing basic plot points and the RCAFs decisions. The issue is politics. If it was up to the RCAF they would have put cash on the barrel for the F-35 years ago, which is given that they know their jobs better than you, the prudent decision. The RCAF isn't stupid.

(naturally you have chosen not to actually look at that in your "assessment")If you had, you would find...


to make more strategic and prudent longer-term, follow-on recap and modernization solutions with respect to a more proper 'mix' of next-gen platforms and systems.


It was decided long, long ago that there would not be a "mix" of any sort due to cost and complication. Your plan would directly contradict that, while also increasing cost, and forcing two transitions in the span of 10 years, along with a lot of other considerations that would quickly make it not worth the effort, and actually delay any transition to their decided standard platform.

That's my answer.

Respects to you, sir.


Respect is learning the facts, rather than inventing your own--Its one thing to not know, its another to say things to actual professionals like "in my assessment" "doable" and "feasible" when you don't know what the hell you are talking about because anyone in the know will tell you thats not the way it is and that it was none of things for several very obvious reasons. LOL at you playing junior analyst while neglecting any key frameworks and considerations for such decisions.


SpudmanWP wrote:A lease will never work because it's not economically feasible for the seller.. ie Boeing.

In order for a lease to work, you have to show that someone else is willing to buy the fighters after the lease is up.

That's the way it works in the auto business and that's the way it works in the fighter business.


Ding Ding, we have a winner.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 05:12
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
Extremely worn out and geriatric. Yes, a very good point! You're catching on! And yes, RCAF was most likely indeed originally intending to replace said geriatric worn out CF-18s starting by around 2017-2018... with actual operational, reliable, cost-effective platforms!


They would be but again politics. A decision had to be made so it got "punted" adding years to the process of getting the F-35 not to mention additonal cost.


Unfortunately however...the gamble was taken on a pre-determined decision to go with an uncertain and unknown 'leap-ahead' platform with very high risks associated (costs, reliability and schedules) and RCAF is now facing the situation it faces to adjust and continue to adjust (with other associated high risks) accordingly, unexpectedly.


BS. You are trying to blame politiCal decisions on a lack of military foresight and that simply isn't the case. Canadians have done and continue to do risk assessment and at no point did anyone anywhere think it was smart to lease.

At least half newly acquired CC-130J should be converted as tactical tankers for Air Sovereignty patrols. Arguably a more reliable, autonomous and strategic plan.


Absolutely incorrect. I know to you strategic is a buzzword, but it's actually a real thing and those C-130s are being worked to death doing their primary mission as it is thanks. It would be terrible to pull then from those tasks.

Where did that fit in your assessment?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 05:45
by geogen
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:
Extremely worn out and geriatric. Yes, a very good point! You're catching on! And yes, RCAF was most likely indeed originally intending to replace said geriatric worn out CF-18s starting by around 2017-2018... with actual operational, reliable, cost-effective platforms!


They would be but again politics. A decision had to be made so it got "punted"


Unfortunately however...the gamble was taken on a pre-determined decision to go with an uncertain and unknown 'leap-ahead' platform with very high risks associated (costs, reliability and schedules) and RCAF is now facing the situation it faces to adjust and continue to adjust (with other associated high risks) accordingly, unexpectedly.


BS. You are trying to blame politiCal decisions on a lack of military foresight

At least half newly acquired CC-130J should be converted as tactical tankers for Air Sovereignty patrols. Arguably a more reliable, autonomous and strategic plan.


Absolutely incorrect. I know to you strategic is a buzzword, but it's actually a real thing and those C-130s are being worked to death doing their primary mission as it is thanks. It would be terrible to pull then from those tasks.

Where did that for in your assessment?


Starting from your last point... the newly delivered CC-130J fleet, if indeed unexpectedly critical to RCAF's strategic core capabilities and requirements as of late, could be expanded. Perhaps Lease 3-5 dedicated solely for sovereign air-refueling?? Rely on NATO/US tankers for strategic Ferry and over-seas ops.

With regard to your BS contention above, on F-35 procurement being a miscalculated 'Political' decision (i.e., honest military analysis made 3+ years ago would have raised red flags on the F-35 on prudent terms), perhaps most critical observers would agree with you on that score. I fully agree with your view on this.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 05:54
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:A lease will never work because it's not economically feasible for the seller.. ie Boeing.

In order for a lease to work, you have to show that someone else is willing to buy the fighters after the lease is up.

That's the way it works in the auto business and that's the way it works in the fighter business.


Spud, please, we've gone over this debate point for years now...

An advanced new-build F-18E/F today would most likely have no problem being re-acquired by either the USN, or a foreign customer in 10 years out, per a secondary, attrition, or reserve strike fighter component, etc. Heck, upgrade the things as unmanned UCAV platforms.

20+ yr old F-16s today have no problem finding new users. A 10 yr old modernized SH, operated under certain LEASE-terms, would most likely retain good value to someone interested in augmenting their respective future requirements. Note USN alone will be operating them until at least 2035.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 06:55
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:With respect to CF-18 range, I referenced the RCAF website and checked tech specs for what is presumed to be a Ferry range of around 1800nm for the CF-18. Add 2x wing-tip rounds for Air sovereignty and patrol, and it would likely have a greater range than the F-35A with 2x AAM.


No... not even close.

The CF-18's range is about 1200NM under nominal conditions and regular load out and an approach reserve.
F/A-18E's range is about 1400NM (that can be discovered through simple NATOPS calculations)
F-35's is in excess of 1450NM

These are roughly apples to apples comparisons. At that range the F-35 basically resolves a lot of the major range issues that the RCAF has with fighters, except perhaps very long range Intercepts. We don't have the ability in manpower or aircraft to deal with that (nor would 6 converted CC-130Js do anything for that at all), so we're always going to require interoperability with the USAF for that area.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 07:38
by geogen
hb_pencil wrote:
geogen wrote:With respect to CF-18 range, I referenced the RCAF website and checked tech specs for what is presumed to be a Ferry range of around 1800nm for the CF-18. Add 2x wing-tip rounds for Air sovereignty and patrol, and it would likely have a greater range than the F-35A with 2x AAM.


No... not even close.

The CF-18's range is about 1200NM under nominal conditions and regular load out and an approach reserve.
F/A-18E's range is about 1400NM (that can be discovered through simple NATOPS calculations)
F-35's is in excess of 1450NM

These are roughly apples to apples comparisons. At that range the F-35 basically resolves a lot of the major range issues that the RCAF has with fighters, except perhaps very long range Intercepts. We don't have the ability in manpower or aircraft to deal with that (nor would 6 converted CC-130Js do anything for that at all), so we're always going to require interoperability with the USAF for that area.


Thanks for reply, but is it probably still unproven as of yet, regarding an actual, effective operational range of 1,450nm for the F-35?

With respect to said manpower issues, perhaps even 3-4x converted CC-130J tankers (crew of 3?) could in fact be plausible? Perhaps a sustainable next-gen fixed-wing Tacair structure would afford around 35-40 mainstay jets?? Hence, a potential requirement to increase recruitment of future semi-autonomous UCAV crews too? e.g., Avenger Predator-C long-endurance (Arctic) patrol/ISR-type system complete with internal bay??

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 07:51
by SpudmanWP
geogen wrote:
A lease will never work because it's not economically feasible for the seller.. ie Boeing.

In order for a lease to work, you have to show that someone else is willing to buy the fighters after the lease is up.

That's the way it works in the auto business and that's the way it works in the fighter business.


Spud, please, we've gone over this debate point for years now...

An advanced new-build F-18E/F today would most likely have no problem being re-acquired by either the USN, or a foreign customer in 10 years out, per a secondary, attrition, or reserve strike fighter component, etc. Heck, upgrade the things as unmanned UCAV platforms.
When has the USN EVER bought used fighters?

btw, UCAVs are "disposable" because they are cheap... a SH is NOWHERE near cheap.

20+ yr old F-16s today have no problem finding new users. A 10 yr old modernized SH, operated under certain LEASE-terms, would most likely retain good value to someone interested in augmenting their respective future requirements. Note USN alone will be operating them until at least 2035.
Rebuilt F-16s are able to be sold because they are currently used the world over, were already paid for in FULL (not some lease deal), are in good supply, and are cheap to operate. The SH falls under NONE of those conditions.

Besides, as the only potential customer of used SHs, (the USN) has already said MANY times, they don't want to buy any more.

Tell me, what kind of lawsuits would happen at the end of the lease if there was no buyer? The Stockholders would be suing the crap out of Boing and the SEC would be investigating Boeing for making those kinds of deals without there being a strong likelihood of there being a buyer on the backend.

In the end, if it were economically viable, Boeing would be doing it.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 07:56
by spazsinbad
'geogen' said above: "...but is it probably still unproven as of yet, regarding an actual, effective operational range of 1,450nm for the F-35?..."

First please define what you think is an 'actual, effective operational range'. How can this be proved to your satisfaction.

I'm thinking of all the data gleaned from the 30K+ hours flown so far and the long transits from various US airbases thither and yon AND the almost crossing of the big wide ocean last year. Would you like the JPO to e-mail you the range stats directly? I'll see if I can arrange it. 8)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 09:55
by mk82
Geogen: " With regard to your BS contention above, on F-35 procurement being a miscalculated 'Political' decision (i.e., honest military analysis made 3+ years ago would have raised red flags on the F-35 on prudent terms), perhaps most critical observers would agree with you on that score. I fully agree with your view on this."

Got to disagree with you on this point. The only Red Flag I see are the Canuck politicians having their thumbs still stuck up their **** and not making a definite decision on F35 procurement unlike us Ozzies. If the Canuck politicoes made a positive (and timely) decision on F35 procurement, they would have early tibs on F35As coming off the production line now. And you really think that the Canuck politicians would make a timely decision on a potential F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet lease when they already have their thumbs up their arses on the F35.....pfft. Get real Geogen, this is not a RCAF issue, as many previous posters have noted.

Have to bang on about the refuelling issue, how can a lease of F/A 18 E/F fix the RCAF's refuelling problems on the refueller side? Especially when the F35A internal fuel range is similar or even better than the Superbug with EFTs. Get your s*it right, RCAF's refuelling issue is not even a Tacair issue!!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 14:48
by cantaz
geogen wrote:Perhaps a sustainable next-gen fixed-wing Tacair structure would afford around 35-40 mainstay jets?? Hence, a potential requirement to increase recruitment of future semi-autonomous UCAV crews too? e.g., Avenger Predator-C long-endurance (Arctic) patrol/ISR-type system complete with internal bay??


We can't meet our current level of commitments of a mere 35-40 jets.

What will make our next fleet sustainable is to divert training out of a two-seater fighter and into a two-seater trainer plus advanced simulators.

Suggesting "UCAV" is nothing but another of your shots-in-dark. They aren't going to resolve our recruitment and retention issues.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 14:56
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
Starting from your last point... the newly delivered CC-130J fleet, if indeed unexpectedly critical to RCAF's strategic core capabilities and requirements as of late, could be expanded. Perhaps Lease 3-5 dedicated solely for sovereign air-refueling??



simply put? NO. There are lot of reasons why, but its easier to just say NO.

With regard to your BS contention above, on F-35 procurement being a miscalculated 'Political' decision (i.e., honest military analysis made 3+ years ago would have raised red flags on the F-35 on prudent terms), perhaps most critical observers would agree with you on that score. I fully agree with your view on this.


You are twisting my words. The RCAF requirements leave the F-35 as the sole aircraft that meets the criteria and has again and again thtough multiple assessments over years and years. At this point delays to the F-35 in Canada are based on a terrible political mishandling, that has lead to further mishandling, and has culminated with extending the CF-18s in order to avoid upsetting the voters before an election.

I will write this clearly so you can understand. F-35 delays in Canada now have to do with Canadian politics and not the F-35, nor the Military. You are looking for military solutions to political incompetence, and I find it extremely insulting to the RCAF.


geogen wrote:
Thanks for reply, but is it probably still unproven as of yet, regarding an actual, effective operational range of 1,450nm for the F-35?


Translation? Thats not what I wanted to hear so I'm going to try and cast doubt on the F-35 again. Hopefully no one notices.

The F-35 outranges the Super Hornet, which outranges the original F-18. why is this so hard geogen?

Why do you fight basic facts?

With respect to said manpower issues, perhaps even 3-4x converted CC-130J tankers (crew of 3?) could in fact be plausible? Perhaps a sustainable next-gen fixed-wing Tacair structure would afford around 35-40 mainstay jets?? Hence, a potential requirement to increase recruitment of future semi-autonomous UCAV crews too? e.g., Avenger Predator-C long-endurance (Arctic) patrol/ISR-type system complete with internal bay??


This is now pure farce. It started with your false premise of leasing Super Hornets which was already a non starter, and now the fantasy has expanded to UAVs and additional C-130s???

Watch as the troll expands the trolling...

Bottom line geogen there is no "gap" that needs to be filled as you are constantly asserting. That's what extending the CF-18s is about. So the issue is basically a non issue. There is no reason to spend big money and go through all the trouble of getting Super Hornets (that aren't even available to lease in the first place) for no reason.


Now last chance: as per your assessment, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD IT COST TO LEASE THE SUPER HORNETS as you propose?

I want an actual amount, or I'm going to report you as a troll until the button breaks. You say its prudent, what does it cost?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 15:10
by XanderCrews
mk82 wrote:Geogen: " With regard to your BS contention above, on F-35 procurement being a miscalculated 'Political' decision (i.e., honest military analysis made 3+ years ago would have raised red flags on the F-35 on prudent terms), perhaps most critical observers would agree with you on that score. I fully agree with your view on this."

Got to disagree with you on this point. The only Red Flag I see are the Canuck politicians having their thumbs still stuck up their **** and not making a definite decision on F35 procurement unlike us Ozzies. If the Canuck politicoes made a positive (and timely) decision on F35 procurement, they would have early tibs on F35As coming off the production line now. And you really think that the Canuck politicians would make a timely decision on a potential F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet lease when they already have their thumbs up their arses on the F35.....pfft. Get real Geogen, this is not a RCAF issue, as many previous posters have noted.

Have to bang on about the refuelling issue, how can a lease of F/A 18 E/F fix the RCAF's refuelling problems on the refueller side? Especially when the F35A internal fuel range is similar or even better than the Superbug with EFTs. Get your s*it right, RCAF's refuelling issue is not even a Tacair issue!!


Yup

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 15:14
by popcorn
Cue Geogen vanishing act in 5..4..3..2..1 :devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 17:39
by neptune
XanderCrews wrote:[.You say its prudent, what does it cost?


Simply put...is Canada just waiting until the per unit price is dropping down to the lowest per the higher volume the USAF will generate in the next few years and place their order "then" for the 30/ 40/ 50/ whatever number they require to meet their needs regardless of what is "left over" of the CF-18s? ....has this all been about saving the money? :?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 18:11
by cantaz
65 was the last published number.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 18:22
by blindpilot
neptune wrote:
....has this all been about saving the money? :?


Let's be clear. It is obviously been about getting elected. It is driven by many who would wish Canada had no military whatsoever. And sadly, though I pray I am wrong, one of the Canadian sons or daughters may die over the Arctic or Baltics one of these years to make politicians feel good about themselves. Hey, what's a life or two ... ? "It's all about me" .. didn't you know? Don't confuse this thread with anything close to actual cost/benefit concerns. It is pure unadulterated political narcissism.

I am less and less impressed by Canadian politicians. If only the US ones were better .. sigh.

MHO
BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 18:58
by madrat
Canada would like to buy all of their order from one mold. In this early stage that's not going to happen. Five years from now, sure. Today. No. It's still in a delta phase of refinement. Paying for an MLU for CF-118 now makes no sense, in 2025 it might be finished. You either go all in F-35 now and grit through the teething phase or you find a turnkey solution to buy later. (And a lease of Typhoon T1/T2A is literally turnkey compared to an MLU.) The US could soothe the Canadian government by offering a lease of F-35A LRIP batch for later buying one mold of shiny new F-35's later. Their political issue is solved.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:06
by bigjku
madrat wrote:Canada would like to buy all of their order from one mold. In this early stage that's not going to happen. Five years from now, sure. Today. No. It's still in a delta phase of refinement. Paying for an MLU now makes no sense, in 2025 it might be finished. You either go all in F-35 now and grit through the teething phase or you find a turnkey solution. The US could soothe the Canadian government by offering a lease of F-35A LRIP batch for later buying one mold of shiny new F-35's later. Their political issue is solved.


Frankly as a U.S. Taxpayer I feel no need at all to help Canada. Buy something or not. If you don't and can't meet your NORAD commitments then we can have a significantly less pleasant conversation at that point. But I am sick of the unique little snowflake attitude from Canada in general. You don't spend enough money to have unique needs. Just pick something, buy it and shut up already.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:11
by madrat
The Canadian taxpayers don't want to be U.S. puppets is the real dog and pony show. So play the political game and win one for F-35A. This is politics not rocket science.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:12
by XanderCrews
neptune wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:[.You say its prudent, what does it cost?


Simply put...is Canada just waiting until the per unit price is dropping down to the lowest per the higher volume the USAF will generate in the next few years and place their order "then" for the 30/ 40/ 50/ whatever number they require to meet their needs regardless of what is "left over" of the CF-18s? ....has this all been about saving the money? :?


canada has missed out on millions of dollars of contracts, they have spent millions more on all these studies that all come to the same conclusion, have spent tens of millions more on this idiotic reset, and hundreds of millions on the CF-18 upgrade. The KPMG report alone was 2 million dollars -- and they werent smart enough to include comparitive numbers. and the currency has dropped in the meantime

So if the goal was to save money I would call it a disaster. All of this is going to seem even more ridiculous when the F-35 is picked and the half billion or so spent to meticulously ensure money wasn't being wasted was well wasted

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:26
by bigjku
madrat wrote:The Canadian taxpayers don't want to be U.S. puppets is the real dog and pony show. So play the political game and win one for F-35A. This is politics not rocket science.


Puppets for the U.S.? That is rich...Canada benefits massively from the present relationship. The 40 or 50 aircraft you buy won't make a lock of difference in the long term success of the program. Why start doing special favors for you and not Australia? Or the UK? Or Netherlands?

If Canadian citizens are to dim to figure out that since the calendar turned past 1900 they have gotten on of the best deals ever had by a weak nation sharing a large border with a strong one then I don't really know what else the U.S. can do to convince them we aren't out to screw them. Buy something else. Build the Arrow 2.0. That will be awesome.

Canada has gotten by on the relative cheap for over a century now compared to what the situation could be and to what the U.S. has put out there that effectively keeps both nations secure. Do we need yet another special favor to smooth over an inferiority complex?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:28
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:Canada would like to buy all of their order from one mold. In this early stage that's not going to happen.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-pu ... -1.2827672

Five years from now, sure. Today. No.


They wanted to buy some just last year and then the engine fire happened. That pretty much ensured that it would become a post election issue.


Paying for an MLU for CF-118 now makes no sense, in 2025 it might be finished. You either go all in F-35 now and grit through the teething phase or you find a turnkey solution to buy later. (And a lease of Typhoon T1/T2A is literally turnkey compared to an MLU.)



I think you underestimate the amount of time and money that would go into such a process.

The US could soothe the Canadian government by offering a lease of F-35A LRIP batch for later buying one mold of shiny new F-35's later. There political issue is solved.


Sure the lease is for 65 aircraft, at just under 9 billion dollars.

Why does the Canadian Government need to be "soothed"?? They cocked this entire thing up and now other partners are having to take up their slack, and the US is expected to buy LRIP F-35s for them to lease?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:37
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:
Frankly as a U.S. Taxpayer I feel no need at all to help Canada. Buy something or not. If you don't and can't meet your NORAD commitments then we can have a significantly less pleasant conversation at that point. But I am sick of the unique little snowflake attitude from Canada in general. You don't spend enough money to have unique needs. Just pick something, buy it and shut up already.


Its become a bit of a farce.

bigjku wrote:
madrat wrote:The Canadian taxpayers don't want to be U.S. puppets is the real dog and pony show. So play the political game and win one for F-35A. This is politics not rocket science.


Puppets for the U.S.? That is rich...Canada benefits massively from the present relationship. The 40 or 50 aircraft you buy won't make a lock of difference in the long term success of the program. Why start doing special favors for you and not Australia? Or the UK? Or Netherlands?

If Canadian citizens are to dim to figure out that since the calendar turned past 1900 they have gotten on of the best deals ever had by a weak nation sharing a large border with a strong one then I don't really know what else the U.S. can do to convince them we aren't out to screw them. Buy something else. Build the Arrow 2.0. That will be awesome.

Canada has gotten by on the relative cheap for over a century now compared to what the situation could be and to what the U.S. has put out there that effectively keeps both nations secure. Do we need yet another special favor to smooth over an inferiority complex?


There is a huge gap between all the "Canada first" folks and the amount of money they want to spend. Canada operates under no arms restrictions, except those they impose on themselves. If they want to spend a hundred billion on the Arrow 2, and a fleet of 100 Air to air refuelers they can. But they won't because they are balking at 9 billion for 65 airplanes. It kind of reminds me of that teen girl who can't wait to move out of her "mean" parents house, but still expects them to pay and support her in her "independence"

A lot of this stuff has been covered in this thread already and there are basically 10 or so major factors that ensure the F-35 is the right aircraft, and that nothing else will do, and all other aircraft (yes including lease) are just expensive distractions.

Whats happened though is the CF-18 replacement has turning into some national looking glass/crystal ball about Canadas relationship with the US and the rest of the world. The rest of the world is moving on.

It would be darkly funny to watch Canada end up with something else as so many NATO nations and the US go with the F-35, many countries buying F-35 that are much smaller than Canada. However this whole thing has become a black comedy already.

Now it should be said that not all Canadians should be lumped into this, but it sure seems like the inmates are running the asylum. Unfortunately the RCAF and DND know their stuff, know what they want, and are probably hyperventilating as we speak, but they aren't allowed to comment due to regulations. So they just have to watch this 7 ring circus unfold.

So you have Joe Canuck online telling us you need two engines to fly in the cold, and that the Arrow 2 would be cheaper to develop, And that no one opeartes over an area like Canada etc, or that some Eurocanard should be purchased without realizing doing so would cost big bucks in upgrades, and of course would cut Canada off from US help in inter-operation and support.

TL:DR?

If Canada wants to feel special, they need to spend to do so.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 20:22
by madrat
A good salesman creates a win-win situation that benefits his wallet at the expense of the buyer. Play the political game and win that 65 airframe order already. Idle time is sales pitch time. Sitting on your hands is a dumb way to sell. And if it takes a few millions to create that sales pitch. So be it. Recoup it later.

Politics and sales are closely related. One of the best salesman I know worked out of Nellis. God Rest your soul, Herb. He wouldn't mix politics with capabilities and would have closed the deal before, during, and after any program setback be it an engine fire or crash. He knew how to sell ice cubes to Eskimos.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 23:22
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 'tandertrue' this had me chuckling: "...the half billion or so spent to meticulously ensure money wasn't being wasted was well wasted..." :devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 01:55
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:A good salesman creates a win-win situation that benefits his wallet at the expense of the buyer. Play the political game and win that 65 airframe order already. Idle time is sales pitch time. Sitting on your hands is a dumb way to sell. And if it takes a few millions to create that sales pitch. So be it. Recoup it later.

Politics and sales are closely related. One of the best salesman I know worked out of Nellis. God Rest your soul, Herb. He wouldn't mix politics with capabilities and would have closed the deal before, during, and after any program setback be it an engine fire or crash. He knew how to sell ice cubes to Eskimos.


It is sold, they just don't want to write the check.

And with respect to your friend Herb, canadian procurement history is atrocious. It's not a matter of salesmanship. Again the government and military are sold. Canada still remains a JSF partner, everyone is laying low prior to election.

Eventually someone is going to have to pull the trigger and either be the bad guy, or find a way to get the public mind changed.

The harder LM presses right now the more it aligns with canadian beliefs of being forced and an american puppet or whatever the tin foil hat says. Even canadian industry is keeping low key

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 04:13
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:Starting from your last point... the newly delivered CC-130J fleet, if indeed unexpectedly critical to RCAF's strategic core capabilities and requirements as of late, could be expanded. Perhaps Lease 3-5 dedicated solely for sovereign air-refueling?? Rely on NATO/US tankers for strategic Ferry and over-seas ops.


It's exceptionally rare for military aircraft to be leased. Often, there are a lot of restrictions placed upon how the leased platform is to be used, to the detriment of the end user. The British found that out the hard way when they initally leased 4 C-17's from Boeing; they ended up buying the airframes outright because of restrictions placed by Boeing in the lease.

Also, C-130's are not a very good platform for fast fighter jets to be tanking off anyways; while it can be done, it's not ideal because often, the fighters are flying very close to stall speed to stay on station with a C-130, and the C-130 is flying at max speed. That's why you often notice that the F/A-18's refueling from a KC-130 have a distinct nose high flight configuration.

It is in the US interests to defend North America. I don't see how this would not be a priority for our southern neighbours. Making a couple of tankers available for us is not going to break them.

In fact, during OIF when tankers were a premium in the Gulf, they still had tankers available to us. Because it was in their National interest. Right now, we are very limited in what tanker we can use: either either KC-135's with Boom Drogue Adapter installed (Only a few are fitted with them on a regular basis in CONUS and AK) or the occasional KC-10. Regardless of what we buy, we will still rely on US assets for tanking for NORAD.

The CC-130T is a tactical tanker that we use for limited operational purposes. While it is possible to use them to drag fighters across the ocean, it's hardly efficient; one CF-18 pilot mentioned one time he transited across the Atlantic being dragged across by a Herc and it turned a 6 hours flight into a 10 hours one.

The CC-150T is also an operational tanker (ideal for use during an Operation like Impact, shared amongst a pool of coalition tankers although it lacks the dual systems). We also like to use it for strategic purposes (dragging fighters across) but it lacks the offload a true strategic tanker needs. In order to make it to places like the Middle East and Africa, the flight has to be done in 3 hops, and that's with only 2 fighters trailing the Polaris.

The bottom line is that air to air refueling is not a core mission of the RCAF. There are a lot of other key capabilities that are higher up on the priorities list than buying a new tanker, such as replacing the CP-140 fleet, FWSAR, and NFA, along with projects from other services. And with defence spending at an all time low, I doubt it is even an issue in the first place.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 07:01
by geogen
I would concur that a potential operator of LEASED Super Hornets as a stopgap solution to an assessed capability gap, could be in a better driver seat and in a better position to potentially negotiate a better deal and one more advantageous than the C-17 example given.

It would come down to the degree of leverage, negotiating skill (and political will) said potential operator had if proposing a LEASE deal.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 07:23
by geogen
madrat wrote:Canada would like to buy all of their order from one mold. In this early stage that's not going to happen. Five years from now, sure. Today. No. It's still in a delta phase of refinement. Paying for an MLU for CF-118 now makes no sense, in 2025 it might be finished. You either go all in F-35 now and grit through the teething phase or you find a turnkey solution to buy later. (And a lease of Typhoon T1/T2A is literally turnkey compared to an MLU.) The US could soothe the Canadian government by offering a lease of F-35A LRIP batch for later buying one mold of shiny new F-35's later. Their political issue is solved.



I proposed back in 2010 here that RCAF and others, even USAF, contemplate LEASING LRIP F-35A as an interim, risk-mitigated solution for a stopgap requirement.

If said LRIP birds turned out to be sufficient and cost-effective, then simply extend the LEASE, or buy them outright. If not, then return them after 5-8 yrs and replace them with more mature, proven, capable block V units. A win-win.

DoD could have bought them back under a Congress-sponsored stimulus/national-security deal and stored them until they could have been retrofitted, and/or upgraded to a follow-on block, etc. That could have been a strategic pathway, in my personal view and assessment.

As far as the CF-18 upgrade question goes... of course it would make sense to upgrade them further to a more credible and competitive modern spec, if expecting them to be operationally extended until the mid-20s.

Not the most preferred solution, but arguably a more reliable one and more realistic - per default of needing to wait for reliable, affordable F-35s to be acquired and achieve operational status. My opinion.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 08:36
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:I would concur that a potential operator of LEASED Super Hornets as a stopgap solution to an assessed capability gap, could be in a better driver seat and in a better position to potentially negotiate a better deal and one more advantageous than the C-17 example given.

It would come down to the degree of leverage, negotiating skill (and political will) said potential operator had if proposing a LEASE deal.


Nope. The British leased their C-17's as a stop gap until A400M came online. They then decided to purchase the leased aircraft outright because of the lease restrictions. It is not very cost effective to lease military aircraft; only those with out the ability to set aside significant capital will do this.

And of course, the lessor needs to have the ability to remarket the aircraft as they come off lease; very hard to do with military aircraft due to restrictions on sale.

In the end, it takes two to tango, and there's no way Boeing will ever consider leasing F/A-18 Super Hornets to any user, especially to a user that will only use them for a few years before discarding the type. It will be impossible for Boeing to re-market the airframes to another user because you will require US State Department approval for resale to another country. I also doubt the USN would want more airframes, as they have not placed any new F/A-18's in their funding requests.

Boeing will have to take a major loss in the end on such a deal, as they will either be forced to keep the aircraft in mothballs forever, or scrap them. There's no way Boeing shareholders will ever allow Boeing to do this.

geogen wrote:
As far as the CF-18 upgrade question goes... of course it would make sense to upgrade them further to a more credible and competitive modern spec, if expecting them to be operationally extended until the mid-20s. My opinion.

Nope. Very cost prohibitive to independently develop upgrades. The CF-18 IMP effort leveraged USN developed upgrades for their F/A-18 A/B upgrades, which was collectively known as Engineering Change Proposal 583. In effect, ECP 583 turns an F/A-18 A/B into the equivalent of a F/A-18 C/D.

This modernization effort was done in cooperation with the USN, which was also performing the same upgrades to their F'/A-18 A/B fleet as well. There were also a number of much smaller upgrades done, such as the use of LCD displays instead of CRT displays, but the costs for that upgrade was split between Canada and Australia, which were also doing the same upgrades as well.

geogen wrote: My opinion.


And as many others have said here, STAY IN YOUR LANE!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 15:56
by SpudmanWP
Can we please stop with the LEASE nonsense?

If it were a tactical or economically viable solution, for both the lessor and lessee, then it would be happening today.

It's not happening ergo it's not viable.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 16:50
by XanderCrews
XanderCrews wrote:

Now last chance: as per your assessment, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD IT COST TO LEASE THE SUPER HORNETS as you propose?

I want an actual amount, or I'm going to report you as a troll until the button breaks.



geogen wrote:I would concur that a potential operator of LEASED Super Hornets as a stopgap solution to an assessed capability gap, could be in a better driver seat and in a better position to potentially negotiate a better deal and one more advantageous than the C-17 example given.

It would come down to the degree of leverage, negotiating skill (and political will) said potential operator had if proposing a LEASE deal.


geogen wrote:I proposed back in 2010 here that RCAF and others, even USAF, contemplate LEASING LRIP F-35A as an interim, risk-mitigated solution for a stopgap requirement.

If said LRIP birds turned out to be sufficient and cost-effective, then simply extend the LEASE, or buy them outright. If not, then return them after 5-8 yrs and replace them with more mature, proven, capable block V units. A win-win.

DoD could have bought them back under a Congress-sponsored stimulus/national-security deal and stored them until they could have been retrofitted, and/or upgraded to a follow-on block, etc. That could have been a strategic pathway, in my personal view and assessment.

As far as the CF-18 upgrade question goes... of course it would make sense to upgrade them further to a more credible and competitive modern spec, if expecting them to be operationally extended until the mid-20s.

Not the most preferred solution, but arguably a more reliable one and more realistic - per default of needing to wait for reliable, affordable F-35s to be acquired and achieve operational status. My opinion.



Reported. I am a man of my word. Its time to let the adults and professionals speak. There are other forums for science fiction, alternative history and fantasy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 16:54
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:Can we please stop with the LEASE nonsense?

If it were a tactical or economically viable solution, for both the lessor and lessee, then it would be happening today.

It's not happening ergo it's not viable.



Of course its not viable. Canada doesn't have the money or the personnel (nor the inclination), and Boeing and the USN don't have the aircraft available for lease.

Other than that (no money, no people, no airplanes) its totally viable, even prudent as a hedge. Its realistic too, that's what I love about it.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2015, 19:02
by magitsu
Sweden is probably the only one with fighters for lease because they are replacing everyone with new versions.
Even that is somewhat risky because they have to rely on a rather small inventory. They probably would have an operational need for more, but the needs of the national defense industry / AF's future are considered.

It's rare that there are any available. No-one is really looking to shed up-to date fighters with flying hours to spare.

Only way to acquire fighters for lease would be to trade in someone's inventory for newer models. For Super Hornets there is no drastically different model to upgrade to which could make it worthwhile. It's more like Mirage 2000-9 for Rafale deals. But who'd want old Mirages?

One wild card would be for Boeing to buy Swiss Hornets and trade them something new. That would give Canada some more runway, but it wouldn't be good for more than few years extra at best.

Temporary solutions are costly, so no-one probably wants to get themselves into them intentionally.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 01:47
by popcorn
The Swedish AF Chief isn't that keen on leasing out his jets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ze-413534/


PARIS: Swedish air force chief holds firm on fleet size

By: CRAIG HOYLEPARIS Source: 08:56 15 Jun 2015

With quick reaction alert sorties now occurring on a daily basis and the government in Stockholm demanding increased operational readiness, the Swedish air force is no longer feeling generous about sparing some of its Saab Gripens to support export customers.

Speaking in Paris on the eve of the show opening, air force chief Maj Gen Micael Bydén noted that his service had agreed to release eight Gripen C fighters and three D-model trainers to provide an interim solution for Switzerland, ahead of its expected introduction of 22 Gripen Es. That deal did not progress, however, due to a public referendum.

“That was two years ago – now I will not sign the paper saying that I will allow 11 aircraft out of my inventory. That would have a negative impact; we need them,” Bydén says. “I was more generous two years ago than I am today.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 05:40
by jessmo111
If I was POTUS , I would temporarily suspend CAPS over Canadian air space until they decide to take a a larger part in there own defense. I would guard the appraoches, and even put new baese in Alaska if I had to but, suspend help for awhile. When the Russian start flying figure 8s over ottawa, then Im sure they would have a change of heart.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 08:04
by neurotech
jessmo111 wrote:If I was POTUS , I would temporarily suspend CAPS over Canadian air space until they decide to take a a larger part in there own defense. I would guard the appraoches, and even put new baese in Alaska if I had to but, suspend help for awhile. When the Russian start flying figure 8s over ottawa, then Im sure they would have a change of heart.

You do realize that Canadian (& NATO) aircraft have flown CAP over continental USA before?

As far as CAP missions are concerned, the CF-18s are quite capable of shooting down whatever approaches them, well before before they get to Ottawa. The argument about "suspending help" is not based on reality.

For the core mission, either the F/A-18E/F or the F-35 will serve Canada well. The SuperBug (with pods etc.) isn't substantially cheaper than the F-35A in FRP.

If the Canadian Government wanted to lease an F/A-18E/F for training and evaluation, it would have happened by now. The Navy could spare a few "attrition reserve" aircraft. Not every Navy jet is assigned to a squadron. The fact that the Canadians haven't requested an evaluation lease for the F/A-18E/F implies they are committed to the F-35, its just a question of when to buy them.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 08:08
by jessmo111
Im sorry, I was under the impression that they could not police all of thier airspace without us.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 08:36
by neurotech
jessmo111 wrote:Im sorry, I was under the impression that they could not police all of thier airspace without us.

NORAD (Canada & US) jointly maintain radar coverage, and share command & control operations, but US fighter jets rarely patrol Canadian airspace.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 10:12
by popcorn
jessmo111 wrote:If I was POTUS , I would temporarily suspend CAPS over Canadian air space until they decide to take a a larger part in there own defense. I would guard the appraoches, and even put new baese in Alaska if I had to but, suspend help for awhile. When the Russian start flying figure 8s over ottawa, then Im sure they would have a change of heart.

A lousy way to treat Canada after RCAF Hornets assumed the CAP along Alaska's borders when the F-15 fleet was grounded in 2007 due to safety concerns.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 14:09
by citanon
jessmo111 wrote:If I was POTUS , I would temporarily suspend CAPS over Canadian air space until they decide to take a a larger part in there own defense. I would guard the appraoches, and even put new baese in Alaska if I had to but, suspend help for awhile. When the Russian start flying figure 8s over ottawa, then Im sure they would have a change of heart.


We help Canadian defend their air space for two reasons:

1. Canada is a vital strategic buffer for the US. As the Chinese would say our two countries' relationship is like lips and teeth.
2. Canadians and Americans have been fighting together and dying together since WWII. They have earned our friendship with blood.

It would be ridiculous to jeopardize our friendship over the sale of a few fighters.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 18:29
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:If I was POTUS , I would temporarily suspend CAPS over Canadian air space until they decide to take a a larger part in there own defense. I would guard the appraoches, and even put new baese in Alaska if I had to but, suspend help for awhile. When the Russian start flying figure 8s over ottawa, then Im sure they would have a change of heart.

A lousy way to treat Canada after RCAF Hornets assumed the CAP along Alaska's borders when the F-15 fleet was grounded in 2007 due to safety concerns.

Yes. The 2007 F-15 grounding was one of the situations I was referring to, except weren't the CF-18s flying off the coast of Washington and Oregon too, not just Alaska?

If I was POTUS, I'd be GIVING the Canadian Air Force some of our F/A-18A+/B+ jets, and then get more F/A-18E/Fs for the Navy... The Marines can fly F/A-18C/D jets freed up by the swap.

In the interests of being accurate, the Navy has a large "depot" fleet of A+/B+/C/D/E/F jets awaiting airframe structural repairs. The F/A-18A+/B+ fleet is more compatible with the CF-18 aircraft systems, and most of the airframes are approaching carrier trap limits. Some of these jets end up flying for aggressor squadrons or the Blue Angels, although at last check, all of the A/B models have been retired from the Blues. They could be refurbished for land-based service moderately cheaply, if the Navy/MC budget allowed.

My understanding is that the CF-18s have different airframe fatigue patterns than the Navy jets, and surplus Navy jets would provide structural spares to support the CF-18, assuming the jets are not upgraded and flown.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2015, 01:20
by popcorn
neurotech wrote:
popcorn wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:If I was POTUS , I would temporarily suspend CAPS over Canadian air space until they decide to take a a larger part in there own defense. I would guard the appraoches, and even put new baese in Alaska if I had to but, suspend help for awhile. When the Russian start flying figure 8s over ottawa, then Im sure they would have a change of heart.
]
Yes. The 2007 F-15 grounding was one of the situations I was referring to, except weren't the CF-18s flying off the coast of Washington and Oregon too, not just Alaska?

Credit must go to the California ANG which assumed CAP duties for the entire West Coast in their F-16s. A first for a single-engine fighter according to reports at the time. RCAF patrolled Alaskan skies for some 3 weeks until relieved by F-22s.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2015, 01:44
by XanderCrews
Suspending caps beyond being a bad idea is simply not necessary. I'll give you a little inside information, the F-35 is going to happen in Canada so there is no need for any force, or game playing, or threats

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2015, 04:56
by jessmo111
I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 02:36
by XanderCrews
jessmo111 wrote:I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.



Not really no

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 02:43
by bring_it_on
jessmo111 wrote:I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.


The USAF plans on upgrading more than 400 F-15C's, and E's and the type will be in service till beyond 2035 if not into the 2040's giving plenty of time for its successor to be designed, tested and inducted to complement the F-35 and F-22 and eventually replace the F-22.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 07:46
by geogen
bring_it_on wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.


The USAF plans on upgrading more than 400 F-15C's, and E's and the type will be in service till beyond 2035 if not into the 2040's giving plenty of time for its successor to be designed, tested and inducted to complement the F-35 and F-22 and eventually replace the F-22.


BTW, is there any recent status update for an actual actionable F-15C/D upgrade strategy? That said, it's a fair point to bring up as to the actual strategy USAF will eventually implement to upgrade and operate an actual so-called 4.5 gen force structure by default (to include hypothetical F-16 jets as well).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 08:48
by Corsair1963
bring_it_on wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.


The USAF plans on upgrading more than 400 F-15C's, and E's and the type will be in service till beyond 2035 if not into the 2040's giving plenty of time for its successor to be designed, tested and inducted to complement the F-35 and F-22 and eventually replace the F-22.


Upgrade is mostly for the F-15E Strike Eagle.......

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 10:53
by bring_it_on
Corsair1963 wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.


The USAF plans on upgrading more than 400 F-15C's, and E's and the type will be in service till beyond 2035 if not into the 2040's giving plenty of time for its successor to be designed, tested and inducted to complement the F-35 and F-22 and eventually replace the F-22.


Upgrade is mostly for the F-15E Strike Eagle.......


There plans call for upgrading 179 to 214 F-15C/D's and the rest are F-15E's...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 10:59
by bring_it_on
geogen wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:I stand daown, and stand corrected. It does bring up a good point though. with so much of the U.S. fighter fleet being F-35, and such a small number of F-22s. It would be very prudent for the USAF, to keep some late build 4.5 gen fighters around, in case of a major F-35 grounding.


The USAF plans on upgrading more than 400 F-15C's, and E's and the type will be in service till beyond 2035 if not into the 2040's giving plenty of time for its successor to be designed, tested and inducted to complement the F-35 and F-22 and eventually replace the F-22.


BTW, is there any recent status update for an actual actionable F-15C/D upgrade strategy? That said, it's a fair point to bring up as to the actual strategy USAF will eventually implement to upgrade and operate an actual so-called 4.5 gen force structure by default (to include hypothetical F-16 jets as well).


The current number of USAF F-35's and F-22A's takes into account the fact that F-15C's, D's and E's would need to be upgraded because they will be in service for longer since the USAF did not get even its lower requirement for the F-22A (Which was 250 iirc). General Carlisle at the last AFA pretty much said it that the F-35 number in the requirement is required to get to the squadron strength the COCOMS want them at..a lower number would mean cutting back capability.

As far as the Eagle modernization, it is budgeted for in the FY16 procurement budget and will continue to be an investment for many years beyond that.It will be one contract to Boeing, and boeing will choose the EW upgrade vendor (either Northrop Grumman, orBaE). Keep in mind however that it is not cheap. The cost to upgrade these Eagles is close to $10 Billion ($7.5 Billion for EW systems alone ) over time so you don't get 4.5 generation systems on 4th generation jets for the cheap! Testing and development will begin in 2017 and the tentative introduction is in the post 2020 time-frame.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 17:33
by jessmo111
With such a large amount if money being spent anny way, do you see the silent eagle
Upgrade still havingchance? Ironically the F-15 would solve alot of
Canadas complaints concerning fighters ( they could stop crying about 2 engines)
And allow for a decent fighter with little development.
What about rebuilt Refurbished F-15s?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2015, 17:39
by bring_it_on
Silent Eagle upgrade is not really going to help much since there would be plenty of stealth jets in the USAF to use for those missions. The F-15C's and E's will support the F-22A in the air to air mission and the F-35A in the air to ground mission. SE upgrades are beneficial to those that do not have a first day fighter and may want something that is a little bit more survivable than a conventional Strike Eagle.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 03:39
by Corsair1963
bring_it_on wrote: There plans call for upgrading 179 to 214 F-15C/D's and the rest are F-15E's...


The number of F-15C's to be upgraded is down to 179. Yet, only 48 with the APG-63v3 have been funded. Nonetheless, they all will likely be upgraded with time. Yet, I don't think they will last long.....

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 07:24
by geogen
bring_it_on wrote:The current number of USAF F-35's and F-22A's takes into account the fact that F-15C's, D's and E's would need to be upgraded because they will be in service for longer since the USAF did not get even its lower requirement for the F-22A (Which was 250 iirc)..


The current number of USAF F-35A and F-22A are based on the reality that the original Combat Aviation Platform Procurement budget estimates were inherently flawed and in no realistic way could the originally assumed F-22 force structure, as well as pre-conceived massive F-35 force structure be procured simultaneously, or as required, regardless of what interim systems upgrades on F-15E platforms the USAF would be subjected to.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 07:34
by geogen
jessmo111 wrote:With such a large amount if money being spent anny way, do you see the silent eagle
Upgrade still havingchance? Ironically the F-15 would solve alot of
Canadas complaints concerning fighters ( they could stop crying about 2 engines)
And allow for a decent fighter with little development.
What about rebuilt Refurbished F-15s?


I actually had conjectured back in 2010 or so that around 50+/- cherry picked USAF F-15C/D could be transferred/donated to RCAF as a bridge, which could have then implemented an RCAF-specific systems upgrade (of perhaps what, $15-20m per jet?).

Then, more time could have been bought by RCAF with respect to deciding a more practical and sustainable/sensible recap plan.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 07:43
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:With such a large amount if money being spent anny way, do you see the silent eagle
Upgrade still havingchance? Ironically the F-15 would solve alot of
Canadas complaints concerning fighters ( they could stop crying about 2 engines)
And allow for a decent fighter with little development.
What about rebuilt Refurbished F-15s?


I actually had conjectured back in 2010 or so that around 50+/- cherry picked USAF F-15C/D could be transferred/donated to RCAF as a bridge, which could have then implemented an RCAF-specific systems upgrade (of perhaps what, $15-20m per jet?).

Then, more time could have been bought by RCAF with respect to deciding a more practical and sustainable/sensible recap plan.

Umm... NO.

The USAF needs every single F-15C/D they have in inventory. There's simply not enough F-22's to go around for the air superiority mission, and the F-16 while capable, isn't the same thing. Furthermore, the entire USAF F-15C/D fleet are currently under peacetime maneuver limitations, thanks in part to that Eagle that split in half back in 2007. That incident revealed that the bulk of the F-15C/D fleet had defective longerons, which is placing even more strain on the F-15 fleet.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 19:24
by XanderCrews
thepointblank wrote:
geogen wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:With such a large amount if money being spent anny way, do you see the silent eagle
Upgrade still havingchance? Ironically the F-15 would solve alot of
Canadas complaints concerning fighters ( they could stop crying about 2 engines)
And allow for a decent fighter with little development.
What about rebuilt Refurbished F-15s?


I actually had conjectured back in 2010 or so that around 50+/- cherry picked USAF F-15C/D could be transferred/donated to RCAF as a bridge, which could have then implemented an RCAF-specific systems upgrade (of perhaps what, $15-20m per jet?).

Then, more time could have been bought by RCAF with respect to deciding a more practical and sustainable/sensible recap plan.

Umm... NO.

The USAF needs every single F-15C/D they have in inventory. There's simply not enough F-22's to go around for the air superiority mission, and the F-16 while capable, isn't the same thing. Furthermore, the entire USAF F-15C/D fleet are currently under peacetime maneuver limitations, thanks in part to that Eagle that split in half back in 2007. That incident revealed that the bulk of the F-15C/D fleet had defective longerons, which is placing even more strain on the F-15 fleet.


You forget that part where the Canadian defense budget magically increased

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 21:38
by cantaz
geogen wrote:I actually had conjectured


Calling it "conjectured" doesn't change the fact that you're just making uneducated guesses.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2015, 07:47
by Corsair1963
Canada will buy the F-35 in the end..... :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2015, 08:33
by thepointblank
cantaz wrote:
geogen wrote:I actually had conjectured


Calling it "conjectured" doesn't change the fact that you're just making uneducated guesses.

I liken it to saying "pulling some made up numbers and figures out of my rear end."

Unless one can pull out actual facts and provide sources, you are about as credible as Mike Duffy.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2015, 15:17
by optimist
IF they got a f-15 lease. Even leaving the price and availability aside, how long do you think it would take to get it FOC

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 03:16
by arrow-nautics
I agree & believe with a members earlier post, it's highly likely Canada is de facto, painted in to a corner & is stuck with the F-35A. We just refuse to write the cheque.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 07:53
by geogen
thepointblank wrote:
geogen wrote:I actually had conjectured back in 2010 or so that around 50+/- cherry picked USAF F-15C/D could be transferred/donated to RCAF as a bridge, which could have then implemented an RCAF-specific systems upgrade (of perhaps what, $15-20m per jet?).

Then, more time could have been bought by RCAF with respect to deciding a more practical and sustainable/sensible recap plan.

Umm... NO.

The USAF needs every single F-15C/D they have in inventory. There's simply not enough F-22's to go around for the air superiority mission, and the F-16 while capable, isn't the same thing. Furthermore, the entire USAF F-15C/D fleet are currently under peacetime maneuver limitations, thanks in part to that Eagle that split in half back in 2007. That incident revealed that the bulk of the F-15C/D fleet had defective longerons, which is placing even more strain on the F-15 fleet.


Fair point and for the record, fast forward today, I would probably feel it is too late to begin such an hypothetical recap stopgap plan B, per the F-15C/D transfer concept for RCAF. Part of said alternative concept would have most probably also been linked to an accelerated, decisive USAF 'offset' acquisition plan involving a certain number of tactical-oriented F-15E+ buys. (e.g., 12 or so units per yr to include F-15SA baseline, with some optional USAF-specific off-the-shelf avionics modifications, of course).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 08:09
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:
thepointblank wrote:Umm... NO.

The USAF needs every single F-15C/D they have in inventory. There's simply not enough F-22's to go around for the air superiority mission, and the F-16 while capable, isn't the same thing. Furthermore, the entire USAF F-15C/D fleet are currently under peacetime maneuver limitations, thanks in part to that Eagle that split in half back in 2007. That incident revealed that the bulk of the F-15C/D fleet had defective longerons, which is placing even more strain on the F-15 fleet.


Fair point and for the record, fast forward today, I would probably feel it is too late to begin such an hypothetical recap stopgap plan B, per the F-15C/D transfer concept for RCAF. Part of said alternative concept would have most probably also been linked to an accelerated, decisive USAF 'offset' acquisition plan involving a certain number of tactical-oriented F-15E+ buys. (e.g., 12 or so units per yr to include F-15SA baseline, with some optional USAF-specific off-the-shelf avionics modifications, of course).

And you completely closed your eye to the US budgetary issues within the past few years... Sequestration has really put a damper on procurement within the past 5 years.

And you have totally forgotten that there's no appetite in Canada for increased defence spending. In fact, some of the most recent polls indicate that most Canadians want to see defence spending slashed... so unless the USAF is willing to upgrade and give away F-15C/D's for nothing, any concept of transferring USAF aircraft to Canada is instantly dead in the water.

In short: you are about as credible as this guy:

Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 16:27
by arrow-nautics
thepointblank wrote: USAF aircraft to Canada is instantly dead in the water.


EH-101/Cyclones history repeating itself? Film at 11

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 18:13
by blindpilot
cantaz wrote:
geogen wrote:I actually had conjectured


Calling it "conjectured" doesn't change the fact that you're just making uneducated guesses.


Geogen - YOU AREN'T LISTENING !!!!

That is why you have been reported. To unreport yourself all you would need to do is answer the question - How much for the Super Hornet lease/puchase?

Now I will conjecture - (although based on actual facts and data)

The longer this drags on, and F-35 prices come down, and "option 4++" prices go up, (Typhoon, Rafale, F-15SE etc.) the cross over line has been hit. The cheapest option is now the most capable option. - F-35.

The only other choice for Canada at this point is the little Korean F/A-50 like The Phllipines is getting or if Canada is going that direction just buy some Textron Scorpions. Because without the F-35, they WILL NOT be playing with the big boys, anyway. That is a Fact.

MHO and conjecture,
BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 03:59
by arrow-nautics
Without getting in to the whole W5 of the matter. It's SH or ASH vs. F-35A for us Canuckleheads...period.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 04:46
by cantaz
arrow-nautics wrote:Without getting in to the whole W5 of the matter. It's SH or ASH vs. F-35A for us Canuckleheads...period.


I'd say SH (because we're not going to do ASH alone), F-35A and Rafael (parceque Quebec).

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 04:57
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Old Master Paintings (Rafael/Raphael) for the French Quebecois? :doh: Gimme a Froggy NavAver RAFALE any time. :devil:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 06:32
by geogen
For those discussing SH vs ASH here... Remember, ASH is a pathway, not a completed block development. The radar is in continuous mode upgrade and software update, as is the computer receiving upgraded processing capabilities. CFT alone would enable a considerable bump up in economy, mission flexibility and capacity. The EWP itself would arguably not be necessary, and could certainly take a back seat to next-gen stand-off ordnance which would be externally launched.

A properly negotiated short-term (stopgap) or medium-term SH Lease as part of a plan B, possibly as part of an eventual mixed solution of platforms operated (manned + unmanned)? It would be interesting to evaluate, yes. ^^

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 07:16
by popcorn
geogen wrote: It would be interesting to evaluate, yes. ^^

No.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 07:27
by madrat
If Boeing really can't sell F/A-18 SH's now, why would they lease some now only to get stuck with them later?

Any short term solution has to be a net benefit to all parties involved. It's not like any manufacturer has users with about 120 idle airframes. Other than Eurofighter partners...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 08:28
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:For those discussing SH vs ASH here... Remember, ASH is a pathway, not a completed block development. The radar is in continuous mode upgrade and software update, as is the computer receiving upgraded processing capabilities. CFT alone would enable a considerable bump up in economy, mission flexibility and capacity. The EWP itself would arguably not be necessary, and could certainly take a back seat to next-gen stand-off ordnance which would be externally launched.

A properly negotiated short-term (stopgap) or medium-term SH Lease as part of a plan B, possibly as part of an eventual mixed solution of platforms operated (manned + unmanned)? It would be interesting to evaluate, yes. ^^


Thought you said you had assessed it already. Still no cost number?

Reported

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 08:41
by arrow-nautics
cantaz wrote:
arrow-nautics wrote:Without getting in to the whole W5 of the matter. It's SH or ASH vs. F-35A for us Canuckleheads...period.


I'd say SH (because we're not going to do ASH alone), F-35A and Rafael (parceque Quebec).


Doubt it's the Rafale. The CBC (can't believe I'm citing those basement dwellers) ran a story about a year ago that interoperability with NORAD/NATO is a big must for what the US wants us to do on CAPS plus cohesion on avionics is highly sought by Canada. I have to agree there's merit to this point of view. I suppose a Rafale buy might be possible but then there's likely some avionic compatibilities with the USAF that would need to be brought to the platform. This coupled with the loss of the sale to India is a double whammy for Dassault. Is the loss of the sale going to lead to a greater cost per unit on the Rafale? I believe so. Recently there was news that India is looking at acquiring I think about 22 of them but that's not enough to stop the cost going up. The only way out of this is possibly a Rafale built in Canada solution to neutralize these issues.

Besides, the way things are and unless they change, the F-35A is already (on acquisition) less than the Rafale and/or the Typhoon. Saab is not interested in waiting around for us to get off our collective political butts. Hence it's Boeing versus LM.

IMO

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 07:56
by geogen
madrat wrote:If Boeing really can't sell F/A-18 SH's now, why would they lease some now only to get stuck with them later?

Any short term solution has to be a net benefit to all parties involved. It's not like any manufacturer has users with about 120 idle airframes. Other than Eurofighter partners...


Again, a Lease, regardless of model aircraft, could be more creative and multi-dimensional than merely the manufacturer 'Leasing' the air vehicle. In such case, the perception of what a potential and hypothetical 'LEASE' could involve, is apparently not being looked at with an outside the box view.

A Lease, e.g., could involve joint-ownership parties including, say the DoD, and/or USN, etc. That is, Navy would probably be fine with being 'stuck with them', in some capacity, down the road. Be it attrition units, augmenting a revised legacy Hornet replacement plan, converted as 'manned-optional' platforms(?), or possibly to replace a number of Block 1 SH, etc, whathaveyou.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 21:24
by cantaz
arrow-nautics wrote:Doubt it's the Rafale.


I never said it was rational.

Geogen, do us all a favour and keep your disjointed fantasies to yourself.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 21:43
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:
arrow-nautics wrote:Doubt it's the Rafale.


I never said it was rational.

Geogen, do us all a favour and keep your disjointed fantasies to yourself.


Walter Mitty the aerospace defense analyst. How many pages of circle talk have we endured since I asked a basic, straightforward,prudent, risk free question?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 21:50
by madrat
It comes down to definition of the scope. F-35A will obviously fit any scope other than demands for a two holer. The Canadian workshare is dependent on orders. I don't think anyone here has access to the raw numbers to decide the balance between one deal versus another. But if early unit price is eating away the benefit of workshare, then Houston we have a problem.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2015, 01:23
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:
Again, a Lease, regardless of model aircraft, could be more creative and multi-dimensional than merely the manufacturer 'Leasing' the air vehicle. In such case, the perception of what a potential and hypothetical 'LEASE' could involve, is apparently not being looked at with an outside the box view.

A Lease, e.g., could involve joint-ownership parties including, say the DoD, and/or USN, etc. That is, Navy would probably be fine with being 'stuck with them', in some capacity, down the road. Be it attrition units, augmenting a revised legacy Hornet replacement plan, converted as 'manned-optional' platforms(?), or possibly to replace a number of Block 1 SH, etc, whathaveyou.


One major problem: That will require the USN to play ball and want more Super Hornets. Fact of the matter is, they don't. They haven't requested any Super Hornets in their past few budget requests as either a needed item, or as a would like item.

I suggest you take your leasing idea and toss it in the trash can. The OEM isn't likely to participate, and neither would the US DoD.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2015, 04:45
by newmanfrigan
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:For those discussing SH vs ASH here... Remember, ASH is a pathway, not a completed block development. The radar is in continuous mode upgrade and software update, as is the computer receiving upgraded processing capabilities. CFT alone would enable a considerable bump up in economy, mission flexibility and capacity. The EWP itself would arguably not be necessary, and could certainly take a back seat to next-gen stand-off ordnance which would be externally launched.

A properly negotiated short-term (stopgap) or medium-term SH Lease as part of a plan B, possibly as part of an eventual mixed solution of platforms operated (manned + unmanned)? It would be interesting to evaluate, yes. ^^


Thought you said you had assessed it already. Still no cost number?

Reported


Hold up! Xander, do you mean to tell me that you doubt his expertise in the area? 8)

Rest assured, he's thought this through; a prudent course of action going forward would be an Advanced Super Hornet, or an upgraded F-16 with a what was it GE-132 Engine and a an APG-80 radar, add some other odd sensor mods and bits and bobs and call it a day.

Goodbye US Airpower! ..forever.


Ok, this has been true for a long time, but now at last can we admit...the debate is over, everywhere except the media and the internet. The F-35 is looking increasingly like the new F-16 it was planned to be. Spoke to some experienced Hornet pilots this weekend and they were up to speed with what the new bird can do. It's going to work out.

If the Europeans want to build a 5th Gen multirole VLO, carrier and STOVL capable, mini-AWACS,s sensor shooter, cyber warfare, fighter with F-18 agility, huge internal fuel capacity, etc etc 10 million lines of code involved, etc.... they can be my guest. They can do it technically, I'm sure, but it would be the biggest screw up in actuality. It wouldn't get anywhere. Every hiccough would have ramifications.

Let's see how the Russians and Chinese fare with their designs. I've seen them experiencing the same and worse technical and schedule issues we have, and this from closed governtments with no lefty crusader journalists and GAO beancounters. I would imagine they are having a lot of problems technically, but we just won't ever hear of them.

It's time for the Anti-JSF crowd to throw in the towel. It's over.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2015, 17:58
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:It comes down to definition of the scope. F-35A will obviously fit any scope other than demands for a two holer. The Canadian workshare is dependent on orders. I don't think anyone here has access to the raw numbers to decide the balance between one deal versus another. But if early unit price is eating away the benefit of workshare, then Houston we have a problem.



You don't need raw numbers to figure out that work shares in thousands of aircraft for the next 2 decades is not only jobs but secure jobs for a long long time.

Any other choice would get either less in the aircraft already with a line in St louis and maybe some airline contracts, a europe boom and then bust model IE not much after the 60 or so aircraft are built after billions are invested for a few years of production (Dassault of course is promising thr moon In other future company endeavors should they ever be undertaken)

It's the old get rich over a long period of steady work model so detested by those looking for the next big thing.

Should canada pick the F-35 it's going to have a long lasting posirice effect along with the latest and greatest advanced aviation designs and processes on industry.

It's the Northrop Grumman model. no they don't build whole aircraft but there is great money in building pieces in a whole lot of other aircraft

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 00:31
by popcorn
All those stakeholders should be taking a more visible and concerted PR campaign IMO.
Maybe they coild hire The Donald to pitch their message :D
http://www.builditsoftware.com/2014/05/ ... -industry/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 00:42
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:All those stakeholders should be taking a more visible and concerted PR campaign IMO.
Maybe they coild hire The Donald to pitch their message :D
http://www.builditsoftware.com/2014/05/ ... -industry/


They are laying low pending the election.

Not that I disagree with you they need to be loud and be heard, explain why F-35 offers what it does and how that differs from other options and then emphasize that the clock is ticking. Canada is losing out on opportunity as we speak

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 01:03
by bring_it_on
It would be crazy to stick around through the majority of development and procure something that is inferior in technology a decade late than the ideal time to purchase such an aircraft. That is what an F-18E/F purchase would get them. It was a good aircraft circa 2005 or even 2010 but in 2020 it is way behind even its peers and of course completely outclassed by the crop of 5th generation capability that is on the verge of flooding the combat fighter market (F-35, PAKFA, J-20 et al). But perhaps by the early 2020's Boeing and Raytheon can finally get the An/Apg-79 to perform as desired..but that still leaves a rather lousy kinematic performer that doesn't have anything going for it in BVR..other than perhaps the fact that they could always buy another aircraft (Growler) to make the primary aircraft more survivable and buy another aircraft (KC767) to keep both the primary and support aircraft up in the air long enough to get the job done.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 01:44
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:All those stakeholders should be taking a more visible and concerted PR campaign IMO.
Maybe they coild hire The Donald to pitch their message :D
http://www.builditsoftware.com/2014/05/ ... -industry/


They are laying low pending the electionè

Not that I disagree with you they need to be loud and be heard, explain why F-35 offers what it does and how that differs from other options and then emphasize that the clock is ticking. Canada is losing out on opportunity as we speak

That's what I don't get... no one can fault them for lobbying their interests and waiting til after the election loses them leverage IMO. Anyway, must be some Canadian thingy.. :shrug:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 01:50
by thepointblank
popcorn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
They are laying low pending the electionè

Not that I disagree with you they need to be loud and be heard, explain why F-35 offers what it does and how that differs from other options and then emphasize that the clock is ticking. Canada is losing out on opportunity as we speak

That's what I don't get... no one can fault them for lobbying their interedrs and waiting til after the election loses them leverage IMO. Anyway, must be some Canadian thingy.. :shrug:

Defence spending in Canada is generally not a very popular political issue. Most Canadians don't care about the military unless something happens and the military can't help them.

I imagine it is very likely that Lockheed Martin and most of Canada's aviation industry in general are quietly lobbying through their channels directly with the political parties. Even some of Canada's aviation industry unions will be quietly lobbying the NDP to remind them that there are jobs at stake, along with their political support.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 02:02
by popcorn
Stealth lobbying for a stealth jet..

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 04:36
by XanderCrews
thepointblank wrote:
popcorn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
They are laying low pending the electionè

Not that I disagree with you they need to be loud and be heard, explain why F-35 offers what it does and how that differs from other options and then emphasize that the clock is ticking. Canada is losing out on opportunity as we speak

That's what I don't get... no one can fault them for lobbying their interedrs and waiting til after the election loses them leverage IMO. Anyway, must be some Canadian thingy.. :shrug:

Defence spending in Canada is generally not a very popular political issue. Most Canadians don't care about the military unless something happens and the military can't help them.

I imagine it is very likely that Lockheed Martin and most of Canada's aviation industry in general are quietly lobbying through their channels directly with the political parties. Even some of Canada's aviation industry unions will be quietly lobbying the NDP to remind them that there are jobs at stake, along with their political support.


Well put

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 05:13
by geogen
It would arguably be prudent of RCAF to be procuring affordable (cheap) and mature, follow-on block 4 F-35A units in FY15/FY16 procurement for IOC in 2018 and 2019, as was originally marketed and expected. Sure.

But given the unfortunate set-backs, significant delays, unexpected uncertainty and strategic risks regarding the F-35 Program today (and going forward), based still on assumptions and hopes, a plan B is arguably valid. I'm sorry.

Think 5-8 yr Lease of possible existing + new-build SH mix, then procure mix of proven, mature block 4/5 F-35 + unmanned UCAV (for long-endurance patrol and ISR/strike), starting in 2022?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 05:17
by spazsinbad
'geogen' I like the way your SH lease mirage is:
"....But given the unfortunate set-backs, significant delays, unexpected uncertainty and strategic risks regarding the F-35 Program today (and going forward), based still on assumptions and hopes..."

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 05:24
by geogen
spazsinbad wrote:'geogen' I like the way your SH lease mirage is:
"....But given the unfortunate set-backs, significant delays, unexpected uncertainty and strategic risks regarding the F-35 Program today (and going forward), based still on assumptions and hopes..."


It's called contingency planning, sir. Not the most preferred strategy by any means... but implemented to mitigate risks. You don't go to war with what you wish you had tomorrow, but 'hopefully' with what you have in responsibly upgraded and evolved form, today.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 05:33
by spazsinbad
'geogen' explain how this phrase of yours applies today: "...unexpected uncertainty and strategic risks regarding the F-35...". Explain where is the 'certainty' of your mythical SH lease - I note no ASH now. Point to where BOING or RCAF or Canadian Guvmnt have mentioned this 'lease'.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 05:41
by popcorn
de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 06:03
by geogen
spazsinbad wrote:'geogen' explain how this phrase of yours applies today: "...unexpected uncertainty and strategic risks regarding the F-35...". Explain where is the 'certainty' of your mythical SH lease - I note no ASH now. Point to where BOING or RCAF or Canadian Guvmnt have mentioned this 'lease'.


Lots of fair questions going on there, Spazs... respects.

1) The unexpected uncertainty aspect is based on the assumed original reliability and affordability of the advanced follow-on block F-35A by now, as was being advertised and sold to prospective allies/partners back in the day. Basically... this is what we will offer you and sell you - simply hold off on any other potential alternative replacement decisions. Fast forward today though and the follow on block is hypothetical and unknown, as is the eventual affordability and reliability of procuring/operating...

2) A shorter-term LEASE would yes, probably imply some existing late model and latest model new-build SH. A longer-term LEASE, or Lease-buy 'Mix', could involve a so-called ASH 'pathway', in my views.

That is, an ASH 'pathway' would likely enable certain superior potential capabilities, incrementally, over existing SH models.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 06:11
by spazsinbad
'geogen' I do not inhabit your world. The JPO US and other countries place orders. Yes there are plans that since a few years ago are mostly fulfilled. There is no uncertainty in your lease mirage because it does not exist.

Did you not read about the long ago PHANTOM lease by RAAF for several years? Why was this? Where did the leased aircraft go after that time? Where did they come from? An oft forgotten aspect was that USAF were entitled to demand their PHANTOMS BACK during that short lease period - they did not however. How is the short changed USN going to allow SuperDupas to be leased to Canuckistan? You provide nothing except empty words time and time again. You should stop.

For those tone deef go here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27661&p=298560&hilit=Phantom#p298560
&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell ... an_service

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 06:17
by optimist
he still hasn't said how many years, this mythical 5-8 year lease would take to get FOC

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 07:16
by mrigdon
My cousin Cletus has some Super Hornets he's selling cheap. Bring a trailer, of course. Cash preferred, but he's open to interesting trades.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 07:22
by spazsinbad
Via 'qslim' another only driven on Sundays slightly used model: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m160 ... 9rao1k.jpg

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 07:40
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:Via 'qslim' another only driven on Sundays slightly used model:


That'll buff right out.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 12:28
by madrat
Just some cosmetic flaws in the paint. A little elbow grease and some touch ups, it'll be good as new.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 14:50
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'geogen' explain how this phrase of yours applies today: "...unexpected uncertainty and strategic risks regarding the F-35...". Explain where is the 'certainty' of your mythical SH lease - I note no ASH now. Point to where BOING or RCAF or Canadian Guvmnt have mentioned this 'lease'.


Lots of fair questions going on there, Spazs... respects.

1) The unexpected uncertainty aspect is based on the assumed original reliability and affordability of the advanced follow-on block F-35A by now, as was being advertised and sold to prospective allies/partners back in the day. Basically... this is what we will offer you and sell you - simply hold off on any other potential alternative replacement decisions. Fast forward today though and the follow on block is hypothetical and unknown, as is the eventual affordability and reliability of procuring/operating...

2) A shorter-term LEASE would yes, probably imply some existing late model and latest model new-build SH. A longer-term LEASE, or Lease-buy 'Mix', could involve a so-called ASH 'pathway', in my views.

That is, an ASH 'pathway' would likely enable certain superior potential capabilities, incrementally, over existing SH models.


Apparently my question "how much will it cost?" was not "fair"

Reported

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 17:40
by luke_sandoz
madrat wrote:Just some cosmetic flaws in the paint. A little elbow grease and some touch ups, it'll be good as new.



Have it on good authority it was only flown by a little old lady, only on Sunday's so she could get her shopping errands done.

Excellent remaining warranty not included, but for sale at the right price.

She also has a slightly used bridge for sale as well.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 19:09
by mrigdon
XanderCrews wrote:
Apparently my question "how much will it cost?" was not "fair"



I'm sure Boeing would be willing to "lease" a Super Hornet for five years at $20 Million a year or so, maintenance included.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 12:54
by spazsinbad
Canuckians to the rescue - toot sweet.
Canada To Deploy Repeaters on USAF Satellites
28 Aug 2015 David Pugliese

"OTTAWA – Canada’s Department of National Defence and military has signed an agreement with the US Air Force for the installation of search-and-rescue repeaters on the service’s next generation Global Positioning System satellites.

The repeaters provided by Canada’s Medium Earth Orbit Search and Rescue (MEOSAR) satellite project will significantly cut down on the time it takes to locate a distress signal, according to Canadian military officers.

The 24 search-and-rescue repeaters will be installed on the USAF’s GPS 3 satellites....

...Once in orbit 22,000 kilometers above the Earth, a MEOSAR repeater will be able to detect signals from emergency beacons and retransmit the signals to receiver stations on the ground. The emergency messages can then be sent to appropriate authorities so that people in danger can be quickly located and rescued."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /32424649/

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 14:54
by optimist
mrigdon wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Apparently my question "how much will it cost?" was not "fair"



I'm sure Boeing would be willing to "lease" a Super Hornet for five years at $20 Million a year or so, maintenance included.

Where are these super hornets coming from? There are no spare ones sitting in a paddock.
It took Australia 5 years to get 24 to FOC
May 2007 order
delivery started 2009
December 2010 IOC
December 2012 FOC

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 21:08
by bigjku
optimist wrote:
mrigdon wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Apparently my question "how much will it cost?" was not "fair"



I'm sure Boeing would be willing to "lease" a Super Hornet for five years at $20 Million a year or so, maintenance included.

Where are these super hornets coming from? There are no spare ones sitting in a paddock.
It took Australia 5 years to get 24 to FOC
May 2007 order
delivery started 2009
December 2010 IOC
December 2012 FOC


You missed the catch. If Canada were willing to pay $100 million per over the next 5 years per aircraft Boeing would build them. That was kind of the point. Any lease would fully pay for the asset.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 23:48
by luke_sandoz
Got a feeling the Toronto Maple Leafs will wiin the Stanley Cup before the RCAF goes along with any SH lease deal.

YMMV.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 02:11
by optimist
I'm sure Boeing would be willing to "lease" a Super Hornet for five years at $20 Million a year or so, maintenance included.[/quote]
Where are these super hornets coming from? There are no spare ones sitting in a paddock.
It took Australia 5 years to get 24 to FOC
May 2007 order
delivery started 2009
December 2010 IOC
December 2012 FOC[/quote]

You missed the catch. If Canada were willing to pay $100 million per over the next 5 years per aircraft Boeing would build them. That was kind of the point. Any lease would fully pay for the asset.

True, But it would still take the 5 years to get to FOC. So there is no advantage, they can get F-35's in that time frame.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 03:20
by delvo
So for about the same amount of money, you get the planes for 5 years instead of for a few decades...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 03:24
by geogen
spazsinbad wrote:Via 'qslim' another only driven on Sundays slightly used model: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m160 ... 9rao1k.jpg


Fully agreed... on the need to replace those very well-served, albeit geriatric, nearing-obsolescent legacy F/A-18C -- with something else 'operational', as an interim stopgap solution! ASAP... God speed.

p.s., Unfortunate the F/A-18C/D line is no longer running. It could be a competitive, evolved upgraded platform even today...

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 03:36
by geogen
optimist wrote:I'm sure Boeing would be willing to "lease" a Super Hornet for five years at $20 Million a year or so, maintenance included.

Where are these super hornets coming from? There are no spare ones sitting in a paddock.
It took Australia 5 years to get 24 to FOC
May 2007 order
delivery started 2009
December 2010 IOC
December 2012 FOC[/quote]

You missed the catch. If Canada were willing to pay $100 million per over the next 5 years per aircraft Boeing would build them. That was kind of the point. Any lease would fully pay for the asset...
True, But it would still take the 5 years to get to FOC. So there is no advantage, they can get F-35's in that time frame.


But... over that same 5 yr ownership period claim -- maintenance would NOT be included! So you need to add that to your tag... plus obvious training costs, which could potentially be included in a LEASE!

Hello?

Moreover, after say 5-8 yrs, one could then just re-new the Lease cheaply, or buy outright, also cheaply, with rights to upgrade. That would of course be part of the whole negotiating leverage said customer would have from the start.

If not satisfied after 5-8 yrs though, or if world-peace has not yet broken out and there's no need for modern day economic powers to operate a basic modern TACAIR force, etc.. then simply return them and replace with a more competitive, more effective mix of platforms! That's the beauty of the LEASE and of alternative competition. Welcome to the new age. God speed.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 03:46
by optimist
OH, I see where I went wrong, you have a fantasy of canada not getting the F-35's or are you just plain trolling? The USN and RAAF will retire them post 2030 and canada will have an orphan fleet to software/hardware upgrade at full cost. Canada isn't that silly.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 04:53
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
optimist wrote:I'm sure Boeing would be willing to "lease" a Super Hornet for five years at $20 Million a year or so, maintenance included.

Where are these super hornets coming from? There are no spare ones sitting in a paddock.
It took Australia 5 years to get 24 to FOC
May 2007 order
delivery started 2009
December 2010 IOC
December 2012 FOC


You missed the catch. If Canada were willing to pay $100 million per over the next 5 years per aircraft Boeing would build them. That was kind of the point. Any lease would fully pay for the asset...
True, But it would still take the 5 years to get to FOC. So there is no advantage, they can get F-35's in that time frame.


But... over that same 5 yr ownership period claim -- maintenance would NOT be included! So you need to add that to your tag... plus obvious training costs, which could potentially be included in a LEASE!

Hello?

Moreover, after say 5-8 yrs, one could then just re-new the Lease cheaply, or buy outright, also cheaply, with rights to upgrade. That would of course be part of the whole negotiating leverage said customer would have from the start.

If not satisfied after 5-8 yrs though, or if world-peace has not yet broken out and there's no need for modern day economic powers to operate a basic modern TACAIR force, etc.. then simply return them and replace with a more competitive, more effective mix of platforms! That's the beauty of the LEASE and of alternative competition. Welcome to the new age. God speed.[/quote]

Reported.

Please leave.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 05:07
by arrow-nautics
I take issue with the maintenance by Boeing assertion. Not trying to be a jerk here but our CF-18 fleet has numerous engineers, mechanics & maintenance crews taking home pay cheques & likely value their military jobs so the RCAF boys in the trenches (so to speak) as a whole likely wouldn't like this idea at all.

Now if Boeing would give us free avionic upgrades & pods over the years, well then that'd be fantastic

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 10:51
by thepointblank
arrow-nautics wrote:I take issue with the maintenance by Boeing assertion. Not trying to be a jerk here but our CF-18 fleet has numerous engineers, mechanics & maintenance crews taking home pay cheques & likely value their military jobs so the RCAF boys in the trenches (so to speak) as a whole likely wouldn't like this idea at all.

Now if Boeing would give us free avionic upgrades & pods over the years, well then that'd be fantastic

And contractor maintenance works out so well for us in the past; take the issues with the third-party maintenance with the CH-149 Cormorant fleet; availability of the CH-149's was atrocious very early on, and much of the blame for the lack of availability was laid on contracting out maintenance of the helicopters. The fact that the helicopters also had serviceability and reliability issues that affected flight safety for what was then an in-service helicopter didn't help much. The issues only got resolved as more money was thrown at the maintenance provider to build up inventories of spare parts and the vendor redesigned some components.

Also, consider if an aircraft goes tech outside of it's normal base. It happens, and CF-18's have forward operating bases across the country. How much are we going to be paying Boeing/IMP/Cascade/Whoever to go out and fix the aircraft? How about a long term deployment? How much and is the maintenance provider willing to send techs out to keep our aircraft flying far away from home base? How about in a war zone? Does the maintainer's contract and insurance cover being in a war zone?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 12:19
by mrigdon
bigjku wrote:
You missed the catch. If Canada were willing to pay $100 million per over the next 5 years per aircraft Boeing would build them. That was kind of the point. Any lease would fully pay for the asset.


Bing! Bing! Bing! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Going by the last big contract, a single Super Hornet costs about 65 Million dollars. Let's say Boeing says, "Hey, we'll cover maintenance," that can't be more than 15 Million dollars over five years. Boeing pockets 20 Million dollars AND Canada hands the planes back to Boeing, who can resell them at FIRE SALE PRICES! Australia picks up a few more lightly used airframes for 20 Million apiece. 20 Million in pure profit (Canada basically covered the whole cost of the plane), plus the 20 Million that Canada paid in lease interest and payments.

Anyhoo, my point was if you're willing to basically lease a plane for the cost of buying it outright, I'm sure Boeing would do it. You paid for the plane and then you handed it back. Otherwise, it's a non-starter. There is no secondary market for Super Hornets. There are only two operators in the entire world: the U.S. Navy and Australia. And they have plenty of planes. No one else has or wants Super Hornets. Boeing will never go into the leasing business, there's no market for the planes when they return.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 18:10
by SpudmanWP
If it was possible and economically feasible then Boeing would ALREADY be doing it.

However, they are not doing it ERGO it's not economically feasible.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 19:08
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:If it was possible and economically feasible then Boeing would ALREADY be doing it.

However, they are not doing it ERGO it's not economically feasible.



Amazing how that works.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 05:02
by thepointblank
mrigdon wrote:
Anyhoo, my point was if you're willing to basically lease a plane for the cost of buying it outright, I'm sure Boeing would do it. You paid for the plane and then you handed it back. Otherwise, it's a non-starter. There is no secondary market for Super Hornets. There are only two operators in the entire world: the U.S. Navy and Australia. And they have plenty of planes. No one else has or wants Super Hornets. Boeing will never go into the leasing business, there's no market for the planes when they return.

Ding, ding. You have a winner. Companies that lease out aircraft must have a further resale market available when the lease is up, and be able to either lease them out or sell the airframes very quickly. Only two other Super Hornet customers in the world, and neither are willing to take any more airframes that they have already purchased.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 05:20
by spazsinbad
When deciding in the 2020s to replace the used 24 RAAF Super Hornets (perhaps not all - half can be growlered to join the doz Growlers abuildin') our Oz Guvmnt sure hopes the doz Plus Supers can be resold to USN or equivalent. That'll provide funds for more F-35s - mebbe some Bees? Nah - but who knows eh. Usually the US Guvmnt stipulates how US equipment can be onsold etc.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 06:46
by geogen
thepointblank wrote:
mrigdon wrote:
Anyhoo, my point was if you're willing to basically lease a plane for the cost of buying it outright, I'm sure Boeing would do it. You paid for the plane and then you handed it back. Otherwise, it's a non-starter. There is no secondary market for Super Hornets. There are only two operators in the entire world: the U.S. Navy and Australia. And they have plenty of planes. No one else has or wants Super Hornets. Boeing will never go into the leasing business, there's no market for the planes when they return.

Ding, ding. You have a winner. Companies that lease out aircraft must have a further resale market available when the lease is up, and be able to either lease them out or sell the airframes very quickly. Only two other Super Hornet customers in the world, and neither are willing to take any more airframes that they have already purchased.



First off, it's probably a miscalculation to suggest Lease costs for a 5 yr term (including support, training and maintenance) would equal the Weapon System Procurement costs (plus support, training and maintenance as extra). Maybe a break even point would be something more like a 15 yr term? But even then, the value of the LEASE is to enable the acquisition and operation (as vital STOPGAP-gapfiller solution) in the first place. Whereas, point blank, an outright Buy might not have been affordable and thus a capability/security gap would exist with not exercising a credible Plan B.

So yes, of course there is a trade off involved with a LEASE (whether short-term or long-term) and of course there would be pros a cons, but which arguably is worth evaluating all the same, based on national strategy and raw defence interests et al -- even if costing more in the aggregate. (Per consequence of an originally flawed recapitalization and modernization strategy)... i.e., blow back.

With respect to there being 'plenty of SH/Growler airframes though and USN never needing more in the future'... it's likely that USN will be operating at least some E/F and G force structure through 2040 (not 2030 as someone suggested! Yes indeed, 2040 is a LONG WAY AWAY! Hence, any hypothetically LEASED E/F/G new-builds could probably be acquired/upgraded by USN around say 2030, for sake of discussion and prudently replace older SH block I and earlier block II attrition, as contingency. Basically a visionary, 10 year insurance plan for USN for relatively cheap! See?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 07:51
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:First off, it's probably a miscalculation to suggest Lease costs for a 5 yr term (including support, training and maintenance) would equal the Weapon System Procurement costs (plus support, training and maintenance as extra). Maybe a break even point would be something more like a 15 yr term? But even then, the value of the LEASE is to enable the acquisition and operation (as vital STOPGAP-gapfiller solution) in the first place. Whereas, point blank, an outright Buy might not have been affordable and thus a capability/security gap would exist with not exercising a credible Plan B.


Incorrect. You must assume life cycle costs, and it is generally accepted that lifecycle costs for a piece of equipment over it's life is at least double that of acquisition costs (and usually, lifecycle costs behave very much like a sine wave; initial costs are usually very high then it tapers off over time, then goes back up). Furthermore, leases ALWAYS cost more than purchasing in any setting.

And there is no way ANY military is able to introduce into service a major equipment type in just a few years; by the time the RCAF would be able to introduce into service Super Hornets, F-35's will be available and be cheaper! Stopgap measures only work if the expected life of existing equipment won't last until its replacement is available and there's a long gap until replacement capabilities can be brought online. With the F-35 being so close to full rate production, it makes no sense to acquire a stop gap aircraft.

geogen wrote:So yes, of course there is a trade off involved with a LEASE (whether short-term or long-term) and of course there would be pros a cons, but which arguably is worth evaluating all the same, based on national strategy and raw defence interests et al -- even if costing more in the aggregate. (Per consequence of an originally flawed recapitalization and modernization strategy)... i.e., blow back.


Because no one leases combat aircraft and puts them in harm's way; there's a very good reason why!

geogen wrote:With respect to there being 'plenty of SH/Growler airframes though and USN never needing more in the future'... it's likely that USN will be operating at least some E/F and G force structure through 2040 (not 2030 as someone suggested! Yes indeed, 2040 is a LONG WAY AWAY! Hence, any hypothetically LEASED E/F/G new-builds could probably be acquired/upgraded by USN around say 2030, for sake of discussion and prudently replace older SH block I and earlier block II attrition, as contingency. Basically a visionary, 10 year insurance plan for USN for relatively cheap! See?

Not bloody likely.
First, the current and foreseeable future budgetary environment for the US military will be forever deadlocked;
Secondly, the USN will have plenty of airframes to choose from anyways, as they will be introducing a new fighter jet to REPLACE their Super Hornets anyways by that time frame;
Third, it is much more cost effective to OVERHAUL existing airframes to add additional airframe life than to purchase the same used asset.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 06:35
by bubblewhip
So as a Canadian, I just want peoples opinions for our election in the Fall. I suspect the Conservatives will "stay the course" on the F-35 program, but I am wondering if the Liberals and NDP or both get into power would they likely cancel the F-35, and have a SeaKing Helicopter botched procurement all over again?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 07:18
by spazsinbad
At this point in the Canadian F-35 purchase saga not a lot of non-Canadians could give two hoots but we wish them well.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 09:12
by arrow-nautics
bubblewhip wrote:...Liberals and NDP...
Canadian fans of the F-35 should hope that either of these party's, if they win just go along with the SLEP CF-18 program & shelve any purchase plans. Why? See my signature.

The longer the delay, the more inevitable the F-35 will become

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 11:51
by XanderCrews
bubblewhip wrote:So as a Canadian, I just want peoples opinions for our election in the Fall. I suspect the Conservatives will "stay the course" on the F-35 program, but I am wondering if the Liberals and NDP or both get into power would they likely cancel the F-35, and have a SeaKing Helicopter botched procurement all over again?


The NFPS has basically found the F-35 to be the best option, in some cases by more than a little. I believe Canada will stay the course with the F-35 no matter who is elected.

The same thing in Australia years ago.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2015, 05:33
by cantaz
bubblewhip wrote:So as a Canadian, I just want peoples opinions for our election in the Fall. I suspect the Conservatives will "stay the course" on the F-35 program, but I am wondering if the Liberals and NDP or both get into power would they likely cancel the F-35, and have a SeaKing Helicopter botched procurement all over again?


That's my biggest fear about the fighter replacement.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2015, 07:39
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
bubblewhip wrote:So as a Canadian, I just want peoples opinions for our election in the Fall. I suspect the Conservatives will "stay the course" on the F-35 program, but I am wondering if the Liberals and NDP or both get into power would they likely cancel the F-35, and have a SeaKing Helicopter botched procurement all over again?


The NFPS has basically found the F-35 to be the best option, in some cases by more than a little. I believe Canada will stay the course with the F-35 no matter who is elected.

The same thing in Australia years ago.



I agree Canada will select the F-35 in the end regardless on who wins. Just the usual politics...... :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2015, 08:03
by thepointblank
Corsair1963 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
bubblewhip wrote:So as a Canadian, I just want peoples opinions for our election in the Fall. I suspect the Conservatives will "stay the course" on the F-35 program, but I am wondering if the Liberals and NDP or both get into power would they likely cancel the F-35, and have a SeaKing Helicopter botched procurement all over again?


The NFPS has basically found the F-35 to be the best option, in some cases by more than a little. I believe Canada will stay the course with the F-35 no matter who is elected.

The same thing in Australia years ago.



I agree Canada will select the F-35 in the end regardless on who wins. Just the usual politics...... :doh:

Yep. Both the aviation industry and many of the large unions back a F-35 purchase, and both have lobbied all of the parties extensively.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2015, 19:09
by bubblewhip
Do you not think you are confusing what is objectively the best move which is made by actual procurement experts, vs. What is politically convenient and in the minds of many Canadians subject to the CBC and Pierre Sprey drivel that the fighter can not do anything good?

We all know here what is objectively the right move, but so did the Navy with the eh-101 against the Sea King. That did not stop political stupidity on a subject to view procurement as a gold plated elephant and thought all helicopters work the same.

IMO the perception of the F-35 makes me feel it is highly subject to the same Sea king situation when balancing the next budget comes along.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2015, 21:22
by cantaz
No, you're quite right to worry. Arrow-nautics is correct that a long waiting game benefits the F-35. However, there is a window of vulnerability of until around 2019 for ignorance and public perception to outweigh reason. And we really need to start transitioning before that window closes.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2015, 05:49
by madrat
The thing is F-35 is a force multiplier in such a way one would have to scratch build to compete against. The only real alternative to an all F-35 order is a more expensive option that likely would lead to a two supplier situation that will only cost much higher lifetime-wise. The funny thing is political decisions are never efficient.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2015, 08:11
by arrow-nautics
CURRENT STATE OF CANADIAN MEDIA ON DOING ANY FOLLOW UPS ON DOCUMENTARIES ON F-35:

Image

This is both good and bad. Good that uneducated Joe Canada Public isn't getting reminded about it & bad that the media is not giving them good JSF news. Mind you, knowing our slanted pathetic media, they wouldn't say anything good, so the fact they're sleeping is mostly good

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 22:33
by tritonprime
"Election Will Determine F-35's Future in Canada"
by David Pugliese 2:25 p.m. EDT September 5, 2015
Iraq War Presence, Other Defense Issues in the Balance

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71571546/

OTTAWA — How Canada will replace its fighter aircraft fleet and whether it continues its involvement in the Iraq war will be decided by the outcome of the country’s federal election in October.

At issue is whether Canada should move ahead with the purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighter or hold a competition for the multibillion-dollar acquisition for new planes.

Two of the three main political parties in the race — the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party (NDP) — say that if elected, they will hold a competition, inviting international aerospace companies to bid on replacing the existing CF-18 fighter fleet.

The Conservative Party, which has been in power for the last nine years and had originally committed Canada to the purchase of the F-35, hasn’t yet outlined how it would proceed. In December 2012, the Conservative government, under continuing fire over questions about the increasing cost of the F-35 program, announced it would put the procurement on hold. That acquisition process has yet to restart.

Defense analyst Martin Shadwick said despite a potential price-tag of tens of billions of dollars for new fighters, the issue has not been discussed by the candidates for the Oct. 19 election.

“This election will shape how Canada’s next fighter jet is purchased, but defense issues are rarely discussed on the campaign trail and this election is no exception,” said Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at York University in Toronto.

He noted the Canadian public is more focused on the country’s economy, which is in a recession. Defense issues could emerge later in the election campaign but Shadwick said he doubts they will play a major role.

“The public is not looking for anything radical on defense from the political parties,” he explained. “They want to know there is an adequate defense capability and that it’s affordable.”

The October election will also have an effect on Canada’s mission against the Islamic State group, often called ISIL, he noted.

Last October, the Conservative Party government committed a force of 600 Canadian military personnel, fighter jets, refueling tankers and surveillance aircraft to the air campaign against the militant group. It also sent 69 special operations troops to train Kurdish troops in northern Iraq.

New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair said if his party forms the next government he would end Canada’s participation in the bombing campaign and withdraw all military personnel from the mission. The NDP would instead boost humanitarian aid to the region. But Mulcair has suggested that if the United Nations or NATO takes command of the mission, Canada would consider further participation.

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau has also said if his party forms the next government it would end Canadian participation in the bombing campaign but keep military trainers in Iraq. Canada would also increase humanitarian aid to the region, Trudeau added.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper is suggesting that if he is re-elected as prime minister, the mission will be extended.

“The intervention has had the effect of largely stopping the advance [of the Islamic State group], particularly in the north of Iraq and to some degree in other parts of Iraq and Syria — not maybe as much we’d like,” he told a campaign rally on Aug. 31. “To protect our country, we are going to have to have a long and sustained strategy with our international partners.”

The Conservatives have promoted their strong support for the Canadian military. They point out they have increased defense spending from CAN $14.5 billion (US $10.3 billion) in 2006 to $20.1 billion in 2015.

Harper argues that the Conservatives are the natural choice to ensure a strong military. “Others would make very different choices — wrong choices, frankly, irresponsible choices,” Harper said.

Liberal Party defense critic Joyce Murray counters that the Conservatives have developed a number of myths surrounding their strong support of the military. Defense spending, she noted, has dropped below 1 percent of GDP.

A significant number of defense procurement projects, from the building of ships to the acquisition of new fighter jets, are stalled, she added.

The New Democratic Party has also highlighted the Conservative government’s failure to deliver on military acquisition projects, in particular the purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft.

NDP defense critic Jack Harris has said if his party forms the next government, it would enhance the country’s capabilities in the Arctic as well as improve search and rescue. But as a first step, an NDP government would launch a review to ensure defense policy matches the country’s needs and foreign policy, he added.

Shadwick said the traditionally left-leaning NDP appears to be ready to adopt a more defense-friendly posture as it tries to appeal to a wider range of voters.

The NDP is leading in the polls.

Email: dpugliese@defensenews.com

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 23:35
by luke_sandoz
Ah, the old fake competition so it looks like we are doing our jobs as politicians trick!

Options available . . .

Rafale $110-$120 million each, plus all new French weapons for a plane well into its mature pre obsolete phase

Typhoon. $125-$140 million each, some capability limits approaching its mature to obsolet phase

Super Hornet $75 million but needs lotsa expensive add on pods etc. approaching Best Before date very fast.

I doubt if any companies would bother showing up to "compete" in a very, very expensive "competition" knowing they don't have hope in a Canadian hell of a winter in winning.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 07:37
by arrow-nautics
Here's a question I'd like to throw out to members. What would be the stupidest thing a Canadian government could do that's within the realms of some reason?

Eg. The P-51 is not an answer. So, I'm not looking for a "Mad magazine" answer - more so something along the lines of a legacy/somewhat contemporary fighter that would be a disaster & lead to massive maintenance costs within 20 years.

Thoughts?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 08:41
by optimist
a-10 and f-16a :doh: The inventor of the aeroplane and all other flying things, Sir Pierre Sprey would recommend such.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 09:05
by geogen
luke_sandoz wrote:Ah, the old fake competition so it looks like we are doing our jobs as politicians trick!

Options available . . .

Rafale $110-$120 million each, plus all new French weapons for a plane well into its mature pre obsolete phase

Typhoon. $125-$140 million each, some capability limits approaching its mature to obsolet phase

Super Hornet $75 million but needs lotsa expensive add on pods etc. approaching Best Before date very fast.

I doubt if any companies would bother showing up to "compete" in a very, very expensive "competition" knowing they don't have hope in a Canadian hell of a winter in winning.


First off, an Hypothetical FY17 Super Hornet II+ Weapon System Cost might possibly be slightly north of $90m. Not $75m.

Regarding 'add-on pods, etc' though... an operator doesn't necessarily need to buy a full set of 'pods' per actual platform either. USAF, e.g., doesn't equip every F-16 in the force structure with it's very own upgraded FLIR pod et al.

With respect to the issue of a new-build modern 'platform' nearing obsolescence?? Simply upgrade it's avionics, systems, self-protection and next-gen weapons integration. That is, a prudent, dedicated pathway for evolution and follow-on incremental updates and robust integration is key to sustain a platform's relative credibility of deterrence, capabilities and competitiveness.

Even a block IIIF F-35 would arguably be 'obsolete' by the early 20s if insufficient budget existed for robust, timely block IV increment upgrade, follow-on weapons-integration (and procurement), etc.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 09:14
by spazsinbad
'geogen' you must be tone deaf. Do you read what you type? "...Simply upgrade..." Wot? How is this so? Easy to type words - not so easy to 'lahdedahdedahdedah' that you carry on with constantly.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 09:32
by geogen
arrow-nautics wrote: What would be the stupidest thing a Canadian government could do that's within the realms of some reason?

Thoughts?


Well, of course all platforms become more expensive to maintain and operate at high level of readiness after 20 yrs. Be they F-15E, Super Hornet, B-2, or F-35s!

But a 'for instance' to your question above... how about consider a decision to buy fewer than originally expected number of Block III F-35A due to higher than expected Procurement and operations costs, then decide to let the final CF-18 squadron retire prematurely, instead of Life-extending (or paying high maintenance costs) as a means to afford a smaller than expected follow-on block IV F-35 procurement?

Perhaps a more strategic and prudent (less-risky) alternative recap plan (not preferable, but forced by circumstances) would be to think 'layered' multi-platform solution of both existing platform upgrades, next-gen acquisition and future, long-endurance unmanned platform? Maybe the life-extended/upgraded units tasked to remain operational through mid-20s could then be replaced by a 2nd tranche of unmanned vehicles if proven as reliable, or an order of block IV/V F-35 if proven as reliable/affordable, or something else cost-effective (manned-capable?) which might be on the market by 2020?

A stopgap solution would still need to be made as an interim decision as a means to ensure seamless capability. Regardless, RCAF is finding itself in a definite pickle, given the pre-conceived stay-the-course (game-changer or bust) strategy that has been implemented to date. Critical, yes...but just my honest pessimistic view with respect to RCAF's situation.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 09:54
by geogen
spazsinbad wrote:'geogen' you must be tone deaf. Do you read what you type? "...Simply upgrade..." Wot? How is this so? Easy to type words - not so easy to 'lahdedahdedahdedah' that you carry on with constantly.


Spazs, a continuous, robust incremental upgrade pathway would arguably be more reliable and offer more capability/deterrence if appropriated for as part of a planned, long-term modernization strategy. E.g., for starters, various bolt-on systems could be relatively easily integrated as part of a regular pathway; such as MAWS, improved ECM, passive sensors and weapons integration. Additionally, EW suite, displays, radar updates, mission computers should arguably be more robustly upgraded and evolved over the operational life the platform... as opposed to a strategy of hesitating and going slow on competitive upgrades as a means to save budget towards 'leap ahead' generational platforms. The latter being more risky, via disproportionately relying on uncertain next-gen platforms to save the day and holding off on assertive innovation/evolution to maintain modernization requirements. I'm just saying I feel more 'balance' is in store and potential exists for imbalances to higher risk plans if lured too much in master 'game-changing' schemes... respects.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 10:04
by jessmo111
Spaz, while I dont agree with Geogen, I will ask that you exercise some anger management.
I dont know the Aussie constitution, but in America Geo would have the right to be a flaming idiot, as he pleases.
We humbly ask that you show more mercy to us mere mortals, who are not as priviliged, nor as educated, as you are. Filters, sir, Filters.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 10:13
by spazsinbad
Where is the anger? I suspect there is anger in your perception - but I could be wrong. Remember we type on a keyboard far far away.....

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 13:39
by cantaz
Geogen just keeps repeating the same few points that doesn't work.

1. Multifleet: we don't have the money or the people to fragment.

2. Continuous upgrade of legacy fleets: Geogen continuously tries to paint the F-35A as being too expensive for the RCAF to be able to afford in quantities, but neglects to talk about how his continuous upgrade of legacy fleet amount to cramming expensive mishmash of systems into platforms that have largely reached their maximum upgrade path. He has no appreciation for bottlenecks built into aircraft that hinders or block upgrades. He neglects to mention that small-scale, third-party upgrades introduces new bugs and paper weights into the aircraft with each upgrade, that frequent upgrade decreases aircraft availability, and that they fragments the fleet technologically.

3. 3F versus legacy: Somehow for Geogen the 3F is only ever discussed in terms of what it's missing vis-a-vis legacy aircraft, and never what it brings that the legacy cannot simply "bolt on".

I don't know about Spaz being angry, but I've had just about enough of Geogen. He's just hiding the same bad ideas behind the same word salad every post. At best we might as well be talking to a bot, at worse he's an apologist for politically-driven acquisition.

American freedom of speech in no ways says one has to suffer idiots on the internet.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 14:43
by arrow-nautics
Based on our current budget allotted for the CF-18s & the previous 33 years of budgets, Canada can afford 65 F-35A's over 40 years.

Not trying to side with anyone on any side of the argument, it's just that the budgets since 1982 with inflation support this.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 16:08
by XanderCrews
jessmo111 wrote:Spaz, while I dont agree with Geogen, I will ask that you exercise some anger management.
I dont know the Aussie constitution, but in America Geo would have the right to be a flaming idiot, as he pleases.
We humbly ask that you show more mercy to us mere mortals, who are not as priviliged, nor as educated, as you are. Filters, sir, Filters.



Geogen basically types the same bull crap over and over again. When challenged on his claims he disappears for a month. His favorite to do is to suck up to people like you BTW. And take advantage of people who don't know better

He has pulling this crap for literally years. Check his post history and you same thing over and over

I have no clue what it takes to get someone like this banned here i think the mods are on extended vacation. I thought this place was for professionals not trolls who are trying to convince us an upgraded teen fighter won be obsolete by the 2020s but an F-35 will.

He will go on and on about respect and then say and assume extremely disrespectful arguments even after official documents have proven him wrong.

So yes I'm mad. I served. I actually know what the hell I'm talking about, and then geogen in all his Walter nitty stupidity comes in and starts taking about issues that don't even exist. And he persists even after other professionals prove him wrong.

He needs to stop posting here and wasting everyone's time and getting sucked like you to defend him.

I find it extremely disrespectful, rude, and tedious. He is like a child who keeps interrupting adults trying to have a conversation. We have also caught him on several lies, whoppers, and untrue yet decisive declarations about things he clearly has no knowledge about. Namely for me about things that have to do with my service.

So tell me jessmo, how much tolerance would you have for some douche bag who told you how to do your job but didn't have a framing clue about what he was talking about?

In this very thread alone I asked geo one simple question. What would it cost and despite all these paragraphs of the same bull crap he still hasn't answered.

Geogen I reported you three more times. You are arguably a total idiot, and its prudent to have you banned as a stop gap hedge against your continued stupidity. God speed you dumbass

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 17:01
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote:Here's a question I'd like to throw out to members. What would be the stupidest thing a Canadian government could do that's within the realms of some reason?

Eg. The P-51 is not an answer. So, I'm not looking for a "Mad magazine" answer - more so something along the lines of a legacy/somewhat contemporary fighter that would be a disaster & lead to massive maintenance costs within 20 years.

Thoughts?


This is actually a fun thought exercise. The stupidity that could be done would be to have a competition after withdrawing from the JSF program. A competition will take a minimum of 3 years and take around 100 million dollars. Seeing as it will take 3 years that narrows the field to rafale, super gripen, and F-35.
Typhoon and super hornet will be out of production by that time.

So from there the least stupid option would be F-35. At least canada gets the F-35. Which interoperates with NATO and the US, and has a long service life ahead. The downside, is that canada will have lost billions on industrial contracts it couldn't bid on being outside the program as a time 2016-2019 that's the JSF is going full bore. All to arrive at the F-35 anyway. Canada would be lucky to get some contracts here and there after that.

The middle stupid option would be the Rafale. There would be offsets, not as nice as Dassault is claiming. The expense of upgrading them to keep up with the allies would be ridiculous though, along with the long term costs of a buying into a fleet that probably wouldn't top 300 units and will be OOP by 2025 give or take a couple years. Only one nato nation operates rafale, France. It already costs more than JSF -- yes even now JSF is cheaper--and building a factory there would cost more, and create jobs for a brief few years, or however long they want to stretch the line to build 50 of them. Zero interoperability with the US in terms of parts or support or training.

The most stupid by far would be the super gripen. I doubt it could do the northern patrol mission. It's great at hauling around its own bodyweight but the second you start to add stores it will turn into a shopping cart. And EFTs are going to be needed. Not only that but It has only 60 percent of the thrust of a CF-18. That's bad. It's weight margins are simply awful and its strike capability is abysmal . It also has the same issues of upgrade, longterm sustainment, and small fleet production-- split across 2 lines already. Did I mention it still has years of testing ahead? The avionics are nice and the radar spins so that's neat. Creating another line would add more cost of course and face the same issue as rafale. Jobs for a few years then nada. It's a joke. And if you look at how it's struggled to get sales, it's kind of obvious it's a dud. Sweden has to buy it cuz sweden. And brazil picked it for industry. I have no clue why this aircraft has such a following online.

Bonus stupid would be a mixed fleet of any type, but true stupid mix fleet option would be both the European options.

That's just off the top of my head. I can add more details later

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 17:12
by spazsinbad
Does the mix have to be Western? Is it MAD 'what me worry' material to go a mix of Chinese/Russian & Indian (for the full curry emitive effect)? Think of the usefulness as adversaries for other nations and the full time pilot rescue efforts over frozen wastelands. NOICE. WinWin situation for all concerned. Think of the money saved when after probably a decade there will be none of these aircraft left to flog/flug.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 17:28
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:Geogen just keeps repeating the same few points that doesn't work.

1. Multifleet: we don't have the money or the people to fragment.

2. Continuous upgrade of legacy fleets: Geogen continuously tries to paint the F-35A as being too expensive for the RCAF to be able to afford in quantities, but neglects to talk about how his continuous upgrade of legacy fleet amount to cramming expensive mishmash of systems into platforms that have largely reached their maximum upgrade path. He has no appreciation for bottlenecks built into aircraft that hinders or block upgrades. He neglects to mention that small-scale, third-party upgrades introduces new bugs and paper weights into the aircraft with each upgrade, that frequent upgrade decreases aircraft availability, and that they fragments the fleet technologically.

3. 3F versus legacy: Somehow for Geogen the 3F is only ever discussed in terms of what it's missing vis-a-vis legacy aircraft, and never what it brings that the legacy cannot simply "bolt on".

I don't know about Spaz being angry, but I've had just about enough of Geogen. He's just hiding the same bad ideas behind the same word salad every post. At best we might as well be talking to a bot, at worse he's an apologist for politically-driven acquisition.

American freedom of speech in no ways says one has to suffer idiots on the internet.


Brilliant post.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 17:31
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Does the mix have to be Western? Is it MAD 'what me worry' material to go a mix of Chinese/Russian & Indian (for the full curry emitive effect)? Think of the usefulness as adversaries for other nations and the full time pilot rescue efforts over frozen wastelands. NOICE. WinWin situation for all concerned. Think of the money saved when after probably a decade there will be none of these aircraft left to flog/flug.



That is a good point. Another variation on the stupid theme would be buying Russian. On another forum I had a Canadian tell me the Tejas was the way to go because they were expendable so no one would care if they were lost on northern patrol missions.

But who was pilot and SAR?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 22:42
by blindpilot
[Note: Sarcasm on, in tone, but not really in substance]

Honestly if they don't want to play with the big boys? the smartest thing would be just to have Bombadier turn out a few dozen E-11 type Maritime patrol aircraft, and maybe a few dozen more turboprop E-9 Widgets in support of those (Dirt cheap at less than $20M a piece, and all Canadian made) They work ok watching the sea and airspace out from Tyndall during rocket launches.

The two Bears escorted by 4 SU-35/50s are not going to be more impressed with intercepts by expensive 4th gen aircraft, with twenty pods hanging off them. A Global 5000 will be way cooler, and it can do Mach .9 at 50,000 feet.
So why fake it. The US will hopefully get a few F-22/35's up to help if things get really dicey. No one said that Canada has to defend its Arctic interests. That's their decision.

But before the Russians move in, if I may be presumptious, I think they should give the US a bigger pie slice out from Alaska, just for being a buddy. Or ...Why not just give the US (read Exxon Mobile) Alert Station and Ellesmere Island, and not worry about the north at all.

Of course I am assuming a bit more intelligence from US politicians than Canadian ones, and that may be a stretch itself... However, I think ExxonMobile will likely pour a few $Billion down the pipe to prime it. Yeah just cede Banks Island to Ellesmere Island, and the Arctic to Big Oil, and have a few maritime patrol aircraft watch out for the pillage and rape of those cute polar bears and baby seals.

That's the choice between F-35 and something else. There is no other "something else." MHO based on coming to know the Russians these days... Its time to stop discussing this as if the whole question is not a complete farce and idiocy. There is nothing in this conversation that is remotely of serious merit.

I have frankly given up caring what Canadian politicians think and I doubt most other countries care at this point either. Sh** or get off the pot, it doesn't matter either way. (other than all those juicy Canadian contracts that will be spread around to other countries that can add 2 and 2. That ought to help the recession, oh yeah. )

BP

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 23:25
by popcorn
Lest we forget this.
https://youtu.be/W2386C0aHGs

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2015, 00:20
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Lest we forget this.
https://youtu.be/W2386C0aHGs



:roll:

LOL

I do feel bad for Canadians that know the f-35 is the way to go, and have all this ridiculous fretting and hand wringing in their nation. I can kind of echo what blind pilot is saying. I feel that sentiment. The F-35 doesn't need Canada to go forward, but Canada sure as hell needs the F-35 to go forward. Its that or a eurocanard with origins in the 1980s in the Rafale, and the Super Gripen which is a rehash from the 1980s and won't be FOC until the mid 2020s that can't do the job.

This whole little dance is getting rather tiresome. Hell the JSF has technically seen more sales and I believe 2 more competition victories since the Canadian Dithering started in earnest in 2012. Australia has already officially ordered more than Canada plans to total-- and still hasn't filled out it program of record amount!

It is as blind pilot says as well, canadian industry would suffer, while other nations would be more than happy to take their share of the work, and further reinforce the JSF enterprise. It would be disappointing that canada went another way but how would it affect the program? At this point it would be fairly minimal. So all the partner nations, many of them smaller and with smaller budgets that have already placed orders are waiting for canada to get their s**t together. Canada shares could easily go to denmark, Belgium, and Finland as well

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2015, 01:20
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:Lest we forget this.
https://youtu.be/W2386C0aHGs


Now that would be cheap! Not!

First you need to get the museum in Toronto to give you the only factory space technically left, (not plowed into condos) And after the talent hemorrhage of Avro, Hawker Siddely Canada, de Haviland, Boeing Canada etc.etc.; entice the engineers now in Great Britain and the US to come home from their six figure salaries and long term job security. ... on a lark.

Then you can ask Parliament for a few billion seed money to be able to start building a prototype ... So say I am a Canadian engineer making 100K+ a year at BAE in London. Tell me again how you expect to get the money? And why should I believe you will get it after watching the Canadian F-35 show?

Hey if we are going to dream... Dream Big!

:) BP

PS. A cheaper option would be to get Northrop to start an F-23 production plant in Canada. Paint the F-23 ... cough .. cough .. I mean CF-1, white with a big red maple leaf, and call it the Arrow II ! Most Canadians born after 1959 ... wait ... that would be almost everyone (not fishing with me and Gums) ... would never know the difference. :) And no politician of any age would have a clue. They could be suckered in a heart beat. I think that's a better plan B. (and I cringe to imagine what that would cost ...)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2015, 05:11
by thepointblank
XanderCrews wrote:This whole little dance is getting rather tiresome. Hell the JSF has technically seen more sales and I believe 2 more competition victories since the Canadian Dithering started in earnest in 2012. Australia has already officially ordered more than Canada plans to total-- and still hasn't filled out it program of record amount!

It is as blind pilot says as well, canadian industry would suffer, while other nations would be more than happy to take their share of the work, and further reinforce the JSF enterprise. It would be disappointing that canada went another way but how would it affect the program? At this point it would be fairly minimal. So all the partner nations, many of them smaller and with smaller budgets that have already placed orders are waiting for canada to get their s**t together. Canada shares could easily go to denmark, Belgium, and Finland as well


I think that if a future Canadian government decided to pick anything other than F-35, practically the entire Canadian aviation industry (save for Boeing Canada and Bombardier) and the unions will hold a press conference within the hour of the government announcing the decision to slam the government for killing jobs and denying Canadian industry the opportunity of a lifetime, followed by taking out ads in all of the major Canadian newspapers decrying the decision, with the unions reminding their members to vote out the government in power come the next election.

It's going to be one hell of a courageous decision for a government to go up against both industry and unions working together because they know damned well that both groups can very well cause the government in power to loose the next election, as the Canadian aviation industry is mainly based in a number of major vote rich areas that could very well decide who forms government, and both the companies and unions most affected having deep pockets to pay for lobbyists and ads in the media.

My opinion? No matter who's in government, F-35 will get picked. There will be some sort of farcical competition, with the government doctoring the requirements so much that it will favour the F-35 over all others, with the government encouraging European manufacturers to not bid, or have their bids eliminated under the guise of 'non-compliance'.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2015, 06:18
by arrow-nautics
The Super Arrow? FTLOG! It blows my mind that people can be this stupid. Let me list the hurdles:

1) A prototype that can do what is being boasted would likely be in the 10 to 20 billion range.

2) The Super Arrow DOES make sense IF its supporters have a plan on how it can defeat the F/A-XX in the market as the US' 6th gen platform. Chances of that happening aren't worth discussing. :?

3) Where is the export market? :doh:

4) Here's some reality & sober thought to idiotic Canadians who eat this tripe. I'm not talking about Joe Canada Public, they have an excuse for being uninformed. I send this out to these so called enthusiasts who believe this - Here is what a real, achievable & non-fantasy Super Arrow looks like:

M100y22T.gif


BTW: Does anyone know how much an YF-22 OR YF-23 would cost to prototype (FY2018) if the F-22 didn't exist?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2015, 18:25
by XanderCrews
thepointblank wrote:
I think that if a future Canadian government decided to pick anything other than F-35, practically the entire Canadian aviation industry (save for Boeing Canada and Bombardier) and the unions will hold a press conference within the hour of the government announcing the decision to slam the government for killing jobs and denying Canadian industry the opportunity of a lifetime, followed by taking out ads in all of the major Canadian newspapers decrying the decision, with the unions reminding their members to vote out the government in power come the next election.

It's going to be one hell of a courageous decision for a government to go up against both industry and unions working together because they know damned well that both groups can very well cause the government in power to loose the next election, as the Canadian aviation industry is mainly based in a number of major vote rich areas that could very well decide who forms government, and both the companies and unions most affected having deep pockets to pay for lobbyists and ads in the media.

My opinion? No matter who's in government, F-35 will get picked. There will be some sort of farcical competition, with the government doctoring the requirements so much that it will favour the F-35 over all others, with the government encouraging European manufacturers to not bid, or have their bids eliminated under the guise of 'non-compliance'.



I agree with you . You make great points about the unions as well. I think whoever is put into power will see the cost of what it takes to redo the process, along with the millions spent and years already put into the F-35 decision, and the fact that the most likely second decision would be the Super Hornet, and the fact that the RCAF and DND support F-35.

From someone smarter than me:

The two opposition parties know that the F-35 is the best option. This is the outcome of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat report which was never released. Its going to show that the cost of the aircraft is the lowest and the capabilities are the best able to meet Canada's objectives in the future. If they push to select something else, its going to provide some very poor optics where there is an independently managed report that conclusively says their policy is wrong. There is little benefit for openly restating their position on a competition: however there is a whole amount of hurt if they don't. It would be even worse than the EH-101 fiasco in the 1990s, which remains one of the most effective criticisms against the Liberal government's defence policy.
The Conservatives on the other hand don't want it raised because it would immediately open themselves up to criticism of mismanagement of the file (well you have the data saying its the best option, so why didn't you select it?), and of course, there are people who just won't accept another answer so it will look bad nonetheless. So nobody talks about the F-35. That doesn't mean that someone may try to raise it for quick political points, but if they went too far it would be turned right back on them.
Within the bureaucracy, I would argue that Tom Lawson's greatest legacy is to actually obtain broad based support for the project. Far more people were informed about its particulars, which now there is an understanding of why it should be selected. I suspect there will be significantly less discord among the departments once a decision comes through.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2015, 01:41
by charlielima223
I don't want to lump all of the Canadian people into one whole but when a majority of the people only know the F-35 because of biased "documentaries" and political cartoons like these...
Image

Image

Then it really isn't hard to understand another's apprehension towards the aircraft. The truth is the longer Canada waits the more it will have to pay in the long run.

Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2015, 03:31
by Corsair1963
I think the main problem is most people believe. That if it is posted in a public forum it must be true. Just like the news..... :doh:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2015, 05:35
by SpudmanWP
What do you mean the Internet can be a lie?????

Next thing you know you will be telling me not to trust Wikipedia.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2015, 20:32
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:What do you mean the Internet can be a lie?????

Next thing you know you will be telling me not to trust Wikipedia.


There are people on best fighter for canada trying to say that if it's not on wiki it's not true. I wish I was joking

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 09:25
by thepointblank
XanderCrews wrote:
I agree with you . You make great points about the unions as well. I think whoever is put into power will see the cost of what it takes to redo the process, along with the millions spent and years already put into the F-35 decision, and the fact that the most likely second decision would be the Super Hornet, and the fact that the RCAF and DND support F-35.

From someone smarter than me:

The two opposition parties know that the F-35 is the best option. This is the outcome of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat report which was never released. Its going to show that the cost of the aircraft is the lowest and the capabilities are the best able to meet Canada's objectives in the future. If they push to select something else, its going to provide some very poor optics where there is an independently managed report that conclusively says their policy is wrong. There is little benefit for openly restating their position on a competition: however there is a whole amount of hurt if they don't. It would be even worse than the EH-101 fiasco in the 1990s, which remains one of the most effective criticisms against the Liberal government's defence policy.
The Conservatives on the other hand don't want it raised because it would immediately open themselves up to criticism of mismanagement of the file (well you have the data saying its the best option, so why didn't you select it?), and of course, there are people who just won't accept another answer so it will look bad nonetheless. So nobody talks about the F-35. That doesn't mean that someone may try to raise it for quick political points, but if they went too far it would be turned right back on them.
Within the bureaucracy, I would argue that Tom Lawson's greatest legacy is to actually obtain broad based support for the project. Far more people were informed about its particulars, which now there is an understanding of why it should be selected. I suspect there will be significantly less discord among the departments once a decision comes through.


1. By the time Canada can get a decision in on a replacement fighter, there is a very good chance that the Super Hornet won't be available. Boeing needs commitments NOW in order to secure long term lead items for production post 2017, and with how fast the current government, or even any future government will take on the file to be fully briefed, and run a competition (no matter how much of a farce it would be), the Super Hornet would not be a contender because it will be out of production.

2. Pretty much. Every party knows the F-35 is the best option, and it is guaranteed that any future government, be it Conservative, NDP, or Liberal will pick F-35 as the default choice. The NDP, which by the current poll projections are showing, are the leaders going into the upcoming election and they've made some noises recently about wanting to support Canadian aviation industry. Picking F-35 as the future Canadian fighter, and securing Canadian workshare on the F-35 production will do just that.

My best guess? What will happen is that the future incoming government if they wanted to speed up a 'competition' for the appearance of conducting a competition would probably purchase F-35 through the Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) process. Basically, the government would put up a notice on the Government Electronic Tendering Service, indicating to everyone that the government intends to award a contract to a pre-identified supplier (namely, Lockheed Martin), believed to be the only one capable of performing the work, thereby allowing other suppliers to signal their interest in bidding by submitting a statement of capabilities. The requirements that would be listed would be restrictive enough to make the F-35 the best option, but not so restrictive that it would immediately eliminate other would-be bidders (I would imagine that the low observability requirement would be slightly relaxed) so it would appear like there is some form of competition.

The notice is to be put up for a minimum of 15 calendar days for any potential supplier to respond to. If no other supplier submits a statement of capabilities that meets the requirements set out in the ACAN within that timeframe, the contracting officer may then proceed with awarding the contract to the pre-identified supplier. If there is another supplier claiming they could do the work, the government would use a very restrictive method of looking at the requirements in the ACAN, and just eliminate the bidder for being 'non-compliant' (most likely focusing in on inter-operability requirements and the like).

Otherwise, the government will have to use a very broken procurement system that will literally will takes years to run through the bureaucratic inertia at PWGSC and the DND just to get a decision (it literally takes on average, 17 years from identification of a need to final delivery for the government to buy anything). It's a very broken procurement system, and it has been like that since the 1990's, and practically everyone, except the bureaucrats at PWGSC and the DND knows it. That's why pretty much every since Canadian military purchase since 2004 has used (and abused) the ACAN process, unless they really can't justify a sole source decision.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 14:18
by arrow-nautics
thepointblank wrote:...Super Hornet won't be available...


Every time Boeing releases an article or pipes up at how this & that means that it's "possible" the line will go beyond 2017 I get the impression this rant is a hint hint meant specifically for Canada.

thepointblank wrote:...The NDP...


Yesterday NDP leader Mulcair made a major Aerospace announcement to provide government money stimulus to jump start & subsidize small to medium aerospace companies. HE DID NOT mention F-35 which surprised me & might be an indication the program & acquisition is very much alive. As a matter of fact, the F-35 has not been mentioned once by any party, not even in passing.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 19:26
by bigjku
The world wants and needs another Arrow. Common Canada you can do it. It will be glorious fun for all of us watching at home.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 21:50
by bubblewhip
Just in my opinion the politics will likely override any objective report or recommendation. The reason why you are not hearing about it now is that "cutting" and "slashing" funding for projects is always a losing proposition for election platform. That is why you are constantntly hearing promises for funding public transportation, health care, and child care from all sides with no indication as to where that money will come from.

So I would not take "no news is good news" approach to the f-35 because it means that they do not care enough to put it on the political line to defend it.

When the party in question comes to power, the real work of "okay so how are we going to fund all these promises?" Reality comes to play. Both NDP and liberals are looking to raise taxes to solve the problem but likely will not cover the cost as most economists and accountants know already.

The only alternative is to sacrifice one public program over the other and that is where popular opinion really comes into play.

It would be for liberals and NDP it would be difficult to cut things like social programs without pissing everyone off. But military funding particularly high tech ones like the f-35 can be cut because it will piss the least amount of people off.

It has a bad reputation by the public like it or not. All it takes is a defecit, and another well timed news story about a mechanical failure no matter now ordinary it is in the industry because "ordinary people' won't put the effort to understand.

F-18 Super hornets are way less capable and likely to be obsolete. We here know that. But to the public it is an easy sell because the sticker price is lower, and word like "proven" and "familiar" as well as "upgradable" will no doubt be sputtered along to people who know less about aviation.

Just my opinion from the political perspective rather than an actual defense analyst needs perspective. The world of popular politics can out weigh objective decisions over and over again in aerospace. (See the stuka, a-10, eh-101)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 22:10
by hb_pencil
bubblewhip wrote:F-18 Super hornets are way less capable and likely to be obsolete. We here know that. But to the public it is an easy sell because the sticker price is lower, and word like "proven" and "familiar" as well as "upgradable" will no doubt be sputtered along to people who know less about aviation.)


The sticker price isn't lower. that's the point: the report will show the F-35 is cheaper to purchase and operate over 40 years, so selecting something else doesn't make any sense on any level. Even back around 2010, Canada probably could get only 55 F/A-18s for the same price as 65 F-35s. With the age of the St Louis line and diminished orders, that might be less than 50 now.

The parties know this: this is a no-win scenario for all of them. Selecting anything other than the F-35 is a terrible choice and going to a competition will open themselves up to accusations of wasting $100s of millions of dollars for a competition that will come up with the same outcome. So they say nothing until the end of the election.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 22:19
by hb_pencil
thepointblank wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
I agree with you . You make great points about the unions as well. I think whoever is put into power will see the cost of what it takes to redo the process, along with the millions spent and years already put into the F-35 decision, and the fact that the most likely second decision would be the Super Hornet, and the fact that the RCAF and DND support F-35.

From someone smarter than me:

The two opposition parties know that the F-35 is the best option. This is the outcome of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat report which was never released. Its going to show that the cost of the aircraft is the lowest and the capabilities are the best able to meet Canada's objectives in the future. If they push to select something else, its going to provide some very poor optics where there is an independently managed report that conclusively says their policy is wrong. There is little benefit for openly restating their position on a competition: however there is a whole amount of hurt if they don't. It would be even worse than the EH-101 fiasco in the 1990s, which remains one of the most effective criticisms against the Liberal government's defence policy.
The Conservatives on the other hand don't want it raised because it would immediately open themselves up to criticism of mismanagement of the file (well you have the data saying its the best option, so why didn't you select it?), and of course, there are people who just won't accept another answer so it will look bad nonetheless. So nobody talks about the F-35. That doesn't mean that someone may try to raise it for quick political points, but if they went too far it would be turned right back on them.
Within the bureaucracy, I would argue that Tom Lawson's greatest legacy is to actually obtain broad based support for the project. Far more people were informed about its particulars, which now there is an understanding of why it should be selected. I suspect there will be significantly less discord among the departments once a decision comes through.


1. By the time Canada can get a decision in on a replacement fighter, there is a very good chance that the Super Hornet won't be available. Boeing needs commitments NOW in order to secure long term lead items for production post 2017, and with how fast the current government, or even any future government will take on the file to be fully briefed, and run a competition (no matter how much of a farce it would be), the Super Hornet would not be a contender because it will be out of production.

2. Pretty much. Every party knows the F-35 is the best option, and it is guaranteed that any future government, be it Conservative, NDP, or Liberal will pick F-35 as the default choice. The NDP, which by the current poll projections are showing, are the leaders going into the upcoming election and they've made some noises recently about wanting to support Canadian aviation industry. Picking F-35 as the future Canadian fighter, and securing Canadian workshare on the F-35 production will do just that.

My best guess? What will happen is that the future incoming government if they wanted to speed up a 'competition' for the appearance of conducting a competition would probably purchase F-35 through the Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) process. Basically, the government would put up a notice on the Government Electronic Tendering Service, indicating to everyone that the government intends to award a contract to a pre-identified supplier (namely, Lockheed Martin), believed to be the only one capable of performing the work, thereby allowing other suppliers to signal their interest in bidding by submitting a statement of capabilities. The requirements that would be listed would be restrictive enough to make the F-35 the best option, but not so restrictive that it would immediately eliminate other would-be bidders (I would imagine that the low observability requirement would be slightly relaxed) so it would appear like there is some form of competition.

The notice is to be put up for a minimum of 15 calendar days for any potential supplier to respond to. If no other supplier submits a statement of capabilities that meets the requirements set out in the ACAN within that timeframe, the contracting officer may then proceed with awarding the contract to the pre-identified supplier. If there is another supplier claiming they could do the work, the government would use a very restrictive method of looking at the requirements in the ACAN, and just eliminate the bidder for being 'non-compliant' (most likely focusing in on inter-operability requirements and the like).

Otherwise, the government will have to use a very broken procurement system that will literally will takes years to run through the bureaucratic inertia at PWGSC and the DND just to get a decision (it literally takes on average, 17 years from identification of a need to final delivery for the government to buy anything). It's a very broken procurement system, and it has been like that since the 1990's, and practically everyone, except the bureaucrats at PWGSC and the DND knows it. That's why pretty much every since Canadian military purchase since 2004 has used (and abused) the ACAN process, unless they really can't justify a sole source decision.


No, it probably won't go to ACAN. For one, Canada needs to make its selection by about March 2011 or so, otherwise we will likely be left out of the three year block buy. Moreover they would need to re-write the RFP and there isn't the staff available to do that in DAR. It has to be bullet proof, and that will take over a year at this stage due to some of the classified elements. There is nothing to roll over into this and even if they rushed it, it could be the subject of a protest, which would then gum up the system for a few years and result in an award to the slighted bidder.

I suspect whatever government is either going to have to bite the bullet and pass it, or open itself up to a whole bunch of criticism.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 22:52
by bubblewhip
hb_pencil wrote:
bubblewhip wrote:F-18 Super hornets are way less capable and likely to be obsolete. We here know that. But to the public it is an easy sell because the sticker price is lower, and word like "proven" and "familiar" as well as "upgradable" will no doubt be sputtered along to people who know less about aviation.)


The sticker price isn't lower. that's the point: the report will show the F-35 is cheaper to purchase and operate over 40 years, so selecting something else doesn't make any sense on any level. Even back around 2010, Canada probably could get only 55 F/A-18s for the same price as 65 F-35s. With the age of the St Louis line and diminished orders, that might be less than 50 now.

The parties know this: this is a no-win scenario for all of them. Selecting anything other than the F-35 is a terrible choice and going to a competition will open themselves up to accusations of wasting $100s of millions of dollars for a competition that will come up with the same outcome. So they say nothing until the end of the election.

Talking about total cost of ownership over 40 years for an office that will last 10 if lucky and on average 5 years. The problems of cost and obsolencense will likely manifest itself only after the party in question is long gone to see it and it becomes someone else's problem.

So despite bad value a lower initial cost for a plane that will last as long as the party in power is good enough as opposed to getting Canadians any real long term value.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 23:01
by hb_pencil
bubblewhip wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
bubblewhip wrote:F-18 Super hornets are way less capable and likely to be obsolete. We here know that. But to the public it is an easy sell because the sticker price is lower, and word like "proven" and "familiar" as well as "upgradable" will no doubt be sputtered along to people who know less about aviation.)


The sticker price isn't lower. that's the point: the report will show the F-35 is cheaper to purchase and operate over 40 years, so selecting something else doesn't make any sense on any level. Even back around 2010, Canada probably could get only 55 F/A-18s for the same price as 65 F-35s. With the age of the St Louis line and diminished orders, that might be less than 50 now.

The parties know this: this is a no-win scenario for all of them. Selecting anything other than the F-35 is a terrible choice and going to a competition will open themselves up to accusations of wasting $100s of millions of dollars for a competition that will come up with the same outcome. So they say nothing until the end of the election.

Talking about total cost of ownership over 40 years for an office that will last 10 if lucky and on average 5 years. The problems of cost and obsolencense will likely manifest itself only after the party in question is long gone to see it and it becomes someone else's problem.

So despite bad value a lower initial cost for a plane that will last as long as the party in power is good enough as opposed to getting Canadians any real long term value.



Please re-read what I said: the Super Hornet Costs MORE to purchase than the F-35: I'm not even talking about the operational costs. There isn't an "angle" here where selecting something other than the F-35 is better. Every Single outcome other than going the MOU route for the F-35 will cause an immediate flap.

There's a get out of jail free card for whomever selects the F-35: The Independent commissions' work is pretty iron clad and conclusive. Going against it will look far worse than the immediate or long term EH-101 cancellation consequences.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 23:57
by bubblewhip
hb_pencil wrote:
bubblewhip wrote:
hb_pencil wrote: sticker price isn't lower. that's the point: the report will show the F-35 is cheaper to purchase and operate over 40 years, so selecting something else doesn't make any sense on any level. Even back around 2010, Canada probably could get only 55 F/A-18s for the same price as 65 F-35s. With the age of the St Louis line and diminished orders, that might be less than 50 now.

The parties know this: this is a no-win scenario for all of them. Selecting anything other than the F-35 is a terrible choice and going to a competition will open themselves up to accusations of wasting $100s of millions of dollars for a competition that will come up with the same outcome. So they say nothing until the end of the election.

Talking about total cost of ownership over 40 years for an office that will last 10 if lucky and on average 5 years. The problems of cost and obsolencense will likely manifest itself only after the party in question is long gone to see it and it becomes someone else's problem.

So despite bad value a lower initial cost for a plane that will last as long as the party in power is good enough as opposed to getting Canadians any real long term value.



Please re-read what I said: the Super Hornet Costs MORE to purchase than the F-35: I'm not even talking about the operational costs. There isn't an "angle" here where selecting something other than the F-35 is better. Every Single outcome other than going the MOU route for the F-35 will cause an immediate flap.

There's a get out of jail free card for whomever selects the F-35: The Independent commissions' work is pretty iron clad and conclusive. Going against it will look far worse than the immediate or long term EH-101 cancellation consequences.


I want to know because it never is talked about, how is the advertised domestic price of the hornet 52 million, raised to over 135 million as the sticker price against the f-35 when purchased from Canada?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 00:04
by XanderCrews
bubblewhip wrote:
I want to know because it never is talked about, how is the advertised domestic price of the hornet 52 million, raised to over 135 million as the sticker price against the f-35 when purchased from Canada?


Because Boeing planted a Bulls**t seed that has grown into a maple tree.


According to the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, the F/A-18E/F’s per-​unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 USD (FY2012) (see footnote 2). This does not include the foreign military sales and research and development fees levied on a program of this type. Adding these costs should bring its per unit cost to around $90 million. At this cost and with the government’s hard cap of $9.0 billion for the acquisition phase, Canada potential Super Hornet fleet size will be less than 65 aircraft and perhaps as few as 55.


https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/ent ... per-hornet

The cost quotes often used are what the US pays and from years back, and the US doesn't pay foreign military sales fees, and the R&D was paid for already.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 00:42
by spazsinbad
There is a thread post about the cost to the USN of two F/A-18C Hornets lost from a midair near a CVN recently - startling indeed. Similarly somewhere there is a cost to the USN in an accident report about a Super Hornet....

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27248&p=290928&hilit=Poloski#p290928

USN estimate for the total cost of the aircraft lost.

Newspaper Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/lt ... death.html

F/A-18C 77,343,288 & F/A-18C 74,585,124 Dollars US

USN Accident Report [redacted]:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo ... oloski.pdf (0.4Mb)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 00:51
by hb_pencil
^I'll use that article as a basis

bubblewhip wrote:I want to know because it never is talked about, how is the advertised domestic price of the hornet 52 million, raised to over 135 million as the sticker price against the f-35 when purchased from Canada?


Because that's what Boeing's Business Development people released as the cost to Terry Milewski in 2013. This is the source of it all:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing- ... -1.1320636

Very few people can do the proper accounting: do you think CBC has someone who actually familiar with FMS accounting on staff? of course not. The biggest issues is that the F/A-18's base year is 2000, while the F-35 is generally accounted in either 2010 or 2012 base year. The F-35 has an MOU that waives FMS and Non-recurring research fees. The F/A-18E's cost is 5.2 million on each aircraft. The F-35 has all of its sensors and fuel included internally: you need to buy the pods and tanks separately for the Super Hornet. Sniper XR and ATFLIR cost around 2 million each. Then there is a 3% administrative levy on each sale.

Very quickly you hit 90+ million, which is what the RCAF has found. That's not including the cost of getting Growlers, which is absolutely essential if you think you're going anywhere close to an actual shooting war.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 00:57
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Heheh... I like this quote from the above article (I was going to look again for the Super Hornet cost to Australia however I know already it is obscure because of the way the cost is calculated and all the B/S included):
"...Some 500 Super Hornets are already in service with the U.S. Navy. Dozens have already been sold to the Royal Australian Air Force, which, like Canada, was once committed to the F-35 but gave up waiting for it to prove itself...."

Do tell - I did not know that. <sarcasm off>

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 01:16
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: Heheh... I like this quote from the above article (I was going to look again for the Super Hornet cost to Australia however I know already it is obscure because of the way the cost is calculated and all the B/S included):
"...Some 500 Super Hornets are already in service with the U.S. Navy. Dozens have already been sold to the Royal Australian Air Force, which, like Canada, was once committed to the F-35 but gave up waiting for it to prove itself...."

Do tell - I did not know that. <sarcasm off>


You can just see the extensive research and care put in :roll:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 04:25
by thepointblank
hb_pencil wrote:
thepointblank wrote:
1. By the time Canada can get a decision in on a replacement fighter, there is a very good chance that the Super Hornet won't be available. Boeing needs commitments NOW in order to secure long term lead items for production post 2017, and with how fast the current government, or even any future government will take on the file to be fully briefed, and run a competition (no matter how much of a farce it would be), the Super Hornet would not be a contender because it will be out of production.

2. Pretty much. Every party knows the F-35 is the best option, and it is guaranteed that any future government, be it Conservative, NDP, or Liberal will pick F-35 as the default choice. The NDP, which by the current poll projections are showing, are the leaders going into the upcoming election and they've made some noises recently about wanting to support Canadian aviation industry. Picking F-35 as the future Canadian fighter, and securing Canadian workshare on the F-35 production will do just that.

My best guess? What will happen is that the future incoming government if they wanted to speed up a 'competition' for the appearance of conducting a competition would probably purchase F-35 through the Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) process. Basically, the government would put up a notice on the Government Electronic Tendering Service, indicating to everyone that the government intends to award a contract to a pre-identified supplier (namely, Lockheed Martin), believed to be the only one capable of performing the work, thereby allowing other suppliers to signal their interest in bidding by submitting a statement of capabilities. The requirements that would be listed would be restrictive enough to make the F-35 the best option, but not so restrictive that it would immediately eliminate other would-be bidders (I would imagine that the low observability requirement would be slightly relaxed) so it would appear like there is some form of competition.

The notice is to be put up for a minimum of 15 calendar days for any potential supplier to respond to. If no other supplier submits a statement of capabilities that meets the requirements set out in the ACAN within that timeframe, the contracting officer may then proceed with awarding the contract to the pre-identified supplier. If there is another supplier claiming they could do the work, the government would use a very restrictive method of looking at the requirements in the ACAN, and just eliminate the bidder for being 'non-compliant' (most likely focusing in on inter-operability requirements and the like).

Otherwise, the government will have to use a very broken procurement system that will literally will takes years to run through the bureaucratic inertia at PWGSC and the DND just to get a decision (it literally takes on average, 17 years from identification of a need to final delivery for the government to buy anything). It's a very broken procurement system, and it has been like that since the 1990's, and practically everyone, except the bureaucrats at PWGSC and the DND knows it. That's why pretty much every since Canadian military purchase since 2004 has used (and abused) the ACAN process, unless they really can't justify a sole source decision.


No, it probably won't go to ACAN. For one, Canada needs to make its selection by about March 2011 or so, otherwise we will likely be left out of the three year block buy. Moreover they would need to re-write the RFP and there isn't the staff available to do that in DAR. It has to be bullet proof, and that will take over a year at this stage due to some of the classified elements. There is nothing to roll over into this and even if they rushed it, it could be the subject of a protest, which would then gum up the system for a few years and result in an award to the slighted bidder.

I suspect whatever government is either going to have to bite the bullet and pass it, or open itself up to a whole bunch of criticism.


Remember, for practically any DND purchase, the internal processes in DND mean that approvals take roughly six months - that's the time it takes to confirm the costs have been identified in a reasonable manner, to confirm that the "ask" is clearly articulated, to get approval by the sponsor, the VCDS, the CFO, the CDS, the DM and the minister.

Certainly, those timelines can be compressed in the case of urgent matters by pulling people in from other departments and projects within the DND, PWGSC, and Industry Canada but most of the senior leadership want to take the time to read and understand when they are signing recommendations to spend bilions of dollars. And then the documentation goes to the staff of the Treasury Board who review it in detail, ask more questions, and ultimately present it to the Board with recommendations. Ultimately, it is the Treasury Board that will approve that a certain contract will go through, and that is heavily influenced by government priorities.

One of the downfalls of many DND projects is someone deciding that they will try to push their way around the rules and processes. Those situations rarely turn out well, and often result in even longer delays, once they go back to redo things they deliberately or accidentally skipped over the first time.

ACAN is the most quickest and in many cases, the only method of getting and justifying a sole-source contract under Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and Government Contracting Regulations (GCR), especially for a contract over $25,000. Pretty much, with an ACAN, they can go out and state that they believe that only one company is capable of providing a certain capability. The initial purchase of the Boeing C-17's for the RCAF back in 2006 under the ACAN process is an example of this; when the ACAN went out, Airbus Military and a unidentified private company challenged the ACAN, with the challenges being rejected two months later.

Very likely, a ACAN for the F-35 will emphasize long term inter-operability with the US military, industrial offsets, and quick initial delivery dates as the main areas of focus. For a new NDP government, this should be a fairly easy contract to get through the Treasury Board partially because many of the contractors that would benefit the most from a F-35 purchase and securing of the industrial commitments are Quebec-based.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 06:46
by bubblewhip
I see, Boeing has some pretty tricky accountants over there. Thanks for enlightining me to the cost of the F/A-18.

That being said, I think it is entirely possible that the purchase falls through as an attitude of "good enough" and "f-35 is not as good as an F-16" can get through popular opinion.

There is a prevailing attitude of "Canada does not need high tech weapons on 'today's battlefield'" regardless of JDAM, Sniper XL pods and other such systems. The prevailing general public attitude is that the military can make due without because we are just fighting terrorists, and Russia cold war is a fairy tale boogy man.

It happened with the Sea-King. So I wont hold my breath that the F-35 will be bought regardless by any party.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 09:11
by arrow-nautics
There's another pressure that might materialize. To date Canada's aerospace industry has benefited in about the 500 million range to the JSF. The components & work are being supplied for virtually all the JSF's being built. Some European ones, Israel & Japan might have their own suppliers. So the money available IS NOT just Canada's possible 65. That's right, all 2,500 + the US want & many international ones too. Did the CBC mention this to voters? NO! :bang:

zz.png


Lockheed could potentially punish Canada if we pull out & award future contracts elsewhere. Countries such as Turkey.

Some will cite that LM is too entrenched with Canada's aerospace industry so the threat is moot, but do we want to risk this?

11951399_10153529257192177_9095441739548529892_n.jpg


Psst! Wanna lose $11B?

The CBC with its slanting nonsense can go expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 09:24
by arrow-nautics
bubblewhip wrote:There is a prevailing attitude of "Canada does not need high tech weapons on 'today's battlefield'" regardless of JDAM, Sniper XL pods and other such systems


Well, Canadians can say they don't want sniper pods or JDAMs but the CF-18s already have them. Canadians are really silly. I bet 99% of Joe Canada Public has no idea the CF-18s are equipped.

RCAF-CF-18-ISIL-airstrikeswa.jpg


Sniper XL pod:
Sniper_XR_pod_mounted_on_Canadian_CF-188_(5624032086).jpg


Even the ridiculous Super Arrow proposal by Bordeux industries boasts a pod:
vlcsnap-2015-09-10-04h28m46s893.png

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 14:14
by XanderCrews
bubblewhip wrote:I see, Boeing has some pretty tricky accountants over there. Thanks for enlightining me to the cost of the F/A-18.



As others have shown they were certainly helped by Canadian media which turned a microscope on the JSF and just hand waived any scrutiny on Boeing claims. Practically free advertising under the guise of "reporting"

Its no wonder the public is completely turned around.


That being said, I think it is entirely possible that the purchase falls through as an attitude of "good enough" and "f-35 is not as good as an F-16" can get through popular opinion.

There is a prevailing attitude of "Canada does not need high tech weapons on 'today's battlefield'" regardless of JDAM, Sniper XL pods and other such systems. The prevailing general public attitude is that the military can make due without because we are just fighting terrorists, and Russia cold war is a fairy tale boogy man.


I seem to have seen a lot of this kind of thinking. Sad really. If these folks were around earlier, RCAF would still be flying F-86s.

Sniper pod? Sounds scary. No place on warplanes

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 15:40
by arrow-nautics
I must make a gif on a potential SH purchase for Canada & in it the CBC announces 9 billion for the required fleet of SH's with an estimated running cost over 40 years of 40 billion & watch the viewer spit out his coffee and yell:

" :wtf: HAPPENED TO THE BILLIONS THAT THE CBC PROMISED US IN SAVINGS OVER THE F-35!"

:lmao:

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 16:34
by bubblewhip
Despite the job figures, I am thinking that media with the populous will not actually mind the job loss of cancelling the F-35.

Reason is being that it can be rationalized as Lockheed Martin's "tax ponzi scheme funded blood money" and they are an evil huge corporation and their figures are probably made up and wrong to make them look better ect ect.

It is not so much different than the Firearms industry when legislation to prohibit firearms come through, there are a lot of rational job loss decisions that come through but no one directly involved in the industry will care because they find the defense aerospace business an inherently corrupt business.

So we can yell at the figures all we want, nay sayers will just say that they are made up figures by the military industrial complex to deceive the public into giving them more money

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 16:56
by arrow-nautics
bubblewhip wrote:Despite the job figures...made up figures by the military industrial complex to deceive the public into giving them more money


Yeah, I'm from Nova Scotia. I don't know about you but I think it's maybe a good thing there are 440 taxpaying workers in Lunenburg. No? Oh yes those evil Lunenburg people - contributing to the evil military industrial complex by making JSF fuselage panels. :sarcasm: We may as well call them terrorists :P

Here's one company of several



http://compositesatlantic.com/

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1 ... 30-workers

Among other things, Atlantic Composites has a contract to fabricate some ultra-light components for Boeing Co.’s new 787 Dreamliner.

The Canadian Space Agency announced in April of this year it was awarding a $589,000 contract to the company to build solar array substrates, a major component in solar panels that are used to power small satellites.

The company is a subsidiary of EADS Sogerma, part of EADS Group (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.). The Nova Scotia government owns 50 per cent of the company.


http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1 ... tic-shares

...There are about 440 workers at the Lunenburg site, and the company is seeking to hire more engineers, technicians and other workers for the site, Claude Baril, former managing director of Composites Atlantic and now managing director of Stelia, said in a telephone interview....


Anywho & to sum up... :wtf: ?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 18:59
by geogen
Half-price savings is most likely an over-exaggerated marketing dream...

More accurate however, would be an assessment: that some nominal savings, in addition to increased reliability, a greater range of munitions integration and integrated sooner and greater tactical flexibility, would be enabled with an alternative recapitalization and modernization strategy.

Contemplate something like this, for pure discussion purposes:

Lease 6-8x Growler-lite (8-10 yr lease), acquiring perhaps 6 or ALQ-218 sets. Mate with next-gen Litening SE pod on the centerline and possibly JSOW-ER C1 acquisition.

Procure (buy) 35x +/- F-18E II+ with plumbing for future CFT. Think next-gen Litening SE or Sniper SE retrofit kit.

With a Weapon Sys Cost of probably $100m, including towed decoy + FLIR (buy a few IRST pods - shared - for the fleet), savings could go into more responsive future systems updates/upgrades and if required... into extra stocks of actual advanced munitions (those expensive precision and stand-off munitions which provide the actual deterrence and capability)!

Procure 10x +/- Avenger C for long-endurance Arctic patrol (armed for strike) under JUSTAS requirements, plus another dozen or so next-gen prop-powered types.

When said Leased Growler-lite units are returned to the sourcing consortium (be that they may be, as interested Leasing parties under the contract), RCAF would then have further flexibility to acquire a mix of other proven unmanned systems, or depending on requirements, heavier into expensive futuristic stand-off munitions, or just extend the Growler Lease, etc, among other options.

Just my views. God speed.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 19:35
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Half-price savings is most likely an over-exaggerated marketing dream...

More accurate however, would be an assessment: that some nominal savings, in addition to increased reliability, a greater range of munitions integration and integrated sooner and greater tactical flexibility, would be enabled with an alternative recapitalization and modernization strategy.

Contemplate something like this, for pure discussion purposes:

Lease 6-8x Growler-lite (8-10 yr lease), acquiring perhaps 6 or ALQ-218 sets. Mate with next-gen Litening SE pod on the centerline and possibly JSOW-ER C1 acquisition.

Procure (buy) 35x +/- F-18E II+ with plumbing for future CFT. Think next-gen Litening SE or Sniper SE retrofit kit.

With a Weapon Sys Cost of probably $100m, including towed decoy + FLIR (buy a few IRST pods - shared - for the fleet), savings could go into more responsive future systems updates/upgrades and if required... into extra stocks of actual advanced munitions (those expensive precision and stand-off munitions which provide the actual deterrence and capability)!

Procure 10x +/- Avenger C for long-endurance Arctic patrol (armed for strike) under JUSTAS requirements, plus another dozen or so next-gen prop-powered types.

When said Leased Growler-lite units are returned to the sourcing consortium (be that they may be, as interested Leasing parties under the contract), RCAF would then have further flexibility to acquire a mix of other proven unmanned systems, or depending on requirements, heavier into expensive futuristic stand-off munitions, or just extend the Growler Lease, etc, among other options.

Just my views. God speed.


Please go. Adults are talking

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 19:42
by bigjku
Again with the leasing...

Also you want to buy an aircraft that at present does not exist and amortize the development over 35 aircraft? If the upgrades you want cost $350 million you have added $10 million to the cost of each aircraft. And that amount basically buys you nothing as far as actual upgrades and testing. Seems stupid to me...

Then you are going to order a UAV that has 3 prototypes flying not and no operational users anywhere on earth and presumably pay to develop that to a point where it is useful as well?

This is a lower risk plan?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 19:43
by arrow-nautics
Do I seriously HAVE TO post about a new Canadian company every day until I nail them all? :doh:

Attention to those asking silly questions or making silly statements, holding your hands 24/7 is annoying.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 19:51
by arrow-nautics
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03963.html

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada

Now, if this is challenged - there goes the neighbourhood because if people cite government lies or LM propaganda I'm going to challenge you to visit the actual company sites like I did a long time ago to get the nuts and bolts of what is going on.

This is a troll test!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 20:49
by bubblewhip
arrow-nautics wrote:
bubblewhip wrote:Despite the job figures...made up figures by the military industrial complex to deceive the public into giving them more money


Yeah, I'm from Nova Scotia. I don't know about you but I think it's maybe a good thing there are 440 taxpaying workers in Lunenburg. No? Oh yes those evil Lunenburg people - contributing to the evil military industrial complex by making JSF fuselage panels. :sarcasm: We may as well call them terrorists :P

Here. The Nova Scotia government owns 50 per cent of the company.

Hey I do not disagree I am just reciting what the popular Canadian opinions are from the cesspools of CBC comments, gawker media, and twitter.

440? Alberta has a hard enough time not having an actively hostile government to its multibillion dollar energy industries on privately funded projects. The political reality is that 440 lot are for all intents and purposes are working on weapons with tax payer money. Not green energy, or fluffy animals.

If they are willing to push around the oil and gas industry with threats like carbon tax and environmental hangups on pipelines, I can be damn sure they would be willing to toss you under the bus saying "Canada does not work on things like this" and tell you to go use your engineering prowess to work on wind turbines for a greener Canada.

I am just saying it is not a hard sell to the rest of Canada to piss off 440 people working on weapons.

Game of politics is not about doing what is right but what is popular. Right now the anti f-35 people are a megaphone and the aviation industry is a whisper.

Just my observations you could be totally right about the political consequences and provincial revolt, or I may be right that the aviation contractors have an overly inflated sense of importance to the rest of Canada.

We will see who is right next year right?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 21:01
by vanshilar
geogen wrote:Additionally, EW suite, displays, radar updates, mission computers should arguably be more robustly upgraded and evolved over the operational life the platform... as opposed to a strategy of hesitating and going slow on competitive upgrades as a means to save budget towards 'leap ahead' generational platforms. The latter being more risky, via disproportionately relying on uncertain next-gen platforms to save the day and holding off on assertive innovation/evolution to maintain modernization requirements. I'm just saying I feel more 'balance' is in store and potential exists for imbalances to higher risk plans if lured too much in master 'game-changing' schemes... respects.


I know about DNFTT but...apparently buying the F-35 is too risky and uncertain even it's already starting IOC with the US Marines, thus we should lease aircraft until we buy unmanned platforms?!? Are those platforms less risky and uncertain than the F-35 or something?

On Reddit lately one of the anti-F-35 arguments that's been going around is "why are we building the F-35 when we should be building self-piloting drones instead? They can pull 12 G's and we can make them for $10 million each!" Yes, this is being advocated as a serious argument. I apologize for linking to drivel but if you want proof:

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/com ... in/cupim23
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/com ... in/cup07sf

Apparently drones as a counter-argument to the F-35 has reached F-16.net as well. Drones with frickin' laser beams. People must think 90% of a fighter's cost is life-support or something and it could be doing 12 G's if only the pilot weren't there.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 21:09
by arrow-nautics
Bubblewhip, I'm changing the channel. Not that I won't delve in to this further and I do hear where you are coming from so I'll get back to this later. However, I made a non related gif to send out to all those dreamers living on planet stupid (not you)

Yes, it's regarding the pipe dream. The Super Arrow :doh: I made my silly gif to give the members a laugh.

Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 14:45
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:Again with the leasing...

Also you want to buy an aircraft that at present does not exist and amortize the development over 35 aircraft? If the upgrades you want cost $350 million you have added $10 million to the cost of each aircraft. And that amount basically buys you nothing as far as actual upgrades and testing. Seems stupid to me...

Then you are going to order a UAV that has 3 prototypes flying not and no operational users anywhere on earth and presumably pay to develop that to a point where it is useful as well?

This is a lower risk plan?



F-35= Risk!! Moneyz! Oh noez!!!
Super Mega Teen fighter= Risk Free/no cost!

LOL Arrow-nautics! :D

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2015, 18:42
by arrow-nautics
bubblewhip wrote:There is a prevailing attitude of "Canada does not need high tech weapons on 'today's battlefield'"


I guess this means that Joe Canada Public prefers MK82s or MK84s only? FFS! :doh: Yeah, let's have decades old bombing technology only?!

I suppose these uneducated fools are going to cite the recent incident with a CF-18 hitting a building & killing civilians with a LGB. Sigh. I bet dollars to donuts that was faulty US Intel since I highly doubt JTF2 were the ones scouting that building. But the CBC is still running the story about how the evil CF-18 pilot killed civilians. :bang:

I can't wait for the truth to come out on this. I bet it was (sorry US members) bad US Intel or maybe even bad Kurdish Intel.

Geez the CBC sucks. The story claims that 4 to 26 civilians were killed. The difference between 4 and 26 is substantial but the CBC is so juvenile they can't even pin down this distinction. if you're going to run a report you can at least be accurate before reporting. Look before you leap morons!

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 01:33
by arrow-nautics
Yunno, I was thinking and would like to welcome all the folks and fans at Bordeaux Industries to drop the Super Arrow concept & maybe build something a little more realistic like this:

Image

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 02:26
by geogen
bigjku wrote:Again with the leasing...

Also you want to buy an aircraft that at present does not exist and amortize the development over 35 aircraft? If the upgrades you want cost $350 million you have added $10 million to the cost of each aircraft. And that amount basically buys you nothing as far as actual upgrades and testing. Seems stupid to me...

Then you are going to order a UAV that has 3 prototypes flying not and no operational users anywhere on earth and presumably pay to develop that to a point where it is useful as well?

This is a lower risk plan?


Happy to reply here... and please allow me to correct a few points of confusion:

1. The block II+ Super essentially exists today for procurement. Note: next-gen Type 4 AMC computer, for one. Any customer-specific incremental pathway-modernization could be upgraded too. e.g., Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs. New displays could be nominally upgraded as well.

2. $10m upgrade package added to each Super II+ weapon system cost is still significantly cheaper than a block III F-35 weapon system cost. Savings could go into more responsive, advanced future upgrades and into actual next-gen game-changing stand-off munitions procurement.

3. Yes, the Avenger UCAV as noted could be one competitive option which could potentially be bid for in 2019 to fill RCAF's requirements for a long-endurance jet-powered UCAV.

4. Yes, Lower risk would further be emphasized by pointing to the fact that a non-existing hypothetical Block 4 F-35 would be a minimal upgrade needed in the early to mid-2020s, as a means to enable many of the weapons integration, combat capabilities and battlefield networking capacity (e.g., ROVER and Satcoms), which an advanced FY16/FY17 Super Hornet II+ could enable sooner and cheaper!

Respects and God speed-

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 03:49
by arrow-nautics
geogen wrote:3. Yes, the Avenger UCAV as noted could be one competitive option which could potentially be bid for in 2019 to fill RCAF's requirements for a long-endurance jet-powered UCAV.


I don't believe the brass nor the fraternity of the RCAF will go anywhere near UCAV's unless they are for support or recon up north.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 04:00
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
bigjku wrote:Again with the leasing...

Also you want to buy an aircraft that at present does not exist and amortize the development over 35 aircraft? If the upgrades you want cost $350 million you have added $10 million to the cost of each aircraft. And that amount basically buys you nothing as far as actual upgrades and testing. Seems stupid to me...

Then you are going to order a UAV that has 3 prototypes flying not and no operational users anywhere on earth and presumably pay to develop that to a point where it is useful as well?

This is a lower risk plan?


Happy to reply here... and please allow me to correct a few points of confusion:

1. The block II+ Super essentially exists today for procurement. Note: next-gen Type 4 AMC computer, for one. Any customer-specific incremental pathway-modernization could be upgraded too. e.g., Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs. New displays could be nominally upgraded as well.

2. $10m upgrade package added to each Super II+ weapon system cost is still significantly cheaper than a block III F-35 weapon system cost. Savings could go into more responsive, advanced future upgrades and into actual next-gen game-changing stand-off munitions procurement.

3. Yes, the Avenger UCAV as noted could be one competitive option which could potentially be bid for in 2019 to fill RCAF's requirements for a long-endurance jet-powered UCAV.

4. Yes, Lower risk would further be emphasized by pointing to the fact that a non-existing hypothetical Block 4 F-35 would be a minimal upgrade needed in the early to mid-2020s, as a means to enable many of the weapons integration, combat capabilities and battlefield networking capacity (e.g., ROVER and Satcoms), which an advanced FY16/FY17 Super Hornet II+ could enable sooner and cheaper!

Respects and God speed-


Once again please note how geogen has not only derailed the thread, but his costs -when he actually provided them- are wrong.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 04:18
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:
Happy to reply here... and please allow me to correct a few points of confusion:

1. The block II+ Super essentially exists today for procurement. Note: next-gen Type 4 AMC computer, for one. Any customer-specific incremental pathway-modernization could be upgraded too. e.g., Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs. New displays could be nominally upgraded as well.

2. $10m upgrade package added to each Super II+ weapon system cost is still significantly cheaper than a block III F-35 weapon system cost. Savings could go into more responsive, advanced future upgrades and into actual next-gen game-changing stand-off munitions procurement.

3. Yes, the Avenger UCAV as noted could be one competitive option which could potentially be bid for in 2019 to fill RCAF's requirements for a long-endurance jet-powered UCAV.

4. Yes, Lower risk would further be emphasized by pointing to the fact that a non-existing hypothetical Block 4 F-35 would be a minimal upgrade needed in the early to mid-2020s, as a means to enable many of the weapons integration, combat capabilities and battlefield networking capacity (e.g., ROVER and Satcoms), which an advanced FY16/FY17 Super Hornet II+ could enable sooner and cheaper!

Respects and God speed-

1. No it doesn't. And a FRP F/A-18 Super Hornet costs close to $90 million USD in FY2015 dollars, excluding GFE's, and ancilliary equipment. Using the Australian contract for their 24 Super Hornets as a guide, the total costs for 10 years, including training and support was close to $4.6 billion in FY 2007 dollars. It would be closer to $5.29 billion today.

Furthermore, "Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs."? You freaking kidding me? Any additional development costs that is customer specific and nothing the USN has indicated it wants to develop together would cost an arm and a leg. The USN hasn't committed or signaled any intentions on developing a CFT, leaving us to shoulder the costs.

2. It would cost a WHOLE lot more money than an extra $10 million dollars per airframe; the CF-18 IMP upgrade for our CF-18's costed about $2.6 billion dollars, and that was for essentially stuffing 80 CF-18's with avionics that was already developed by the USN and USMC under Boeing ECP 583. Try closer to $32 million dollars per aircraft, or more depending on the extent of upgrades requested.

3. JUSTAS is a dead program. The Canadian Forces has no interest in buying a UAV, let alone an armed UAV. That program's been dead for years now.

4. Buying an existing aircraft and self-developing upgrades for it is a MUCH higher risk than buying a F-35 today, and waiting for Block upgrades to come down the line.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 04:26
by cantaz
It's like some sort of ungodly fusion between a door-to-door sales man and Boeing's marketing department.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 04:31
by XanderCrews
thepointblank wrote:
geogen wrote:
Happy to reply here... and please allow me to correct a few points of confusion:

1. The block II+ Super essentially exists today for procurement. Note: next-gen Type 4 AMC computer, for one. Any customer-specific incremental pathway-modernization could be upgraded too. e.g., Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs. New displays could be nominally upgraded as well.

2. $10m upgrade package added to each Super II+ weapon system cost is still significantly cheaper than a block III F-35 weapon system cost. Savings could go into more responsive, advanced future upgrades and into actual next-gen game-changing stand-off munitions procurement.

3. Yes, the Avenger UCAV as noted could be one competitive option which could potentially be bid for in 2019 to fill RCAF's requirements for a long-endurance jet-powered UCAV.

4. Yes, Lower risk would further be emphasized by pointing to the fact that a non-existing hypothetical Block 4 F-35 would be a minimal upgrade needed in the early to mid-2020s, as a means to enable many of the weapons integration, combat capabilities and battlefield networking capacity (e.g., ROVER and Satcoms), which an advanced FY16/FY17 Super Hornet II+ could enable sooner and cheaper!

Respects and God speed-

1. No it doesn't. And a FRP F/A-18 Super Hornet costs close to $90 million USD in FY2015 dollars, excluding GFE's, and ancilliary equipment. Using the Australian contract for their 24 Super Hornets as a guide, the total costs for 10 years, including training and support was close to $4.6 billion in FY 2007 dollars. It would be closer to $5.29 billion today.

Furthermore, "Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs."? You freaking kidding me? Any additional development costs that is customer specific and nothing the USN has indicated it wants to develop together would cost an arm and a leg. The USN hasn't committed or signaled any intentions on developing a CFT, leaving us to shoulder the costs.

2. It would cost a WHOLE lot more money than an extra $10 million dollars per airframe; the CF-18 IMP upgrade for our CF-18's costed about $2.6 billion dollars, and that was for essentially stuffing 80 CF-18's with avionics that was already developed by the USN and USMC under Boeing ECP 583. Try closer to $32 million dollars per aircraft, or more depending on the extent of upgrades requested.

3. JUSTAS is a dead program. The Canadian Forces has no interest in buying a UAV, let alone an armed UAV. That program's been dead for years now.

4. Buying an existing aircraft and self-developing upgrades for it is a MUCH higher risk than buying a F-35 today, and waiting for Block upgrades to come down the line.



This is why Geogen is useless, and should be banned.

We can't even have adult conversations because he is failing at the basics of the subject --- YET AGAIN. We will notice he includes no link or references

Nice post though TPB 8)

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 04:33
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:It's like some sort of ungodly fusion between a door-to-door sales man and Boeing's marketing department.


Notice how he hasn't read any other posts either nor the links that fundamentally disagree with the assertions he makes before he makes them?

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 14:30
by arrow-nautics
Unlike others (not that others are wrong in doing so) I am trying to give geogen a wide berth & benefit of the doubt. However I am noticing a pattern. The deviation away in all manners possible from the F-35A. While that's not 100% entirely fair and at time to time he includes some block F-35A solutions, they're usually reflected in a very small window of years on acquisition. Leasing options & UCAV solutions are notable as suggestions & proposals but highly outside the realm of likelihood in Canada's procurement plans.

Now, I'm not 100% sure if I'm reading his motives right and I'm still reserving judgement.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 23:35
by neurotech
thepointblank wrote:1. No it doesn't. And a FRP F/A-18 Super Hornet costs close to $90 million USD in FY2015 dollars, excluding GFE's, and ancilliary equipment. Using the Australian contract for their 24 Super Hornets as a guide, the total costs for 10 years, including training and support was close to $4.6 billion in FY 2007 dollars. It would be closer to $5.29 billion today.

Furthermore, "Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs."? You freaking kidding me? Any additional development costs that is customer specific and nothing the USN has indicated it wants to develop together would cost an arm and a leg. The USN hasn't committed or signaled any intentions on developing a CFT, leaving us to shoulder the costs.

Super Hornet FMS price is in the range of $90, and a FRP F-35A is about the same.

Boeing has done some flight testing for the CFTs, but for various reasons, it ain't as simple as it sounds. Early Super Hornets had major issues with trapped external fuel. Developing the plumbing CFTs would not be "nominal cost" because certification would involve many details. Loosing a $90m fighter because of a fuel transfer issue wouldn't go over well.
thepointblank wrote:2. It would cost a WHOLE lot more money than an extra $10 million dollars per airframe; the CF-18 IMP upgrade for our CF-18's costed about $2.6 billion dollars, and that was for essentially stuffing 80 CF-18's with avionics that was already developed by the USN and USMC under Boeing ECP 583. Try closer to $32 million dollars per aircraft, or more depending on the extent of upgrades requested.

Just to be clear ~$32m is the program unit cost of the upgrade, correct? $10m for the physical upgrade is believable. Development costs would definitely push the total towards $32m per aircraft.

USN Hornets have some rather expensive upgrades and equipment, so the $38m fighter becomes a $70m fighter if it ends up in the water. The CF-18s have somewhat different mission software than a combat coded F/A-18 in USN/USMC service due to divergent configuration, although the differences are reduced with the IMP II upgrades.
thepointblank wrote:4. Buying an existing aircraft and self-developing upgrades for it is a MUCH higher risk than buying a F-35 today, and waiting for Block upgrades to come down the line.

The RAAF F/A-18Fs were delivered with the main difference from baseline USN Block II config was the paint job. The Growler wiring and a few other changes still allows a common mission software package. Canada developing or paying for major upgrade to the package that is unique to Canada ain't going to happen. I've heard figures as high as $10bn for the F/A-18ASH development and test program, not including actual production of the jets.

If Canada wanted F/A-18E/Fs, they'd have them by now. Its likely the DOD/USN would let Boeing transfer a few jets for early delivery, considering Boeing has been trying to stretch production and keep the line open. Boeing may even have a few "white tail" jets on the production line. The delay in the F-35 procurement is more about election cycles than buying any alternatives.

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 23:45
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
thepointblank wrote:1. No it doesn't. And a FRP F/A-18 Super Hornet costs close to $90 million USD in FY2015 dollars, excluding GFE's, and ancilliary equipment. Using the Australian contract for their 24 Super Hornets as a guide, the total costs for 10 years, including training and support was close to $4.6 billion in FY 2007 dollars. It would be closer to $5.29 billion today.

Furthermore, "Plumbing for an eventual CFT could be co-developed and modified with nominal costs."? You freaking kidding me? Any additional development costs that is customer specific and nothing the USN has indicated it wants to develop together would cost an arm and a leg. The USN hasn't committed or signaled any intentions on developing a CFT, leaving us to shoulder the costs.

Super Hornet FMS price is in the range of $90, and a FRP F-35A is about the same.

Boeing has done some flight testing for the CFTs, but for various reasons, it ain't as simple as it sounds. Early Super Hornets had major issues with trapped external fuel. Developing the plumbing CFTs would not be "nominal cost" because certification would involve many details. Loosing a $90m fighter because of a fuel transfer issue wouldn't go over well.
thepointblank wrote:2. It would cost a WHOLE lot more money than an extra $10 million dollars per airframe; the CF-18 IMP upgrade for our CF-18's costed about $2.6 billion dollars, and that was for essentially stuffing 80 CF-18's with avionics that was already developed by the USN and USMC under Boeing ECP 583. Try closer to $32 million dollars per aircraft, or more depending on the extent of upgrades requested.

Just to be clear ~$32m is the program unit cost of the upgrade, correct? $10m for the physical upgrade is believable. Development costs would definitely push the total towards $32m per aircraft.

USN Hornets have some rather expensive upgrades and equipment, so the $38m fighter becomes a $70m fighter if it ends up in the water. The CF-18s have somewhat different mission software than a combat coded F/A-18 in USN/USMC service due to divergent configuration, although the differences are reduced with the IMP II upgrades.
thepointblank wrote:4. Buying an existing aircraft and self-developing upgrades for it is a MUCH higher risk than buying a F-35 today, and waiting for Block upgrades to come down the line.

The RAAF F/A-18Fs were delivered with the main difference from baseline USN Block II config was the paint job. The Growler wiring and a few other changes still allows a common mission software package. Canada developing or paying for major upgrade to the package that is unique to Canada ai