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

Getting the secondhand hornets, also reminds me of the secondhand subs they got from the UK. Another troubled platform. If nothing else, it gives other nations the means, to minimise their troubles. "If you think this is bad. Look at Canada"

Today, Canada takes another giant leap backwards . . .


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/fi ... et-to-2032

Canada: Flying yesterday's fighter jets, today

Since we're going retro 1980's, I'd suggest all pilots wear mullets. And further, be issued Rubick's cubes while mandating they be able to solve them during all landings and takeoffs.

Trudeau is just that out of touch to sign off on such a thing...

Does anybody really believe. That Canada won't acquire the F-35 in the end....(anybody)

It's the clear leader performance-wise. Logically, they will.

Unfortunately, Trudeau has demonstrated ample ability to be anything but logical, and performance is not the only factor by which competitions are decided.

Today, Canada takes another giant leap backwards . . .


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/fi ... et-to-2032

Canada: Flying yesterday's fighter jets, today

Since we're going retro 1980's, I'd suggest all pilots wear mullets. And further, be issued Rubick's cubes while mandating they be able to solve them during all landings and takeoffs.

Trudeau is just that out of touch to sign off on such a thing...

jokes on you if you thought mullets ever went out of style up there

Does anybody really believe. That Canada won't acquire the F-35 in the end....(anybody)

*puts hand up*

I don't, and I've warned numerous times that its much more likely than you all seem to believe (just like all the other things I've warned about thats come to pass.)

Here's the scary thing, Bestfighter4Canada better reflects the thought of the Canadian electorate, and some politicians than F-16.net on this issue. Let that sink in for a minute when you think that the F-35 is the assured option.

I'd urge you all to read this by Alan Stephenson - it explains why the consortium doesn't mean anything for the industrial benefits program and the government's desire. They don't care if we get a Mig-21, so long as they get the political points from the purchase.

https://www.cgai.ca/anatomy_of_a_buy_th ... for_canada

The latest concession is that “Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment.”31 This is still inadequate, particularly as the latest reshaping change increases the ITB requirement point score from 15 to 20 per cent of the bid. In a bid, every point counts and the government still fails to concede that the JSF program has already created high-end, sustainable jobs in Canada but that the consortium it belongs to cannot guarantee comprehensive economic outcomes. The current objective scoring system disadvantages the subjective nature of the consortium agreement in which projected potential economic benefits could ultimately surpass the returns required by the ITB policy. A more equitable approach would be to revise the scoring to account for the projected potential earnings from the JSF program as well as the negative repercussions from job losses when JSF contracts are inevitably suspended as a consequence of Canada no longer being a consortium partner. Given the re-emerging great-power competition, it is important to ensure that socioeconomic factors do not inordinately bias the overall cost-benefit analysis needed for Canada to receive the best product for military requirements that still meets beneficial economic returns.

Further explanation for the decision to retain the ITB requirement and preserve a large bidder pool stems from the governing party’s short-term parochial interests. In an election year, qualified suppliers will be encouraged to support economic announcements in key political ridings with the expectation that this will positively position their bid when ITBs are assessed. The promise to assemble aircraft in Canada certainly provides work-related incentives, but one must question the long-term economic benefits and export potential of building fighters in a country that refuses to sell civilian helicopters to the Philippines. Additionally, the offer of complete transfer of intellectual property for relatively unique European platforms is a double-edged sword. Without the benefit of a large pool of resources, the costs associated with developing and continually modifying the Operational Flight Program (OFP) – the embedded software that performs the functions and sub-functions necessary for aircraft weapon systems to operate – are huge. After 15 years of operation, Canada stopped producing unique OFP software for the CF-18s and purchased off-the-shelf upgrades from the U.S. Navy due to the costs associated with development and the stringent test and evaluation requirements. Getting the OFP wrong results in accidents such as the recent crash of the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max. Attempting to integrate discordant equipment into unique platforms is difficult and imprecise. Modifying military requirements to meet short-term parochial socioeconomic interests and benefits can entail unintended costs and consequences.

Does anybody really believe. That Canada won't acquire the F-35 in the end....(anybody)

*puts hand up*


You lost most of the members. The second you quoted........."Bestfighter4Canada"

Does anybody really believe. That Canada won't acquire the F-35 in the end....(anybody)

*puts hand up*


You lost most of the members. The second you quoted........."Bestfighter4Canada"

Did I ever say that I support them? No. If anything I find them utterly reprehensible and ignorant.

However its the sad truth that Canadians have been fed a diet of information that would lead them to believe the utter BS that comes out of that site over what bonafide subject matter experts say. How many Canadians believe we should restart the Arrow? I suspect the number is enough that would make a double digit proportion of the public. It doesn't mean that I support it, but its just the reality of the Canadian debate.

Did I ever say that I support them? No. If anything I find them utterly reprehensible and ignorant.

However its the sad truth that Canadians have been fed a diet of information that would lead them to believe the utter BS that comes out of that site over what bonafide subject matter experts say. How many Canadians believe we should restart the Arrow? I suspect the number is enough that would make a double digit proportion of the public. It doesn't mean that I support it, but its just the reality of the Canadian debate.

Well, much will depend on the results of the forthcoming "Fighter Competition" and next Government!

Plus, while many Canadians have a misconception of the true capabilities of the F-35. From the Liberal Media and Trudeau Administration. The F-35 is racking up orders by the day and flying very successfully across the globe. Honestly, going to be harder and harder to ignore that as times goes!

If Canada wanted any other fighter than the F-35 then they would have picked it. Every single competitor to the F-35 has been flying for years. Canada could have opted to sole source them, but didn’t. When the time came to pick an interim fighter, Canada picked the one US fighter, the SH, for interoperability reasons. Then they balked at the price of the SH. Meanwhile, they continue to pay to be in the F-35 program despite all of this. If you think anything other than the F-35 is getting picked then I have some great swamp land to sell you.

The Canadians balked at Boeing in general, not the price.

Here's the scary thing, Bestfighter4Canada better reflects the thought of the Canadian electorate, and some politicians than F-16.net on this issue. Let that sink in for a minute when you think that the F-35 is the assured option.

That's far from being exclusive to Canada!

Every or at least the vast of majority of JSF partner countries and FMS customers had the same "problem" above, including the United States itself! These other countries also had online communities and politicians/political parties venting stuff against the F-35, many of whom were likely a lot more powerful on their countries than Bestfighter4Canada is in Canada.

I would say that Bestfighter4Canada has about the same power to be influential on the decision to purchase the future Canadian fighter aircraft as you and I and anyone here personally can!
It's not like a Blog with a "Bah looking" will change anything or be influential in any means on the Canadian future fighter decision.

If Canada wanted any other fighter than the F-35 then they would have picked it.

EXACTLY!

The Canadians balked at Boeing in general, not the price.

Well, the Canadians were already balking at the "interim Super Hornet deal" price/cost quite before the Boeing-Bombardier dispute.
The Boeing-Bombardier dispute that came up later gave the Canadian government the perfect excuse the ditch the "interim Super Hornet deal" once and for all!

If Canada wanted any other fighter than the F-35 then they would have picked it. Every single competitor to the F-35 has been flying for years. Canada could have opted to sole source them, but didn’t. When the time came to pick an interim fighter, Canada picked the one US fighter, the SH, for interoperability reasons. Then they balked at the price of the SH. Meanwhile, they continue to pay to be in the F-35 program despite all of this. If you think anything other than the F-35 is getting picked then I have some great swamp land to sell you.

Canada has already turned down the Super Hornet as many here have stated. So, just think of the outrage of the "American Public". If, Canada acquires a "European Fighter" over an American one....

The Canadians balked at Boeing in general, not the price.

No they balked at the price, in fact the Canadian Government was so taken aback they had to scramble to call the US for clarification. Heres a brief explanation as to why:

For YEARS Boeing told every media outlet in Canada that asked them that the Super Hornet would cost 65 million (thats bolded because its important)

The media would then use qualifying language "Boeing says" or "boeing Claims" their super hornet will cost 65 million Boeing never deviated from that number.

Whenever asked the magical number 65 million came up. year after year regardless. Watch how this number again pops up in this report from late november 2016, about buying interim Super Hornets:

The Liberals pegged the cost of one F-35 at $175 million and one Super Hornet at $65 million, but those numbers have been repeatedly questioned.

Meanwhile, Kuwait recently announced plans to buy 40 Super Hornets for $13 billion. While the deal includes eight Super Hornets dedicated to electronic warfare, that still works out to $335 million per plane.

At the same time, Denmark is moving ahead with plans to buy 27 F-35s at a cost of $4 billion, which amounts to about $148 million per plane.

just to give you an idea of how "off" the Liberal estimate was the title of the above is "Ottawa might be buying 18 Super Hornets; price tag could exceed $1.1B" ( How did they arrive at 1.1billion? well like good repeaters they multiplied 18 by 65...)


Here it that same line again repeated in a 2017 piece:

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals estimated the cost of an F-35 at $175 million per plane, with the Super Hornet coming in at $65 million.

With no one in the mainstream media ever actually looking into the cost, Boeing got away with this false claim to the point that the Liberal Government ACTUALLY BELIEVED it and adopted themselves as FACT.

And then this happened:

The “estimated total case value” in the notification to Congress was US$5.23 billion, or $6.6 billion Canadian, prompting criticism from the Conservative Party.

yes that 6 times the 1.1b the first article warned of-- for EIGHTEEN Super Hornets.

Now I'm gonna run outta fingers and toes, but turns out at 6.6 billion Canadian that was a BIT more than 65 million.

366 million actually or well over 5 times the cost the Liberals had been tricked into believing

So hats off to Boeing, they had the liberals believing in magic. You repeat a lie enough and all that. Now of course we here know that Boeing was using just fly away (and a generous one at that) compared to the F-35s full program cost.

But the liberals suffice it to say, were SHOCKED to the point they were scrambling on the phones. They've been using that number since 2015 themselves and then were telling people it would cost just over 1 billion, and instead it comes back 6 and a half billion. HAHAHAHA even funnier when one remember the reason the F-35 was so badly ungood was its out of nowhere cost escalation.

very few people in Canada (Richard Shimooka is one actual example that did) ever analyzed Boeings claims apples to apples. They instead used the qualifying language, and gave Boeing free viral marketing.

Shimooka never got the kind of widespread attention his cost analysis deserved that debunked Boeings claims, destroyed the passive media's useful idiots, and would lay waste to the Liberals favorite number. He should not have been the only one looking into that and trying to spread the truth. The Canadian Media failed, and it failed badly. Its a great example of how companies manipulate the media, who then in turn push the narrative that manipulates people, and even entire political parties. Again this cost Boeing nothing, but had a major impact.

It wasn't until Boeing revealed the actual contract price that the lie was finally discovered.

This is even more enraging when we think about how this number has been used to undermine the JSF in Canada from nearly day 1. I'm not saying that Canada would have F-35s and this whole thing could have been avoided. BUT what I am saying is if the F-35s closest competitor had had honest reporting about its cost, instead of undermining it with a company provided lie, Canada would probably have F-35s right now. 175 million vs 366 million? rather than 175 million vs 65 million, well that makes a helluva difference when reported honestly and would have put out most talk of the F-35 being too costly.

Here's the scary thing, Bestfighter4Canada better reflects the thought of the Canadian electorate, and some politicians than F-16.net on this issue. Let that sink in for a minute when you think that the F-35 is the assured option.

I would say that Bestfighter4Canada has about the same power to be influential on the decision to purchase the future Canadian fighter aircraft as you and I and anyone here personally can!
It's not like a Blog with a "Bah looking" will change anything or be influential in any means on the Canadian future fighter decision.

Thats not the point though. hes not saying BF4C is influencing, hes saying its a reflection of the Canadian public. Having lurked there many times, Canadians have a completely different attitude thanks to the very limited and very specific kind of reports they hear on it thanks to Canadian Media.

Its like theyre in their own little world, and it shows. again this isn't BF4C's fault. the conditioning has paid off very nicely. like my 65 million example there. No one in the states was ever being told Super Hornets were 65 million, and certainly not year after year. Theyre good little students, they regurgitate what theyre told, and even better attack anyone else that tries to tell them otherwise. knowledge, sources, experience, reason, facts, history are meaningless to them.

The public perception of the F-35 in Canada. Is very similar to Australia just a few years back. Yet, today the RAAF is proudly flying the F-35A and very happy with it.