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

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 03:41

go4long wrote:McColl


Image


viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=433499&hilit=mccoll#p433499

Even he admits the Gripen E is no CF-18...
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2860
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 14:28

XanderCrews wrote:In all my time I can safely say Canada is like an alternate universe of F-35 misinformation that NO other country really has, and its far more severe because even your Prime Minister (Trudeau) has been caught falling for it


Look, I agree with you.

What I tried to say earlier is that if LM's PR or initial PR around the F-35 was lets say, more effective then the misinformation that you mentioned would be somehow reduced or minimized.

I admit that I may have used wrong words in my other post and as such, would a better PR from LM helped prevented the current situation in Canada regarding the F-35? I would like to believe that yes. But of course it's also very possible that it wouldn't due to what you correctly mentioned which is the fact that military Canadian procurement is messed up (and I also fully agree with this).

However we also have to remember that Canada wasn't the only case where misinformation and propaganda prompted a JSF member to ditch sole sourcing and to launch a competition instead. The other case was Denmark which also ditched the F-35 sole sourcing in favor of a competition. Of course we can agree that in Denmark, military procurement isn't messed up like in Canada and quickly the right and best choice (F-35) was quickly selected there.


XanderCrews wrote:6. Amazingly successful Boeing propaganda


Above it seems that you (at least partially) seem to agree with me that LM could have done a better PR job around the F-35 or else (I believe) Boeing wouldn't be able to pull out such an amazingly successful propaganda.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 17:27

ricnunes wrote:
What I tried to say earlier is that if LM's PR or initial PR around the F-35 was lets say, more effective then the misinformation that you mentioned would be somehow reduced or minimized.


That's basically impossible when you have public officials genuinely trying to sabotage an effort to score political points. There's no amount of "spin" that can save that. the big difference with Canada and all the other nations (yes including Denmark) is that you have "opposition" politicians that are actually looking to make sure the "box is checked" rather than shredding the checklist as Canada did.

I admit that I may have used wrong words in my other post and as such, would a better PR from LM helped prevented the current situation in Canada regarding the F-35? I would like to believe that yes. But of course it's also very possible that it wouldn't due to what you correctly mentioned which is the fact that military Canadian procurement is messed up (and I also fully agree with this).

However we also have to remember that Canada wasn't the only case where misinformation and propaganda prompted a JSF member to ditch sole sourcing and to launch a competition instead. The other case was Denmark which also ditched the F-35 sole sourcing in favor of a competition. Of course we can agree that in Denmark, military procurement isn't messed up like in Canada and quickly the right and best choice (F-35) was quickly selected there.


Misinformation and PR and even propaganda aren't really problems providing the government and government bureaucracy don't collapse. The problem in Canada was that they were given validity, when officials picked up the idiot ball for personal ambition/political points. The way the game works in "not canada" is politicians (for various reasons, some honorable some not) basically say "well we don't agree with everything, but this is serious business and we shouldn't destroy our air arm over politics" and make no mistake, Canada has caused massive disrepair of its air arm.

Theres the old "if its not written down it didn't happen" and most governments work on this notion. in Australia some nutter went in front of some board and started ranting about the F-35, and the government official just basically threw water on the fire. "The F-35 is within all out tolerances outlayed for the project" and that was that. government says government is not exceeding itself in any official actual measured way.
APA and such trying to get F-22 was basically a nothing burger in officialdom. I read that Australia asked about F-22, and that was about it. They didn't launch any official reviews or any such. As far as the government of Australia is concerned the F-22 was never much of a thing despite the "tempest in a teacup" on the internet. What happened in Canada was officials made things official and started touching the hot stove and suddenly theory became reality. If one ignores this trash it stays as nothing more than internet fan fiction, if political parties pick it up-- and without any official organizations to slow it or kill the silly ideas-- ... well, bad news.


Above it seems that you (at least partially) seem to agree with me that LM could have done a better PR job around the F-35 or else (I believe) Boeing wouldn't be able to pull out such an amazingly successful propaganda.


NOPE!

what happened is since the F-35 was sole sourced it was the only aircraft that was officially examined. its really hard to "spin" an official report that says an F-35 is going to cost 40 billion dollars over the next 40 years and Boeing who has not had to undergo the same scrutiny can say

"we are cheaper than that!"

Take the KPMG report. they should have done similar reports with other fighters, if only to add some context. 40 billion dollars sounds like a lot, until you find out the other aircraft cost about the same or even more. but they didn't do that. since only the F-35 was on the table, only the F-35 had an independent audit.

Boeing was able to claim that their aircraft was "half as much" and there was no government report or examination that was publicly released to contradict that. the liberals took Boeing's false claims as truth and backed it to the hilt. It wasn't until years later when Boeing had to finally officially submit a contract that liberals learned that it wasn't "65 million each" or "half the JSF", but instead about 6 times more expensive than they had been told. they were claiming right up until Boeing officially submitted their contract, that it would cost under or around 1 billion. they simply took the amount of fighters and multiplied it by 65 million-- like f**king idiots. they promptly bailed out when the real cost was learned. People will tell you, and liberals tried to "spin" this themselves that it was primarily over the row with Bombadier, but make no mistake the liberals had no idea they had been bamboozled. they made panicked phone calls to the US trying to understand what happened-- and no I'm not kidding. LM couldn't simply say "yeah thats f**king bullshit from start to finish, not even the US gets them that cheap, and its illegal for the US to sell weapons for less than what the US government pays" even if they did, who would believe them at best they're biased, at worst its pure sour grapes

So again there is not a whole lot LM can do to "debunk" Boeing claims against a major Canadian political party. when one of the big parties take that up as the gospel and theres no official organization in Canada that is telling them that the Boeing numbers are simply impossible and untrue. That didn't happen anywhere else. Even in Denmark the situation was allowed to play itself out with the government organs able to "do their thing" and pick the winner via a process. the government didn't fracture, regurgitated propaganda and throw wrenches into every possible process to sow FUDD. They were apparently mature enough to know that people trying to sell things, say things, and its best to let your own people take a look before doing something retared like declaring a "fighter gap" out of nowhere and forgetting to even tell your air boss to play along...

its not even that the process was severely interrupted, its that when it was interrupted there was apparently no mechanism to stop the bleeding.

again this is uniquely Canadian. and other countries sole sourced F-35 without a hitch.

There is simply no amount of LM PR or spin that was going to save the F-35 in Canada because it was completely hindered by the truth (ironically?) while F-35 competitors were not only not beholden to legally binding numbers or truth but were officially embraced by rival political parties. its something ive ranted about here constantly The F-35 has official reports from a dozen countries submitted constantly about every dollar spent and every problem found, while aircraft like the gripen E which is the least known, highest risk, and least mature airplane are given a pass because 8 years ago Saab paid Janes to come up with a bullsh!t study that said a different Gripen variant cost 4700 an hour to fly. :roll:

Saab is the biggest offender by far of the style I'm describing and I absolutely hope they are finally outted in one of these competitions and their true numbers actually revealed. again its all fun and games and one can make all kinds of claims in public, but when the numbers are legally binding, they can't spin anything. it costs what it costs and does what it does.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 18:40

To clarify/expand on Australian position regarding the F-22: the RAAF made it clear officially several times that they did not require the F-22 but needed a STRIKE FIGHTER and of course the F-35 was suitable. For political theatre IIRC a new DefMin (recently vocal in opposition) said he sent a letter to US Government inquiring about the F-22 but we heard nothing more about this subsequently. As made clear above only the nincompoops banged on about F-22/bomber version.

There are links to news these reports most likely in the appropriate Oz thread: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 19:20

spazsinbad wrote:To clarify/expand on Australian position regarding the F-22: the RAAF made it clear officially several times that they did not require the F-22 but needed a STRIKE FIGHTER and of course the F-35 was suitable. For political theatre IIRC a new DefMin (recently vocal in opposition) said he sent a letter to US Government inquiring about the F-22 but we heard nothing more about this subsequently. As made clear above only the nincompoops banged on about F-22/bomber version.

There are links to news these reports most likely in the appropriate Oz thread: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043


exactly and I just want to emphasize, that what seemingly happened was a bunch of people online with no sense of reality were really thinking they were making some kind of difference on their crusade,

Image


when in reality in official circles it was never even considered-- like actual grown ups. at no point was the windmill ever a dragon except in the minds of delusional outliers.


theres a huge difference between "some idiot said something on the internet" and "a major political party is now aligning with the idiots and sabotaging a defense program based on surface level lies"


A Liberal policy document released Sunday said that at an 80-cent Canadian dollar, the “fly away cost” of each Lockheed Martin F-35 is $175 million, with maintenance and other costs bringing that total to $270 million per jet.

On the other hand, the Boeing Super Hornet’s fly away price is around $65 million at an 80-cent dollar, with the possibility that a large proportion of the maintenance can be done in Canada, the Liberals said in the document.

However, the Super Hornet “is merely used as an illustration of cost savings,” the party said, “and is not indicative of which aircraft would win a truly open and transparent competition.”



https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics ... nt-buy-it/

from another source:


While straight comparisons are never easy in military procurement, Kuwait's recent purchase of 40 Super Hornets for $13.5-billion raises questions about Canada's ability to meet its own financial targets for new fighter jets.

Read more: Breaking down the dogfight for Canada's next fighter jet

Read more: U.S. pitches F-35 jet to Ottawa as Liberals aim to replace fleet

The deal means Kuwait will be paying an average of $335-million per aircraft, a price that includes training, spare parts and engines, weaponry and logistical support.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals said they could acquire their own fleet of Super Hornets at a flyaway price (which does not include training or spare parts) of $65-million per unit; by way of comparison, the Liberals said the Lockheed Martin F-35, which had been favoured by the Conservatives, had a flyaway price of $175-million per aircraft.

Military analyst David Perry said the Kuwaiti deal suggests the Liberals were overly optimistic before they came to power.

"This cements my skepticism about the assumption that some fighter options are horrendously expensive and others are dirt cheap," said the senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

The previous government had set aside an envelope of $9-billion to acquire a fleet of 65 fighter jets.


note the 65 million dollar number. was never true but liberals adopted it as official policy.

I don't think Canada will pick the Gripen, Canada has distressingly made the internet mob closer than they have ever come in terms of something "actually happening" with it though-- doesn't mean it will, but again only Canada has seriously entertained this madness. everywhere else this is just fanfiction but when you have the liberals doing what they're doing and the conservatives blowing the defense and yes the PR too, then there is a chance for further stupidity.

I'm trying to emphasize the importance of perception of the internet aviation mob. if you asked APA I'm sure they were convinced they were making a difference. but at no point was Australia ever going to buy F-22s, convert 747s to fuel tankers, or create the super F-111 with F-22 engines. they might as well be talking about nuclear propelled saturn V rockets in their "modest proposals" they were never ever close at all. never officially considered. in fact, I think they would be pained to learn how many people in uniform had never even heard of their dumb idea or who they even were. but if you asked them, they were on verge of revolutionizing the Australian military.

"the F-35 will be canceled any day now" like i've been hearing for 20 years.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 20:15

Thanks for your overall view of the Canadian FRABUP 'zander'. IIRC the APA mob (or the main protagonists) were invested in their idea of converting Oz (& boneyard) F-111s into superduperwundermachina which they would control/profit from.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 21:46

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for your overall view of the Canadian FRABUP 'zander'. IIRC the APA mob (or the main protagonists) were invested in their idea of converting Oz (& boneyard) F-111s into superduperwundermachina which they would control/profit from.



turns out a Super F-111 and a 65 million dollar Super Hornet are both equally fictional, but only one government went for the "too good to be true" idea and made it an official plan.

it was 65 million each. (election promise)

then it was 77 million (USN FY17 flyaway)

then it was 88 million to 110 million(1.5-2 billion total) https://globalnews.ca/news/3427375/super-hornet-vs-f35/

then it was finally $6.4-billion on the sale of 18 Super Hornet jets (355 million full procurement cost )

The pure irony as the liberals claimed for years that the F-35 was not only hugely costly, but that the price escalation was completely scandalous and unforgivable politically is hilarious. I'm actually in some ways amazed they actually had the "decency" to bail out of it, I guess even their hypocrisy has its limits.

if you look at Finland, they did RFIs for SH, F-35, and Gripen E and all of their RFI's came out between $11-12 billion for 64 aircraft. which was 10-20 percent over their $10 billion budget. whats the point of "cheap" fighters that also blow the budget?

if Gripen E is the low end of 11 billion, and F-35 is the high end at 12 billion, that's a difference of less than 10 percent between the uber expenisve F-35 and the worlds cheapest airplane in human history Gripen E. There is simply no savings to be had. The F-35 got cheap enough that it competes with the "cheapest" rivals, SH and Gripen by less than 10 percent.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 05 Jan 2021, 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

go4long

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 21:53

I honestly think that in that case we lucked out on the Bombardier/Boeing spat as it gave the government political cover to walk away from their "super cheap and such a great idea" purchase of the Super Hornet which they would almost certainly have used as their justification to replace the legacy hornets with supers when we replaced the rest of the fleet.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 21:59

go4long wrote:I honestly think that in that case we lucked out on the Bombardier/Boeing spat as it gave the government political cover to walk away from their "super cheap and such a great idea" purchase of the Super Hornet which they would almost certainly have used as their justification to replace the legacy hornets with supers when we replaced the rest of the fleet.


agreed
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 05:34

XanderCrews wrote:A Liberal policy document released Sunday said that at an 80-cent Canadian dollar, the “fly away cost” of each Lockheed Martin F-35 is $175 million, with maintenance and other costs bringing that total to $270 million per jet.

On the other hand, the Boeing Super Hornet’s fly away price is around $65 million at an 80-cent dollar, with the possibility that a large proportion of the maintenance can be done in Canada, the Liberals said in the document.

However, the Super Hornet “is merely used as an illustration of cost savings,” the party said, “and is not indicative of which aircraft would win a truly open and transparent competition.”



https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics ... nt-buy-it/

from another source:


While straight comparisons are never easy in military procurement, Kuwait's recent purchase of 40 Super Hornets for $13.5-billion raises questions about Canada's ability to meet its own financial targets for new fighter jets.

Read more: Breaking down the dogfight for Canada's next fighter jet

Read more: U.S. pitches F-35 jet to Ottawa as Liberals aim to replace fleet

The deal means Kuwait will be paying an average of $335-million per aircraft, a price that includes training, spare parts and engines, weaponry and logistical support.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals said they could acquire their own fleet of Super Hornets at a flyaway price (which does not include training or spare parts) of $65-million per unit; by way of comparison, the Liberals said the Lockheed Martin F-35, which had been favoured by the Conservatives, had a flyaway price of $175-million per aircraft.

Military analyst David Perry said the Kuwaiti deal suggests the Liberals were overly optimistic before they came to power.

"This cements my skepticism about the assumption that some fighter options are horrendously expensive and others are dirt cheap," said the senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

The previous government had set aside an envelope of $9-billion to acquire a fleet of 65 fighter jets.


note the 65 million dollar number. was never true but liberals adopted it as official policy.


The $65m was always a BS number, as is the $175m flyaway for the f-35. What sounds a correct F-35 number is "with maintenance and other costs bringing that total to $270 million per jet."

Our Super Hornet were a similar price of $6B for 24. or $250m. It makes the F-35 is a cheap jet.
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C2B ... 50568C22C9
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 06:38

optimist wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:A Liberal policy document released Sunday said that at an 80-cent Canadian dollar, the “fly away cost” of each Lockheed Martin F-35 is $175 million, with maintenance and other costs bringing that total to $270 million per jet.

On the other hand, the Boeing Super Hornet’s fly away price is around $65 million at an 80-cent dollar, with the possibility that a large proportion of the maintenance can be done in Canada, the Liberals said in the document.

However, the Super Hornet “is merely used as an illustration of cost savings,” the party said, “and is not indicative of which aircraft would win a truly open and transparent competition.”



https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics ... nt-buy-it/

from another source:


While straight comparisons are never easy in military procurement, Kuwait's recent purchase of 40 Super Hornets for $13.5-billion raises questions about Canada's ability to meet its own financial targets for new fighter jets.

Read more: Breaking down the dogfight for Canada's next fighter jet

Read more: U.S. pitches F-35 jet to Ottawa as Liberals aim to replace fleet

The deal means Kuwait will be paying an average of $335-million per aircraft, a price that includes training, spare parts and engines, weaponry and logistical support.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals said they could acquire their own fleet of Super Hornets at a flyaway price (which does not include training or spare parts) of $65-million per unit; by way of comparison, the Liberals said the Lockheed Martin F-35, which had been favoured by the Conservatives, had a flyaway price of $175-million per aircraft.

Military analyst David Perry said the Kuwaiti deal suggests the Liberals were overly optimistic before they came to power.

"This cements my skepticism about the assumption that some fighter options are horrendously expensive and others are dirt cheap," said the senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

The previous government had set aside an envelope of $9-billion to acquire a fleet of 65 fighter jets.


note the 65 million dollar number. was never true but liberals adopted it as official policy.


The $65m was always a BS number, as is the $175m flyaway for the f-35. What sounds a correct F-35 number is "with maintenance and other costs bringing that total to $270 million per jet."

Our Super Hornet were a similar price of $6B for 24. or $250m. It makes the F-35 is a cheap jet.
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C2B ... 50568C22C9



well F-35 was never 175 million "flyaway" either. KPMG's numbers had it at about 138 milion per F-35, if you divide 9 billion by 65 aircraft, (basic level of "cost" but more formally known as "procurement cost") and then averaged an 88 million dollar flyaway cost. The liberals screwed up their definitions and lied about numbers, then were humilated when they had to actually pull the trigger and bought used F-18s with cool Kangaroo "stickers" on them instead :mrgreen:

It was way back in 2013 that some Aussie gave Sweetman a gut punch when Australian National Audit Office pegged the F-35 as cheaper than SH and sweetman had to sputter out every Australianism he could think of about the land down under having ridden too many kangaroos or something retarded.

always funny to catch him flat footed and have him grab for something to steady himself.
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 07:03

ANAO has total acquisition of 72 F-35A at A$15.5b or $215 ea. With another A$4.6 till 2025. I think this does the infrastructure too.
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... ustainment

It's a shame the internet isn't a safe record. AvWeek deleted a lot of wonderful stuff from Sweetman. It should have gone down in history. I don't know what year I started playing with him and Goon there. I remember the drunken email Sweetman sent to SLD, that was a strange one.

I was there before 2011 and this was the letter/email
http://www.sldforum.com/2011/09/message ... he-editor/
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2860
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 13:58

@Xander,

Again, I agree with you and I also agree that in Canada there's too much political interference when it comes to major military equipment purchases like fighter aircraft, ships, maritime helicopters (i.e. 'Cadillac helicopter'), etc... which becomes a 'political weapon' specially and during federal elections which is kinda different from some other western countries where the major political parties are usually in agreement when it comes to these subjects, something which indeed sucks in Canada.

While and now, I also don't disagree with you that even if LM did a 'better PR job' that the Canada's F-35 purchase would still be f***ed up (sorry for the expression) I still think that a not so good initial PR by LM helped to 'add a layer' of misinformation around the F-35 and which 'popped up' not only in Canada but specially and above all, worldwide.
For instance I remember out of my head the "F-35 was like the F-105" or a "XXI century F-105" narrative :doh:
If LM started a better PR sooner probably (like starting airshows much sooner which are now common or putting some emphasis on the aircraft's agility, etc...) then I like to believe that we would have been spared of lots of nonsense about the F-35 such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph above and this is basically my main 'initial poor PR by LM' point (but probably the Canada example wasn't a good example to my 'narrative', I admit)
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 17:00

ricnunes wrote:@Xander,

Again, I agree with you and I also agree that in Canada there's too much political interference when it comes to major military equipment purchases like fighter aircraft, ships, maritime helicopters (i.e. 'Cadillac helicopter'), etc... which becomes a 'political weapon' specially and during federal elections which is kinda different from some other western countries where the major political parties are usually in agreement when it comes to these subjects, something which indeed sucks in Canada.

While and now, I also don't disagree with you that even if LM did a 'better PR job' that the Canada's F-35 purchase would still be f***ed up (sorry for the expression) I still think that a not so good initial PR by LM helped to 'add a layer' of misinformation around the F-35 and which 'popped up' not only in Canada but specially and above all, worldwide.
For instance I remember out of my head the "F-35 was like the F-105" or a "XXI century F-105" narrative :doh:
If LM started a better PR sooner probably (like starting airshows much sooner which are now common or putting some emphasis on the aircraft's agility, etc...) then I like to believe that we would have been spared of lots of nonsense about the F-35 such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph above and this is basically my main 'initial poor PR by LM' point (but probably the Canada example wasn't a good example to my 'narrative', I admit)


I understand what youre saying I do. Its pretty much impossible to play the PR game perfectly. my point though is there are simply things that can't be spun (cost and delays) and things that are completely out of LM's control (somehow becoming so powerful they out screech the liberal party in Canada)

the F-105 thing was written in 2004 by APA

this is from aviation week 2011:


At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits...


...The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”


as optimist notes, Aviation week disappeared the ariticle a long time ago. (I would give my left nut to have all that stuff the last 15 years archived from there, especially sweetmans stupidity)

now, to bring it back to the subject: youre not dealing with honest brokers. There billions at stake. You also have "click bait" "journalists" who want to say the most inflammatory stupid crap to get clicks and drive ad revenue. this is not a "neutral" environment. Kopp and Goon set the standard as F-22 level of kinematics, theres only one airplane on the planet that does F-22 stuff, and its the F-22. so right out of the gate the F-35, who had a more "modest" KPP of hornet/viper (Viper is no slouch, and even Rafale and Gripen pilots have lamented they can't match it, as it is basically an engine with an airplane wrapped around it.) was behind the 8 ball. it had been declared dead before it was even really born in other words.

I'm sure they could have done more, im just pointing out you have people already chumming the waters year before even the first F-35 prototype (AA-1) flew. and years before it could be tested in full. its really hard to "get ahead" of stories like that. as far as LM and everyone who isn't a mouth breather is concerned the F-35 meets its KPPs. it pulls 9.9G. That's more than hornets of all stripes and it pulls more alpha than a Viper. That's what it is supposed to do. and for all the talk LM is still "hindered" by the truth. not many other people are.

When you're dealing with people that are that critical (lest we forget even after the F-35 started doing kickass at airshows people were saying the airshow performance was "fixed" and F-35 was flying with no fuel, or making note that its take a savvy test pilot like Flynn to actually make that work) you really can't please them. They're not supposed to be pleased. Their job and paycheck hinge on them hating it.

I'm actually surprised in some way the Liberal government even kept pursueing the SH, I just assumed that was another silly Trudeau-ism (like saying you will have an "open" competition while disbarring a participant) once that fell through the same thing, all the drama subsided, and what I expected in 2015 to happen came to fruition a years long slow cruise toward just picking the F-35 anyway. didn't think he would actually care about the RCAF anyway, and I was certainly proven right on that one.

its easy to say it, in 2012 a "reset" looked "prudent" in 2015 Trudeau might have some argument (Id disagree with them of course) but post about 2018, the F-35 is a done deal. now they just look stubborn and stupid. Theres no "deal breakers" with F-35 anymore theres very little risk in it anymore. theyve actually sold more F-35s than Canada was planning on buying in the time Canada has entered its "purgatory" phase. I know people will complain that theres some little gripes or niggles here or there with the aircraft, but its nothing. people stuck with this airplane when it was at 50 percent, why would they abandon it now that its at 95 percent complete? Turkey was program of record wise a bigger hit than Canada even now. It seemed like in the early 2010s a bunch of idiots thought the whole program hinged on Canadian Drama. no one even cares anymore.

look at BF4C they made up their minds a long time ago. The Gripen NG still isnt in service, the F-35 is with 600 built and do you think they changed their tune? Theres no amount of facts that will confuse their opinion
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 18:09

We’re down the road on how many years on smart phones? We forget the collective learning (that includes all of us) about commercial and social internet behaviors that has occurred since the introduction of smart phones. Back in the early days of easy internet access many, including important government leaders around the planet, were all too quick to believe the latest nonsense posted by some basement dweller with a opinion, and picked up and ‘re-reported’ by entities with commercial interests in generating website hits.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests