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

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23492
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 09:40

Air power and the Arctic: The importance of projecting strength in the north
09 Jan 2019 Secretary Heather Wilson & Gen. David Goldfein

"...Both a northern approach to the United States, as well as a critical location for projecting American power, [ALASKA] geo-strategic significance is difficult to overstate. Key defense assets dot the landscape. The Air Force operates most of our Arctic locations — from fighter and tanker bases to space-tracking systems and radar sites that detect aircraft and missiles coming over the poles.

One way to view the region’s growing importance: By 2022, Alaska will be home to more advanced fighter jets than any place on Earth.

At the end of the Cold War, many considered the Arctic to be a secure border, whose frigid expanse acted as an extra layer of homeland defense. Today, technological advancements by potential adversaries are making this once forbidding border increasingly porous.

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... the-north/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 14:03

Bright side is they will be full Block 4 models and quite future proof as they like to keep their jets loooong ;).
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 15:17

marsavian wrote:Bright side is they will be full Block 4 models and quite future proof as they like to keep their jets loooong ;).

Exactly. New CPUs. Advanced EOTS. Upgraded DAS. etc.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 20:24

marsavian wrote:Bright side is they will be full Block 4 models and quite future proof as they like to keep their jets loooong ;).


Agreed!

And I would also add that with the Canadian minimalist approach on aircraft weaponry (for example the Canadian Hornet fleet never had "specialized" weapons such as HARMs, Harpoons, any land attack cruise missile, etc...) the F-35 (namely Block 4) would be the only logical and survivable choice for the future. For example all that Canada needs in order to keep its future (and tentative) F-35 fleet relevant for Air-to-Ground missions in decades to come would be having:
- GBU-31 JDAM (which Canada already has)
- GBU-12 (which Canada already has)
- GBU-49 (which Canada already has)
- SDBII
Or resuming, Canada only needs to buy the SDBIIs (if it chooses the F-35).
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 17:02

That's if the F-35 even gets to compete.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 17:10

Given that this whole mess started over the need to "stick to the letter of the law", I don't see a legal justification for keeping the F-35 out of the competition.

The one thing that they can do is to set a requirement that it cannot meet like "must have two engines".
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 17:40

SpudmanWP wrote:Given that this whole mess started over the need to "stick to the letter of the law", I don't see a legal justification for keeping the F-35 out of the competition.

The one thing that they can do is to set a requirement that it cannot meet like "must have two engines".


The Gripen Fanboys will not be pleased.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 17:49

hb_pencil wrote:That's if the F-35 even gets to compete.


"We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft"

vs.

"F-35 contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canada's involvement in the JSF project from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 19:15

SpudmanWP wrote:Given that this whole mess started over the need to "stick to the letter of the law", I don't see a legal justification for keeping the F-35 out of the competition.

The one thing that they can do is to set a requirement that it cannot meet like "must have two engines".


No actually they can't do the engine one: the CITT would throw out the competition in minutes if they did. But sticking to the letter of their law is how it will happen... it was outlined in an article spaz posted on here several weeks ago.

luke_sandoz wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:That's if the F-35 even gets to compete.


"We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft"

vs.

"F-35 contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canada's involvement in the JSF project from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.


Just you wait. This government is really that inept.
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 635
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post13 Jan 2019, 12:02

hb_pencil wrote:No actually they can't do the engine one: the CITT would throw out the competition in minutes if they did.


They can likely set requirements for metrics similar to MTBF and such, but of course, that would get'em nowhere :twisted:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 11:41

hb_pencil wrote:That's if the F-35 even gets to compete.


For what's worth, the competitors are the F-35, Super Hornet, Typhoon and Gripen E.
So I cannot see how the F-35 won't get to compete.

But lets be realistic here:
- The only two real contenders/competitors are the F-35 and the Super Hornet.

We all know where Boeing and its Super Hornet is with the Canadian competition (with the Bombardier issue and all - which will only get worse with the planned Boeing/Embraer partnership) so that leaves the F-35 as the only potential winner, this IMO of course.
Actually a recent tweet by (idiot) PM Justin Trudeau praising Lockheed Martin (and how it creates jobs in Canada) and also the fact that a consortium lead by Lockheed Martin won the Canadian future frigate competition seems (IMO) to point out that Lockheed Martin (and its F-35) are likely the favorite contender regarding the Canadian fighter competition.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 19:24

ricnunes wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:That's if the F-35 even gets to compete.


For what's worth, the competitors are the F-35, Super Hornet, Typhoon and Gripen E.


Oh, has the RFP been released and everybody made their submissions?

No. so there are no "competitors." Just interested parties.

ricnunes wrote:So I cannot see how the F-35 won't get to compete.


Then you don't have a understanding of the basic issues involved in this process.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/086.nsf/eng/00006.html

ricnunes wrote:But lets be realistic here:
- The only two real contenders/competitors are the F-35 and the Super Hornet.

We all know where Boeing and its Super Hornet is with the Canadian competition (with the Bombardier issue and all - which will only get worse with the planned Boeing/Embraer partnership) so that leaves the F-35 as the only potential winner, this IMO of course.


Not a relevant consideration to this procurement.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2209
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 19:51

hb_pencil wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So I cannot see how the F-35 won't get to compete.


Then you don't have a understanding of the basic issues involved in this process.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/086.nsf/eng/00006.html



LOL, in where does your link states that the F-35 won't get to compete :doh:


hb_pencil wrote:
ricnunes wrote:But lets be realistic here:
- The only two real contenders/competitors are the F-35 and the Super Hornet.

We all know where Boeing and its Super Hornet is with the Canadian competition (with the Bombardier issue and all - which will only get worse with the planned Boeing/Embraer partnership) so that leaves the F-35 as the only potential winner, this IMO of course.


Not a relevant consideration to this procurement.


Really?? Since when being NORAD compliant, 5 Eye's compliant or resuming being compliant with US Forces (namely USAF) stopped being a requirement?? Care to post a source which implicitly says this?? (and not some odd site which doesn't say anything like the one you posted before)
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23492
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 20:13

Eurofighter Typhoon to bid to replace Canadian CF-18 fleet
14 Jan 2019 Garrett Reim

"Eurofighter intends to pitch its Typhoon aircraft to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of Boeing CF-18A/B Hornet fighters. Eurofighter, a joint venture among Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo, was assumed to be one of the bidders in the competition to replace the RCAF’s fighter fleet with 88 advanced jets, but it hadn’t yet publicly acknowledged its desire to play for the contract. Simon Jacques, head of Airbus defense and space in Canada, said at a company event in Montreal that his firm intends to submit a proposal for the Typhoon.

“We are very engaged,” he says. “We want to propose the Typhoon, the most advanced new generation [wut?] multi, swing-role fighter on the market today."

In October, RCAF issued a draft request for proposal to replace its aging CF-18A/B fleet. Ottawa listed five suppliers eligible to compete: Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale; Saab, maker of the JAS 39 Gripen; Airbus Defense – on behalf of the Eurofighter joint venture, maker of the Typhoon; Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-16 and F-35; and Boeing, maker of the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle. Only those five will be allowed to submit proposals…."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-455004/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 20:34

ricnunes wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So I cannot see how the F-35 won't get to compete.


Then you don't have a understanding of the basic issues involved in this process.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/086.nsf/eng/00006.html



LOL, in where does your link states that the F-35 won't get to compete :doh:


If you can't figure out its relevance, then I don't know what to say. I've left enough bread crumbs here for you to figure it out, and I'm not going to spell it out any further.

I think enough people on here can attest to the fact that I have brought unique knowledge and perspective to this discussion for the past seven years. Insulting me isn't your smartest move.


ricnunes wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
ricnunes wrote:But lets be realistic here:
- The only two real contenders/competitors are the F-35 and the Super Hornet.

We all know where Boeing and its Super Hornet is with the Canadian competition (with the Bombardier issue and all - which will only get worse with the planned Boeing/Embraer partnership) so that leaves the F-35 as the only potential winner, this IMO of course.


Not a relevant consideration to this procurement.


Really?? Since when being NORAD compliant, 5 Eye's compliant or resuming being compliant with US Forces (namely USAF) stopped being a requirement?? Care to post a source which implicitly says this?? (and not some odd site which doesn't say anything like the one you posted before)


Did I (or you in what I highlighted) refer to any of those factors? You talked about the "bombardier issue n'all", which is what I was referring to not being a factor.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 17 guests