Derek 2.0

No, its a realization that, absent force multipliers (including the F-35), the USN has faced a capability gap since the retirement of the Tomcat, and will continue to until the introduction of both the F-35 and the 6th generation Super Hornet replacement.

Not quite......the Super Hornet has been marketed for over twenty years, over five of which before Lockheed even won the competition.........in the interim, there have been plenty of aircraft procurement programs (that weren't offered the F-35) across the globe, most of which have all passed on the Super Hornet or didn't include it.........In the case of the Malaysian air force, operators of the legacy Hornet like us, they passed on the Super Hornet in favor of Russian Sukhoi fighters......a rare distinction, a Western aircraft losing to a Russian aircraft. It has poor sales because those seeking a cheap capable fighter go F-16 (Russian or even Chinese), or more capable European types or the legacy F-15.........or like most Western first World nations, with the Finns and Belgium expected to join, are purchasing the F-35. Despite reductions in projected numbers (due to many of the differing causes as highlighted by you above) no nation has yet elected to reduce F-35 numbers in favor of another type, including the Super Hornet.

Without a doubt, likewise the F-16.......and one needs look no further then the evolution of both types to see how well the "lightweight fighter" concept panned out........the F-16 grew a humpback and the Super Hornet became a sluggish beast.

Exactly, the later 70s and earlier 80s was truly a transformation between the 3rd and 4th generation of aircraft, coupled with the last hurrah for many of the singular post-war manufacturers......as I've said numerous times, today's debates mirror those of that period so much.......

Mine might have been confusing........my point was that the Super Hornet, by comparison to the legacy Hornet, has done poorly with export sales......with its only current buyer (Australia) purchasing it (and the Growler) due to a proposed electronic warfare version of the Strike Eagle never being developed to fruition....in effect the Super Hornet/Growler was the only game in town for the RAAF............with other nations either electing for the F-16 (just as capable as the Super Hornet, but cheaper) or more advanced (and costly) European aircraft and now the F-35.

Not my point, quite the opposite, both the Hornet and Falcon did well with initial sales in a then flooded market, both offering nations cutting edge advanced technology in a then unproven aircraft...........its really quite surprising, when many nations could have went with the "proven" decades old F-4 Phantom or A-7 Corsair

And he is right, to date the only foreign sale is attributed to the proposed electronic warfare variant of the Strike Eagle never materialising......

And that would then be three for the Hornet versus five for the Falcon..............I added the Marines because they were one of the original operators, I didn't realize the qualification was for foreign sales.......in that case, compared to other Western aircraft's entrance into service in the late 70s and early 80s, in regards to foreign sales to original operators, the Hornet is no different then other aircraft entering service in that time frame (F-16, F-15, Tornado etc)..........The Super Hornet was the disappointment, with nations largely going with the latest block of the F-16 or even F-15.

As to original operators, the F-16 only started with the USAF and four European operators (Belgium, the Dutch, Norway and Denmark) and Israel .......once they added a halfway decent radar, sales flourished and the market for the more expensive and poorly constructed Hornet vanished.

USN, USMC, Canada, Australia and Spain all purchased the aircraft in the early 80s.......the others, nearer the end of production in the 90s.

I did.......its your turn.

I question it for sure...........it could confirm the Trudeau sole source, or could still recommend the F-35.

Nothing unproven about titanium, both in terms of its cost and durable strength........I'm not sure about the F-35, but over 30% of the Raptor's weight was titanium.

Yes indeed........I question why the Trudeau Government never released its findings.

No, USN "usage patterns" (Carrier landings and take offs) will create extensive wear on an aircraft's landing gear (Landing gear load factor) and associated shock absorbers, combined with material corrosion from operating in a saltwater environment. The center barrel upgrade is intended to address structural fatigue to the aircraft's "center barrel" (the aircraft's fuselage, what the the wings, engines, cockpit etc are attached to)........said fatigue is created by the high g-loading associated with a fighter aircraft, regardless of where it operates.......that is why the USN/USMC legacy Hornets and Super Hornets are/will going through the same "center barrel program" offered to Canada.......and Canada clearly doesn't operate aircraft from carriers........nor the Danes.

On the paper is an engineering outcome of course......with unlimited funds, one could design a life ten times that..........the difference, the F-35 (like most other aircraft) make extensive use of more durable materials (like titanium) in their construction.....the legacy Hornets used very little, and the Super Hornets make use of it in their bulkheads, yet both made extensive use of aluminum and composite materials as a cost cutting measure to reduce costs due to their intended interim status............The problem, started by Dick Cheney during his tenure as SECDEF under Bush the elder, is that the Hornet and later Super Hornet became the nucleus of the fleet for decades..........

And that.........is my point and the contention with the member that claims aerodynamics and g-loading don't effect aircraft that operate from land bases..........Super Hornets for the USN might achieve 9000-10000 hours with an extensive SLEP, yet he claims, (cite outstanding) that Super Hornets for the Danes would have achieved that sans a SLEP.

They didn't claim that for any service.....absent a SLEP.

Yes, and the implication is clear, Boeing is unable to provide a concrete number associated with the service hour life of its own product.......what is clear, the current USN Super Hornet fleet average service life is at or approaching 6000 hours, and they have reduced usage fleet wide, are undergoing a life extension program, sending some aircraft to the boneyard and attempting to purchase attrition replacements................to me, that does not indicate an aircraft with ~9500 hours of service life.

Without a doubt, and I'm shocked at the departure of their promised "open & transparent" process..........with that said, I'll await this Government's awarding of a contract. Simple, an interim purchase isn't needed and will cost billions, versus upgrading our current fleet that will cost hundreds of millions, well running a "open & transparent" competition for replacements........as noted by Alan Williams, from what is known, this proposed Trudeau purchase is bad for the military, bad for Canadian industry and bad for the Canadian taxpayer. Simply put, if not for the leak to National Post, this purchase was the exact opposite of a "open and transparent" process.......

Sauce for the goose and all that......ironic really, we've had years of threads on the F-35, with zillions of posts arguing against Harper's intent to "sole source" the F-35......when Harper did it, he was up there with Satan and Hitler.........if Trudeau does it, its "getting things done"

Among Republicans, one could suggest that.....say what you want about Trump, but he is not a social conservative......yet somehow how polls well among them.

Exactly.........the biggest question, absent the leak obtained by the National Post who first reported the story, was when did this Government intend to notify Canadians.........they speak of NATO and NORAD requirements, but what of their rinky dink defense review? What if Canadians don't share this Government's secretive agenda, which includes the sole sourcing of billions of dollars in contracts to Boeing? We sure heard about the moves made by the Harper Government and the F-35.........what do the Trudeau Liberals have to hide?

There's no need..........that's why they are performing a center barrel upgrade on the Super Hornet.

I provided one above......your turn.