Derek 2.0

That is true with any aircraft operating with extreme load factors.......that's science........been true since Kitty Hawk

Sure, with a center barrel upgrade.........do you have a cite to demonstrate that Danish aircraft aren't affected by G-forces to the same degree as any other aircraft?

Back the truck up........you said the "bulk" of the Super Hornet fleet would still be flying in the 2030s........big difference between that and the realization that the Super Hornet/Growler force will still make-up the majority of the force.........

Here As I said, basic math.

Where did they suggest they would be flying the "bulk of the fleet" until 2035, let alone 2040? If thats the case, and Super Hornets currently spend 40% of their time flying tanker missions..........why are introducing a new tanker in the early 2020s? Concrete? Basic math is fairly concrete in most circles.

But the USN is replacing their legacy Hornets with F-35s........

As I said, 9500 hours is the figure associated with the center barrel upgrade for the Super Hornets........Super Hornets flown from land or a carrier, flying the same profile and resulting g-loading will wear out near equally..........that's science.

The USN doesn't need anything told to them.......they understand the aerodynamic concepts involved, likewise, fleet management..........they didn't just reduce fleet wide usage for shits and giggles.

No need, they're well aware of basic flight sciences and aerodynamics.....

The biggest qualification is ~40%........the number associated Super Hornet flights in which they are tasked as tankers........the introduction of the unmanned tanker replacement or a combination of the S-3 returning to service will have the biggest effect on Super Hornet timelines.......more so then the purchase of attrition aircraft from Boeing.......... As you've said though, we've yet to see any numbers from this secretive government.

There is no flying the type for 35 years......the majority of the USN fleet has reached their 6000 hours or are approaching it in less than ~15 years of service.......even if they were able to double it to 12k hours, and reduced usage (as has been done by 1/3rd) they will be lucky reach 2030......that is simple math......any Super Hornet flying after that will be Growlers and the handful of Super Hornets obtained in this decade.

Bullshit......aircraft structural load factors on any aircraft are determined by how the aircraft is flown...~9500 hours might be realistic if the aircraft is flown like a Westjet commuter....carrier cycles and a maritime environment will wear out parts of the aircraft faster, namely stress on the landing gear and corrosion, but not to the degree that you suggest........case in point, the USN still retains aircraft for utility and training roles after they reach a point where then can no longer perform cat/traps on a carrier, but are still safe to fly from land bases..........or why a typical airliner or the B-52 can easily do 30000+ hours versus a third that by typical fighter. ~9500 hours is the figure post center barrel upgrade

Quite the opposite, I'm close friends with one of the engineers at Northrop's Integrated Systems and Aerostructures division, that was on the design team for the legacy Hornets center barrel upgrade and both Hornets center/aft fuselage production team....structurally, both aircraft are as sound, after years of exposure to the elements and decades of cat/trap cycles, as a '85 Ford Tempo.........if the upgrades were going as swimmingly as you suggest, the USNR and USMC wouldn't be facing a crisis with their legacy fleet, and the USN wouldn't be reducing operational hours on the Super Hornets and sending the eldest ones to the desert. The F-35, like most other aircraft still in production, were engineered with upwards of 9000 hours of life, discounting any costly upgrade program.....and even then, the USAF only finished retiring the early blocks of F-15s (The Hornets big brother) about 5 years ago, after 30-35 years of service, nearly double that of current Super Hornets facing a costly midlife upgrade, and only after ~30+ years of service was it found that a portion of the F-15 fleet was starting to develop structural problems..........after never receiving a midlife upgrade with a service life more then double that of the Hornets......... But returning to naval aircraft, the Tomcats and intruders, aircraft the Super Hornet replaced in the same service environment and roles, even still had nearly twice the service life, minus a costly midlife upgrade, as the Hornets......... With that all being said, assuming the Super Hornets were able to be upgraded to ~10k hours, at current rates of use, they will be lucky to make it into the 2030s, let alone the 2040s as suggested by smallc........simple math really, if the aircraft have used up their engineered lives in 15 years service today, less than doubling their service hour lives through a SLEP, will not produce a result indicative of 20+ years of additional service........

Apples to oranges, as the issues associated with the USMC's legacy Hornets are due to salt water corrosion is the filtration system.......problems not found in ours or other users......... overall corrosion is endemic among both the legacy and Super Hornet fleets, due namely to the aircraft being one of the first to make extensive use of composites, which resulted in McDonnell Douglas and the USN designing the aircraft on the cheap with reduced corrosion treatments found on other aircraft......combine this with the aircraft only being intended to be interim (cheap) replacements which led to the aircraft only be engineered for ~6500 hours of service.....there should be no surprise they are having a hell of a time with them. At the end of the day, the Super Hornet only got built because of the resignation of the Secretary of the Navy over the tailhook scandal, which resulted in then Sec-Def Dick Cheney appointing Secretary Sean "the Grim Reaper" O'Keefe......who was then firmly drinking the Super Hornet Kool Aide and the promise that it would be a cheaper option then rebuilding the A-6 fleet........this was further compounded by Clinton era cuts, and the decision to replace the A-6 and F-14 fleets with an aircraft that had less range then both, and was even slower and less agile then the legacy Hornets.....which then still needed a new engine, alterations to the aircraft to prevent "wing drop" and "buffeting", potentially lethal problems with the oxygen system and an engineered short lifespan............Sign me up There is a reason the Super Hornet is called the Rhino, and its not a term of endearment.

No, as the first people that would transition to another type would be namely instructors and more senior personal, followed by the newly minted and those officers/personal returning to squadrons from courses and differing postings.......from the establishment of the new type's school, there is no longer a need to train new personal on the Hornet......supply chains and deep maintenance would follow.......so one could take ~12-18 months to establish a squadron, which coincides with the retirement of a Hornet squadron, and build on it from there......all the while, the pool of spare Hornets & parts grows as more squadrons transition out....in reality, Canada could only realistically handle ~10-15 aircraft (a Squadron) a year, which would translate into about ~5-7% of the production slots each year.

already provided via the NP cite several pages back........for his full statement, I would assume Hansard? Maybe CPAC? I dunno, haven't looked. Again, I don't know who gets what when.......AFAIK, thats not public information. The best I can do, and not sound glib, is to assume this government were to order the F-35 concurrent with the upgrade sometime in this mandate.......worse case, based on our (far larger) Hornet introduction into service (from a far smaller production line) 3-5 years for the full 65 aircraft........ The 1st through 2nd year would see the establishment of a cadre of instructors and senior officers to stand-up our own first squadron, likely in the US, all the while, the initial batch of maintainers would be receiving training, concurrent with the standing down of the Hornet conversion training squadron and likely the schools........2nd through 3rd years, establishment of the first and start of the second operational squadrons, meanwhile the first operational Hornet squadrons retires.....etc etc Clearly the signing of the contract sooner rather then later would be ideal, allowing those slated to be the initial instructors and maintainers to start receiving full time training even before full rate production starts and we receive aircraft. .........the initial establishment of training and supply chains to allow the first operational squadrons or two would be the pain in the ass at first, but once its established, the rest will follow in its wheel ruts.....

I would have to see the entirety of his remarks to offer a more qualified response.....other then to say, from all the related media reports, its clear he is referring to current contracts. How long is a piece of string? That would depend at what point we ordered the aircraft etc.......of note, from one of the cited NP links a few pages back, it was mentioned that the US Government has offered Canada to jump the que in front of their orders to accommodate our Hornet retirement. Nothing has changed with the full rate production rates........Lockheed plant expansion is still slated for 200 aircraft a year once full rate production starts in 2019.........as to who gets what when, I have no idea, other then there will be some expectation of first come, first serve.......... Yes, that per the head of the RCAF, the planned Hornet life extension will give us five years to select a replacement........there is no reason that a competition couldn't be held, with the proper resources funded, within 18-24 months.......at such a time, the USAF will be on ~2 years post F-35 IOC, granting us a better idea of its then operational capabilities. Not at all, like a split buy, its merely a thought exercise for this discussion.........outside of an actual emergency, I don't see a need to justify a sped up, sole source, contract at all.........get on with it and do the actual long term replacement, run a political dog and pony show if they must, but an interim purchase is not required or a good use of resources.

I know, and as cited several times in past threads, the CNO's remarks were in context of the entire USN..........in terms of aircraft, if technological advancements reduce the effects of "stealth".........what does that mean for non-stealthy aircraft........The difference is clear........in regards to standoff munitions versus current short range munitions...don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Apples and Oranges, a period of transition doesn't require two separate training and supply chains, as the aircraft being drawn down has no need for such things and halts such requirements as the new type enters service..........versus a speculated partial replacement of the Hornet fleet, which would require two of everything (schools, supply chains, maintainers etc).

Where is the urgent need? The head of the RCAF has gone on public record as stating there is no need to select an aircraft within the next five years.

Was that ever up for debate? I cited the very reporting quoting Lockheed. Again, he is clearly referring to those current LRIP contracts that Canadian companies already are producing for........the Lockheed "threat" is clearly referring to far more lucrative production and sustainment contracts. No, we have a representative of one of the World's largest defense contractors stating the obvious......we don't purchase the aircraft, we don't get anymore contracts.............there is no "posturing", but a statement of fact.......... And again, per the head of the RCAF, there is no need of an interim type if this government elects to fund the Hornet upgrade.........granting upwards of five years for this Government (assuming its reelected) to award a contract via a "fair & transparent" competition...as it promised......... But for shits and giggles, let's assume there is a justified reason, say the Government is looking to expand its role in NATO and deploy additional aircraft to Eastern Europe, thus an actual requirement for partial expansion of our current capabilities...........Said "gap filing measure" could just as easily be filled by the far cheaper (then both the Super Hornet and F-35) Lockheed F-16, be it new production aircraft or recycled F-16s rebuilt and upgraded to the latest standard at a further discounted price. Though the F-16, like the Hornet family, traces its roots back to the 1970s, the F-16 is the cheapest to procure and operate, is currently the backbone of NORAD and has a near 40 year proven track record operating (and being based) in the Arctic (with the Americans, Norwegians and Danes).........unlike the Super Hornet........and doesn't have an unresolved oxygen generation problem that could result in lethal incidents. So why does it appear the Liberals, after a huge lobbying session by Boeing, appear unwilling to hold a competition for the "gap filling measure"......as noted by Alan Williams, competitions versus sole source contracts are both quicker and yield better results for the economy and taxpayers.......as the conditions in a competition are set prior to bidding, versus negotiating after the fact with a sole bidder. So who in the Trudeau government is doing the dirty with Boeing? Lockheed, BAE and Northrop Grumman choose their subcontractors......not the Pentagon, as the Pentagon doesn't produce aircraft.

That's just it, from what is being speculated in the press, the intention is to only purchase a handful of Super Hornets as opposed to replacing the entire fleet........aside from the initial purchase price, what are the sustainment cost going to look like? What will it cost to establish new schools and supply chains? The RCAF rejected operating two fleets years ago, and hasn't done so since the Freedom Fighter was retired.........

Exactly, there is no leverage.......Lockheed wouldn't "threaten" the Trudeau government, in the press, if Canada had one ounce of leverage....what would be the point?

There is no requirement to purchase any aircraft within this decade (out to 2021 per the head of the RCAF) if the planned life extension is funded by this Government.........allowing more than enough time to conduct their promised "open & fair" competition.........

Lockheed's "threats" and the Canadian aerospace industries voiced concerns are more than enough.