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

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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Apr 2020, 14:16

A master thesis on the Canadian fighter procurement:

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

He is ignoring a few factors...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Apr 2020, 16:14

loke wrote:A master thesis on the Canadian fighter procurement:

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

He is ignoring a few factors...


Yes, that 'thesis' was already mentioned in this thread (although I'm not sure if someone actually posted the paper).

And I would say that not only "he is ignoring a few factors" but instead he completely missed the point! :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 00:33

In terms of force structure, 88 will equip 4 tactical fighter squadrons (sqn) with 18 fighters each plus 1 tactical training sqn.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 01:34

weasel1962 wrote:In terms of force structure, 88 will equip 4 tactical fighter squadrons (sqn) with 18 fighters each plus 1 tactical training sqn.


Yes, that's the current RCAF force structure (4 tactical fighter squadrons plus 1 Operational Training Squadron).

Sometimes I wonder that in case initial plan of buying 65 F-35A have gone thru if the current force structure squadron wise would be maintained or otherwise changed?
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 02:58

65 is the MOU number which was provisional. Does allow changes.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2599
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 03:18

Maybe they plan to buy two dozen trainers that they intend to use as secondary combat roles. :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24283
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 03:35

weasel1962 wrote:65 is the MOU number which was provisional. Does allow changes.

LM F-35 Fast Facts April 2020 and many beforehand say different: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... l_2020.pdf (2.4Mb)
Attachments
F-35programRecordApr2020fastFacts.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 07:55

loke wrote:A master thesis on the Canadian fighter procurement:

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

He is ignoring a few factors...


Multiple military professionals, to include then current F-18 pilots in the RCAF, called him out directly on the BF4C facebook page and pointed to major flaws in the paper. They were all subsequently banned.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 08:48

spazsinbad wrote:LM F-35 Fast Facts April 2020 and many beforehand say different: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... l_2020.pdf (2.4Mb)


And did anyone post the clause that should be self explanatory?
F-35 MOU clause.png
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 09:11

spazsinbad wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:65 is the MOU number which was provisional. Does allow changes.

LM F-35 Fast Facts April 2020 and many beforehand say different: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... l_2020.pdf (2.4Mb)


Look on the previous page. The previous government made a decision in 2010 (yes, a looong time ago) that Canada would purchase 65 F-35. Then they decided to halt the process (in 2012 or so I think?). Then, when the new government came in, it was decided that the number should be 88. But originally (back in 2010) it was 65.

Canada is one of nine partner countries in the F-35 project, each of which is required to cover a portion of the stealth fighter’s multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table.
Each country pays based on the number of F-35s it’s expecting to buy. Canada has pitched in more than half-a-billion dollars over the last 20 years, including $54 million last year.
But that amount was based on the Stephen Harper government’s plan to buy 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s, which the Trudeau government has since officially increased to 88.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/pla ... f-35-costs
The previous Conservative government announced in 2010 it would buy 65 F-35s, which are built by Lockheed Martin, without a competition, The first one was to be delivered in 2015.
The Conservatives later backed off their plan over concerns about the price and the Defence Department’s tactics in getting government approval for the deal.

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/c ... ghter-jets
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 09:14

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:A master thesis on the Canadian fighter procurement:

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y

He is ignoring a few factors...


Yes, that 'thesis' was already mentioned in this thread (although I'm not sure if someone actually posted the paper).

And I would say that not only "he is ignoring a few factors" but instead he completely missed the point! :roll:

There is more to a fighter program than "the point".... much more!

Hint: Look at my post on the previous page ;)
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 09:15

I understand re 65 vs 88. And the 65 number was even before 2008. The point is the actual contractual buy number can differ. The only difference is if the F-35 isn't selected i.e. no procurement, then there are penalty provisions. Doesn't stop Canada from reducing or increasing the number until an actual buy contract (as opposed to the MOU) has been entered into (which there is none as of today).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24283
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 09:24

The BIG print say "PROGRAM of RECORD" - nominated governments TELL LM/JPO their buy intentions officially on record (not hearsay or whatever). Does that help? Sure back in the dreaming it was 65 for Canuckistan - now it is 88 in the time of whathisface PrudeHo. Is the Canadian Gubmint a participant in the shebang. You betcha sweetbippy & they pay for it.

FORGIVE ME if this PDF has been posted before: F-35 Lightning II Program in Canada October 2017
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... t_2017.pdf (2Mb)
Attachments
OMX_F-35_Economic_Impact_Oct_2017.pdf
(1.94 MiB) Downloaded 75 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 08 Apr 2020, 09:40, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 09:33

I think you have it the wrong way around. 88 was the original dreaming get and doc still use those first numbers, including AU 100. 65 is the current CA might get.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 09:47

weasel1962 wrote:I understand re 65 vs 88. And the 65 number was even before 2008. The point is the actual contractual buy number can differ. The only difference is if the F-35 isn't selected i.e. no procurement, then there are penalty provisions. Doesn't stop Canada from reducing or increasing the number until an actual buy contract (as opposed to the MOU) has been entered into (which there is none as of today).

OK I got your point -- some of my points were:

1. The stipulated number has real consequence since each partner pays R&D costs according to how many a/c they expect to purchase. So when Trudeau decided to increase the estimated number from 65 to 88 Canada had to start pay more into the F-35 program (the program Troudou seems to hate..).

2. Another irony here is that it seems Tredou increased the number of a/c due in order to identify a "capability gap" (which the Harper government did not really care about), and the reason for doing this was to justify the purchase of 18 SH as a stop gap! That fell through of course but he is still stuck with the number 88.... So if F-35 ends up as winner then (unless they make another turn) they are currently in line for 88 F-35, the a/c that Tredou said he would not buy!

He is not shooting himself in the foot; he is shooting himself in both feet! :doh:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests