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

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 23 Oct 2019, 17:58

notkent wrote:Does not matter how good the S-300 or S-400 is, you still want the best fighter that you can afford.



I think it was more the joke that Canada would find a way to get out of buying a CF-18 replacement "Turkey style"
Choose Crews


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 23 Oct 2019, 18:32

Image

Aware me if I'm wrong but the guys in Blue want the F-35. And the Guys in red will likely go along with it when the "competition" selects it?
Choose Crews


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5671
Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

by ricnunes » 23 Oct 2019, 20:13

XanderCrews wrote:Aware me if I'm wrong but the guys in Blue want the F-35. And the Guys in red will likely go along with it when the "competition" selects it?


Nope, you're not wrong at all.

And even the guys in orange want Canada's future fighter aircraft to be select thru a fair and transparent competition.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call EW and pretend like it’s new.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 24 Oct 2019, 02:23

XanderCrews wrote:
notkent wrote:Does not matter how good the S-300 or S-400 is, you still want the best fighter that you can afford.


I think it was more the joke that Canada would find a way to get out of buying a CF-18 replacement "Turkey style"


Thank you! Otherwise I would have been tempted to show what a Canadian S-300 could look like...

https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/vehicle ... lass/sedan

Again would likely lose to a Saab on a cost comparison but I know which one I would rather be in...


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 9792
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

by Corsair1963 » 24 Oct 2019, 02:33

Actually, I don't think the F-35 will be such a hard sell for Canada in the end. Because the process has been dragged out so long. That by time the final decision is made. They can claim the earlier issues with the F-35 have been resolved.



In short the F-35 they want today. Isn't the F-35 that fought against all of those years ago.... :wink:


Trust me political spin is still alive and well.... :|


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5671
Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

by ricnunes » 24 Oct 2019, 09:41

I fully agree with you Corsair1963.

I believe that's exactly what Trudeau Jr. will say to the parliament when Canada selects the F-35.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call EW and pretend like it’s new.


Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 18:06

by notkent » 24 Oct 2019, 18:35

Yes they have drawn it out long enough to declare victory, choose the F-35 and save face by claiming the program is mature enough now to be a safe bet.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 25 Oct 2019, 02:22

I'm not so sure if bean counting is the primary KPI. The super-duper hornet costs the navy ~$67m flyaway cost a piece. Whilst we know the F-35A is worth the $10m top up, we know Trudeau doesn't.

From his perspective, the not-so super-duper hornets in service have been able to fulfil all requirements to date. The super-duper hornet is already a step up. Worse is that the super-duper hornet is still being bought by his bigger neighbor and will be in their service for the next few decades. Worst is that because the F-35 is another decades long program, he can argue Canada is still in the F-35 program (as a super-duper hornet replacement) and try to keep his benefits.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 25 Oct 2019, 02:38

'weasel1962' said: "...The super-duper hornet costs the navy ~$67m flyaway cost a piece..." Got a citation for that please?


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 25 Oct 2019, 02:58

Navy PB FY 2019, APN BA1-4 pg 81, right most column in table under column "total" read with cell that corresponds to "Flyaway Unit Cost ($ in Thousands)". Exact number being "66,992.915".

The interesting thing is they don't publish the program total for FY 2020 in which case the current year flyaway cost being "66,166.000", Navy PB FY 2020, APN BA1-4 pg 49 refers.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 25 Oct 2019, 03:28

That may well be the case however: what is 'PB' and what is the URL for this info etc... Thanks. When a two seat Super Hornet crashes often the total cost is revealed. It is always more than the cost you cite - what is not included in yours?


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 25 Oct 2019, 03:35

spazsinbad wrote:That may well be the case however: what is 'PB' and what is the URL for this info etc... Thanks. When a two seat Super Hornet crashes often the total cost is revealed. It is always more than the cost you cite - what is not included in yours?


Spaz, you do realize that the most irritating thing an analytical personality (as determined by the Merrill-Reid method) type can do to a driver personality is to ask for details...and the most irritating response in reverse is to state "google".

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... 4_BOOK.pdf


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 25 Oct 2019, 03:54

Thanks. You yourself may note I do me best to cite sources/quotes/jpegs/videos etc. because that is WHO I AM; who YOU?

Meanwhile in this forum there are a few discussions about 'Super Hornet Cost per Airyplaine' - I believe when the USN makes a cost claim after a crash for that Super Hornet unit then that 'cost' must include the kitchen sink if needed. Otherwise budgets include/exclude and who knows. I'm Australian so I do not usually peruse US budgets - nor should I.

Anyway I'm looking for a specific USN quote for a Super Hornet crash and I don't mind at all but YOU need some patience.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 25 Oct 2019, 04:10

Agreed. You are you. At the same I am not you. So do give some of us latitude that we do not need cite sources in every post.

Its not a question of patience. Checking sources takes effort and weasels tend to be some of the laziest gits out there.

Source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... lazy%20git


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 25 Oct 2019, 04:43

Fine. So don't get edgy if asked for a citation/source or whatever question is posed. My memory still has a 'super hornet crash cost' somewhere but not found so far. Google itself is a lucky dip depending upon search terms used and I've searched. Meanwhile when two USN F-18Cs collided mid-air (yes F-18Cs) total was quoted thusly in US 2015 dollars I guess.

I'll imagine a Super Hornet will cost more? And I'll continue to look for the 'super hornet crash aircraft cost'....
"...Two F/A-18Cs launched from the carrier Carl Vinson on Sept. 12 [2014] and collided west of Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean. Despite a 3,000-square-mile search, Lt. Nathan Poloski was lost at sea and both aircraft were destroyed, at a cost of $149.3 million…." 05 Jan 2015 Lance Bacon http://hrana.org/news/2015/01/navy-safe ... n-mishaps/

Super Hornet news but I'm still looking for an official USN report about the cost of an individual Super Hornet crash....
06 Jun 2016 Michael Fabey "...May 26 loss of the Super Hornets cost the Navy about $173.2 million, [$86.6 million each] the service says...." http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy ... -incidents


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests