Derek 2.0

Simple, there is no urgent need, nor does our current fleet effect our operational requirements to NORAD and NATO........this meme only surfaced a month ago during the MND speech at CANSEC, the same trade show where its been established that Boeing has lobbied this government more than all other defense companies combined.

What's happened to date, is that the Liberal government missing a payment.............the contention still remains or clearly: Lockheed wouldn't have a leg to stand on with said "threats", if they had no contractual basis........as noted, the Harper government stated the damage to our industrial base, the industries association has voiced the damage to their member companies and now Lockheed says quite clearly, they will pull all Canadian contracts............yet the Waldo says it isn't so

Its exactly the same.........Liberals cancelled a defense contract based solely on an election promise, costs Canada billions and paid more in the long run then if they had of just continued with the original deal.

You'd be a poor wordsmith. Huh? Yes they did, it was even aired in the press last November. The RCAF isn't looking for interim crap in the first place. Clearly not......as a lawyer with a degree from a community collage would have advised against naming both the F-35 and Super Hornet in election material.

Right........because the EH-101 did wonders for the Liberals in the 90s

No, it doesn't......as any manufacturer can challenge the premise of the timeline of a contract awarded to Boeing......for example Irving or Seaspan couldn't have challenged (which they both looked into) the awarding of the contract to Davie, as the GoC had a demonstrated need (no AORs) and Davie had a ship in hand and was far more along then either of the other two (Irving had a conversion concept, Davie had the ship and concept) The head of our air force, under oath, has stated there is still usable time left on our current Hornets, further still with a center barrel upgrade that the Liberals aren't moving on (reprofiled funds?).....furthermore, Boeing would have to be able to demonstrate that they could deliver an interim aircraft faster then any other manufacturer............ In the case of a Lockheed, Saab, and Eurofighter/Airbus, all said companies have access to surplus (but lightly used) aircraft they could offer to upgrade and offer as interim types, far faster (and likely cheaper) then Boeing producing new builds.......then there would be the argument as to how long the other builders could offer new build interm types..... BAE (also a partner in the F-35) is currently producing the Eurofighter at the same reduced rate as Boeing is with the Super Hornet, well also having access (to offer for sale) to the remaining tranche 1 mothballed RAF Typhoons........Lockheed has also slowed the F-16 production line to a similar rate as Boeing, yet unlike Boeing, has a desert full of f-16s they could zero hour and upgrade, also able to export.......Saab has access to surplus Swedish Gripens etc......... The point, no, the Liberals have no leg to stand on in ordering a sole sourced contract for a "interim" type......when there are plenty of other options.......The Liberals citing the Super Hornet by name during the election would make this a slam-dunk legal and trade challenge give away......I can't believe how stupid they are.........they could have simply rigged the competition to preclude single engine type FFS or continued with the program dues and ordered a token handful of F-35s

And the contract that is the JSF program is being followed to term.....Canada leaves the program, the contracts leave Canada.

They will be forced out by the terms of the contract the previous Liberal government signed when we joined the program.....no ticky, no laundry. Lockheed is abiding by the terms of the partnership, Canada leaves the program, the program leaves Canada.........the field day for lawyers will be when the GoC elects to purchase the Super Hornet through a sole sourced contract........then not only Lockheed, but Dassault, Airbus and Saab etc will be able to sue the GoC, by the terms of Canadian procurement laws, and then their parent nations will file unfair trade practice challenges through the WTO........hell the Americans could even block the sale of the Super Hornet and any European aircraft that make use of American parts.

Canada has seen far more then has been invested.......

The Canadian economy has already seen near a billion dollars worth of work......far more then we have invested in the program......we leave the program, we won't continue to profit from the program........simple concept........having your cake and eating it too doesn't work when one is wearing big-boy pants.

It is truly idiotic..........and I've been saying this for years with regards to the impact on the economy and industry.......forget the economics, this will do to Canada's aerospace and high tech industries far more damage then what was done by the cancelling of the Avro Arrow........this will be Trudeau's legacy.

It doesn't work that way....Per our membership in the program, we're expected to stay on and purchase the F-35...why should Canadian industry get a crack at billions worth of contracts over those industries in nations that are remaining in the program? With regards to the legal aspect, the federal Liberals excluded the F-35 by name during the election, in addition, via international treaties, the Americans and European makers will without a doubt file legal and trade challenges through their governments if the Liberals elect to sole source the Super Hornet.......which they also cited by name during the election.......a huge legal f**k up.....if they hadn't of mentioned either aircraft and ran a rigged competition they would have likely skated, but they elected to get "political".

Sure or the Dutch.....Norwegians.....South Koreans.....etc

You're incorrect with such a blanket statement.....wing folds are engineered to be durable for that very reason............as to the weight, again, that is dependent on the actual aircraft .......compared to say an F-16, no operator once complained about the range or munitions capacity of the Phantom or Corsair II.......limitations associated with weight and naval aircraft are largely attributed to take-off weight with the use of a catapult....which required the aircraft to launch with limited fuel, then be topped off from a tanker once airborne......this naval practice proved so effective, land based air forces make use of it now, from everything as small as an F-16 up to the B-52..... That being said, the Hornet and Super Hornet, contrasted with many of their peers, including the aircraft they replaced (F-14 and A-6), are considered "short legged".

Never saw this coming: Combine the major hit to our economy, not only the dollars of it, but the massive high tech jobs losses..........with a follow-up lawsuit, which one can assume other industry giants will pile onto, and the Liberals political and legal misstep could cost Canada billions...........like I've been saying for years with regards to the industrial/economic implications and with the political misstep since the Liberals first made it during the election........Trudeau torpedoed himself.

That's not the case, our selection of the Hornet over the (cheaper) F-16 was based on the early versions of the F-16s lacking a radar capable of guiding medium range missiles......a requirement we had to intercept Soviet bombers through NORAD.

And said article is lacking in context, as full spectrum "stealth" was never truly intended to be a magic bullet, but a progression in capability..........despite night vision and other modern surveillance methods, armies still issue their troops camouflage.......camouflage in itself has advanced from olive drab uniforms of the first world war to the modern digital patterns we see today.........stealth is merely camouflage. With regards to the CNO remarks, he was addressing the notion that the USN can't only rely upon "stealth" (be the stealth of a sub, a modern destroyer or an aircraft) to deliver short ranged weapons, instead the entire force needs to address its shortfall in longer range standoff munitions. Inversely, aircraft designed for naval service, with the very attributes that you mentioned (in addition to an overall stronger airframe) will typically last longer (when used from shore bases) then aircraft designed for land bases.....case in point, the "longevity" of our Hornets and those of the USMC (which do operate partially from carriers) versus the USN's hornets of the same vintage (largely all retired now).........or the F-4 Phantom, which still serves several first world nations air forces, due in part to its rugged naval design....in many cases out lasting far newer land based aircraft like the F-16 and Mirage III....

Not much of a defense.......nations with far smaller economies manage to maintain a capable military.

Why is this being revisited and spun yet again? As clearly indicated and cited several years, both the actual remarks from the speech and their transcripts, the CNO was clearly talking in context of the entire USN's platforms (sub/surface/air launched munitions) and their current reliance on namely short range weapons, and the few remaining stand-off weapon types they currently employ (Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles) trace their linage to the early 70s and late 60s................

Fair enough, the blog article through implication suggested the F-35's capabilities as in its end state.......when in actual fact, said series of testing (as cited in the second link) wasn't even the end of the beginning state, in determining the safety (control laws) limits of the F-35's avionics.........as mentioned in the actual cited report, the aircraft operated in predictable patterns (as intended to determine a baseline), well lacking any of the actual force multipliers (as was the case with the f-16 also) and munitions the aircraft would be carrying into actual combat. Not at all, quite the opposite in fact.....as I spoke to above, the lacking of context was associated with the reporting of the series of tests.........from what the pilot mentioned with regards to conservative control limits, contrasted with the Norwegian's experience over a year later, it would indicate that the recommended alterations to said flight control limits (from the first test) were implemented........hence the initial test, along with many other prior and in-between, achieved its intent.

The same nations since the start (USA/UK/Canada/Australia/Netherlands/Norway/Denmark/Italy/Turkey), in addition to those that have since joined (Japan/South Korea/Israel) and those that are expected to join (Singapore/Belgium/Finland/Spain/Poland). As to eventual, total, numbers, I have no way of knowing with a production expected to last for the next 20+ years will result in..........as cited earlier, there are currently ~160-170 LRIP aircraft in various services......Which is more then the combined total of Rafales and Gripen NGs presently flying.......and about 1/3rd of the current total production of the Eurofighter or the Super Hornet.......and this is an aircraft yet to even enter full production.

Yes, several links: The Actual report that your blog cited: And in English, what high Angle of Attack (AoA) means...........as to the Norwegian link, there should be no reason to use a translator, scroll further down (half way) the page and the piece is repeated in English.

And that is the question that Waldo (and OGFT) have refused to answer, namely how all these air forces have been "duped" and keep selecting the F-35......and not the Super Hornet.

I have no need of an excuse, as said blog post lacked context (as we already hashed), in that said flight testing was intended to set the control laws of the aircraft's avionics..........inversely, you've been remiss in addressing the comments of the Norwegian air force pilot: