Derek 2.0

Yes and no. Yes in that the A-10 is very, very good at several niche roles (killing large concentrations of people in a permissive environment at a relatively low cost) and it couldn't be fully replaced by current legacy types or the F-35 in said role. No in that the A-10 can't perform the far more wide ranging roles carried out by legacy types and then the F-35. There are currently no UCAV programs (in the United States or Europe) that will see unmanned aircraft used in a "air defense" role..........the 6th generation concepts, that will replace the F-15/Super Hornet/F-22, likewise the recently signed next generation bomber program with Northrop, will be manned aircraft, with the possibility to be unmanned for some tasks........perhaps the F-35 will replaced by a 7th generation UCAV in said role in the 2050s and beyond, but the technology is not anywhere close. Fair enough...........how well does the Waldo speak Italian, Yiddish, Japanese, Korean, Danish, Turkish and Norwegian? I'll take care of the American/British/Australian/Canadian/Dutch requirements.......when's the due date?

Based on the new Government's stated intentions of continuing with the NORAD/Defense of Canada role, yes I feel I can offer some level of projection on future requirements. Simply put, if one were to completely divorce previous usage of our current Hornets, by both past PC/LPC/CPC governments "overseas", and assumed this Government going forward would refrain from said use, there would still be a need to address our NORAD requirements. As such, Canada will require an aircraft to operate out to the 2060s. Based on the simple fact that our lone partner will be operating the F-35A as their primary contribution through this timeline, synergies offered in interoperability, training and support alone should make our choice clear........to say nothing of positive effects on our industries and the ability, if required, to operate decades from now in a high threat environment under the auspices of NATO. As I've said before, when we selected our current Hornets ~35 years ago, with a requirement to defend Canada through NORAD and contribute to NATO's low-level strike mission in West Germany (ala bomb truck), there is no feasible way for the then Trudeau Government to have predicted their actual future usage as per historic.........such a realization should factor into our process today.

I suppose, as I said, if new information became known to the current Government, that would suggest the selection of the F-35 was the best fit for Canada, forcing them to change directions from a previous election promise, I couldn't find fault in that. Yes, I posted it several times in this thread.......

Sure, testimony before a governing body in the Westminster system is under oath..........you suggested a "vested interest" on the part of the head of the RAAF........does Waldo have privilege? Though I don't discount a given countries finances will dictate the course ahead in some respects, case in point the British or Dutch (which both had far larger air forces at the onset of the program, since reduced, ergo their requirement for a replacement), for the Americans, ~2400 is the size of the current requirement to replace in service legacy types...... If they don't replace the current in service types, the force structure will be reduced by attrition........there is no serious desire, from either US parties, for that........for example, US lawmakers refused a USN request to retire a portion of their cruiser fleet, likewise a refusal by lawmakers to retire the entire A-10 fleet from the USAF....even when the military itself wants to retire some capabilities, lawmakers find money to make it happen from with the couch cushions. As I said, if one were so inclined, they could without a doubt go to each nations Government/military websites etc and obtain said data to compile such a list........but for what purpose? In fairness, I do remember that now, I think it was LRIP 4 or 5, where due to Sequestration, the overall numbers were reduced for that purchase, increasing the average per plane cost as a result of lost production.

Why not build upon the NDP's suggestion, from a year or two ago, and build a pay for service daycare on Parliament Hill?

No, Lauren Harper quite her day job when the family moved to Ottawa after he won the leadership of the then Canadian Alliance.

Mark the date and time.......we're in agreement!!!!!!! And I thank you, as aircraft themselves, don't set the foreign policy agenda of Canada.

Of course, likewise, if the Trudeau Government recanted their F-35 meme would I (or the RCAF and CPC) oppose such a redress of "policy"........ Riddle me this Waldo, if the Trudeau Liberals, based on them going business as usual with the F-35, held a dog & pony show "fair and transparent" competition for a Hornet replacement, and it was determined that the F-35 would actually meet the needs of the RCAF, likewise, the program offered the most industrial benefits to the aerospace and technology industries within Canada, would the Waldo want a seat upon the bandwagon

No I don't.......ask the 25000 Syrian refugees to be taken in by years end. How much money is the Trudeau Government giving Boeing (Super Hornet), Dassault (Rafale) and Airbus (Eurofighter), likewise, how many GoC personal are apart of each other program?

Again, you haven't offered anything to counter the head of the RAAF's sworn statement, a statement that aligns with the stated price of the (production) aircraft by Lockheed..........If the buyer and seller are reading from the same "script", where is the disconnect? F-35 partner nations have stated requirements, requirements communicated to the DoD and Lockheed........despite suggestions otherwise in some segments of the media or by bloggers, often quoting the same troika that spearheads the anti-F35 agenda.............until said requirements have changed officially by send end users, then those are the intended numbers. I suppose I could, but why would I? I continue to tout lower procurement costs because with each LRIP block buy the procurement costs have decreased..... In LRIP 1 the aircraft were ~$250 million a piece, with last year's LRIP 8 the aircraft were ~93 million + $18 for the LRIP 7 engine or ~$112 million flyaway.........LRIP 9 and 10 should be finalized by the end of the year/into the New Year.......I will go out on a limb and predict said reduction trend will continue with both orders.....

Explain why the Gripen didn't receive a radar/avionics upgrade (legacy Gripen, not the NG) until only a few years ago that would allow it to use medium range/BVR missiles...........odd that the Swedes would originally incorporate a wide range of air-to-ground weaponry into the aircraft, an aircraft replacing Saab Viggen squadrons (another attack aircraft), but only incorporate short range sidewinders (the Swedish built version of) into a primarily "air to air" platform.........

Sure, based on the production cycle the RAAF will be receiving its aircraft (15 a year), there is no reason a Canadian order couldn't be placed in 2020-2021 for an out of service date of 2025 for our current Hornets.

Royal Saudi Air Force Typhoons are currently bombing ISIS.........

Based on this Government, as of yet, not leaving the program, well investing additional funds into it, I don't know that to be incorrect.

I did, and looked at their source data for such figures...........a blog

Why? Are you suggesting said nations don't have such requirements?

First said report draws from said other sources.....repeating incorrect claims doesn't make them right....... Reading said report's first table, they are comparing data sans an external payload........

Ahh no, said report suggests the F-35B, in USMC service, wasn't operational........before it was declared operational.....groundbreaking news

Are you suggesting the head of the RAAF is stretching the truth? Sure, a list of each nations requirements and industrial participation as of this year.

Not the slightest.......per the head of the RAAF, just over one month ago, they will be paying a flyaway cost of $90 million (AUD) per F-35A, which is the latest figures based on current currency exchange rates (Our dollars are near parity presently).

Exactly, in context of shipbuilding, the Royal Navy's nuclear deterrent will cost roughly the same as the planned program for high speed rail from England to Scotland.........or better put, more than any current planned defense programs for Canada......lots of money for only a 180 warhead arsenal.

What? Nothing from project ploughshares or Greenpeace? -------- Any comment from the Waldo on the Trudeau Government maintaining its membership in the F-35 program, sending officials to the next partners meeting in Italy in a couple weeks and committing to an additional $150 million in development monies? Sunny ways ahead for a Canadian F-35.......

Nope, but then you're not quoting the entire text, and more importantly, the context of his answer......which, as I cited several times in the other F-35 thread (and by cited I mean presented the entire video of said speech), Adm. Greenert is referring to a fleet wide context of systems and the USN's current deficit in standoff capabilities, from everything from sub or surfaced launched cruise missiles, to naval gunfire support, to munitions carried by its aircraft. No, reality........you cited a graph from 2012, at such time, the USN only had a handful of F-35B/C aircraft in its inventory.....of course the cost of operating a then test aircraft is going to be expensive. Furthermore, from your own cite: Thanks for confirming my point..........

As I was saying..........with that, a couple of passages don't pass the smell test: Not "fastest" in terms of actual speed, but acceleration, one of many advantages afforded by electric propulsion........ And of course: A report paid for by the proposed builder of the vessels, stating they will need double the money to do the job.........perhaps the Government should give Davie a crack at it....... ..........None the less, as I was saying, no new frigates will be selected inside this mandate.

It's Pierre Sprey, and he's far from credible, for instance, decades ago he also suggested the F-15 Eagle, AH-64 Apache and the Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs would be flops......and he didn't design the F-16 (or the YF-17, which became the Hornet), he was apart of the Pentagon team that came up with the concept of a lightweight fighter.........He never worked for General Dynamics or Northrop/McDonnell Douglas......... As to the concept of a lightweight fighter? Through the natural course, limitations on the early F-16 and F/A-18 Hornets led to them both becoming heavier and more complex through to the present day, to allow both aircraft to be viable on a modern battlefield....... No, the numbers you're citing are average hourly operating costs, which are a figure obtained by the actual sunk costs, divided by the number of aircraft in a given fleet........i.e, if you had a fleet of 65 F-35s and I had a fleet of 1000, my average hourly operating cost would be far less, even though my sunk support costs would be far greater.