Derek 2.0

I would hope so........for shits and giggles, see what the cellphone salesmen says about the RAAF's purchase of the Super Hornet.....and the aircraft itself

Fair enough, but then the intricacies of the Australian defense establishments are probably not a worldly interest of many

I know, and she would be wrong.

Not in regards to tactical fighters, as in replacing their legacy Hornets.........their new subs will without a doubt be the cornerstone of their defense plan, both in terms of cost and capability, leading their military in both long range strike and surveillance, forces wide. There are certainly pluses and minus for submarines versus an airborne asset..........range and accessibility being key, as ~80% of the World's population live within 100kms of an ocean.......inversely, an aircraft is far more flexible in a great many more roles, likewise once an aircraft expends all its munitions, its back to base for a reload and refuel....verses a sub, which is return to port or a tender to reload (and refuel since RAN's subs will be diesels).

And that is my point, without a doubt, the STOVL requirement as required by the Clinton Administration, added to the costs and delays in the early stages of the program, nearly resulting in the STOVL being cancelled...........over course, the physical engineering difficulties are now largely in the past, with remaining hurdles being that of software.

Indeed, she's also a graduate of RMC..........she rehashes many of the points that we've being going over for years, but well put together none the less.

TBD.......as its TBD today, as to what will replace the Super Hornets in RAAF service........if I were to guess, based on the recently awarded sub contract worth zillions, I'll go with SLCM for $1000 Alex

Compromised in the sense that the requirement greatly increased difficultly, which led directly to delays with the program.

Nice dodge, of course you're not playing........if the reports of a sole source contract are true, the Trudeau Liberals have royally f**ked themselves legally and politically

Again, thats not the case, the RAAF, since they acquired retired SAC FB-111s (from the Cold War draw down) in the 90s, had intended to operate their fleet into the 2020s then to be replaced by another system in long range strike..........per historic, operating a bastard fleet after the Americans retired theirs, forced the RAAF to retire them........they selected the Super Hornet/Growler over (more suitable) F-15E Strike Eagles due to the requirement for an electronic warfare variant (which there isn't among the F-15 family) or even a USAF offer of surplus B-1 bombers due to operating costs. For the RAAF, the F-111 and their legacy hornets are apples to oranges, as are their replacements.

That's subjective, they both planned to share the base airframe and engineering with the production design........the Boeing design leveraged their adopted Harrier's lift system, the problem, their aircraft as designed was too heavy to ever incorporate it.......Boeing's STOVL design lost them the entire competition.

What information? I'm asking a question, despite the comments from the head of the RCAF or Alan Williams, what is this government justification for an interim purchase, and sole sourced one at that? (assuming this government intends to sole source said purchase)

No, it isn't, we've been through this.........the USAF retirement a decade earlier, of their F-111 fleet, increased the costs for the RAAF to maintain their fleet...they sought and purchased Super Hornets/Growlers long before the F-35 was ever expected to be in service.

So why is an interim purchase required? And why the speculated (denied by Government) sole source purchase to Boeing, the same company that has lobbied more this year then all other contractors combined, including directly with the Trudeau PMO?

Of course, the Boeing X-32 made out much worse..........the X-32 wasn't able to even meet the requirement of vertical flight with all up weight, and still suffered potentially lethal compressor stalls......

Negative Ghostrider........as we've gone through numerous times, the Aussie purchase of the Super Hornet/Growler was to replace their F-111 bomber, fulfilling their long range strike requirement.........which itself has yet to be determined on what platform will fill this role into the future......be it sub launched cruise missiles, naval aviation in the form of the F-35B aboard their Canberra class LHD or additional F-35s and air launched cruise missiles........ To Argus's question, the Super Hornet (or any other type) has yet to best the F-35 in any competition they were both apart of.

What reasons? That Boeing claims the Danes based their selection on "flawed data".......data that saw the Super Hornet loose. You speak to being "ready", even though the IOC for the F-35A is this summer, but Boeing has yet to resolve the Super Hornets oxygen generation system problem........why would the Trudeau Government sole source a contract worth billions for an aircraft that has a faulty (and unresolved) oxygen system problem, that could result in loss of life?

I did, numerous times.......lest say I'm out to lunch though.......are you suggesting the Danes and Finns are to?

Interesting find, Boeing has been directly lobbying the Trudeau PMO..........odd that, but then, Trudeau elected to make the F-35 an election issue, and used the boneheaded move of naming it and the Super Hornet in political material......... Then there is this out today: I've been saying for months the preclusion of the F-35 during the election would bite the Trudeau government in the ass........likewise, the inclusion of the Super Hornet in the same election material........and now they (maybe?) have been talking about sole sourcing the Super Hornet and Boeing has been lobbying Trudeau's staff directly.........and that's just Lockheed, you can bet that Airbus/Eurofighter, Dassault and Saab will be lining up behind the lawsuits and trade challenges.........who knows, the Chinese and Russians might even get in on the action. Do the Trudeau Liberals even have a legal team? This could make the 1/2 billion wasted on the EH-101 look like peanuts.....

No, it was forced on the USN due to Clinton era budget cuts.........in the case of the F-14, the USN had intended to procure the "Super Tomcat", which would have incorporated engines based of the F-22s, a new radar and a fully digital avionics suite..........the "Super Hornet" was only ever intended as an interim fix, using the legacy hornets same engines, to replace the then aging A-6E fleet.

Not dodgy, but easily explained by the differing programs........The Super Hornet (F-16 and F-15) are subjected to foreign military sales fees, by US law, aimed at recouping development fees etc.....the F-35 program, due to its international nature, saw FMS fees waived due to the partners paying differing portions of the F-35 development from the start, which in turn allowed said nation's industries to bid on the F-35 contracts.

And Belgium.....which is likely to purchase the F-35 and continue its decades long integration with the Dutch.

I certainly did, in countless other threads...........forget what I say if you will.......but you can't bullshit your way around the greater price of the Super Hornet, found by the Finns and the Danes.

Of course, purchase price aside, the Super Hornet was designed with less than 7000 airframe hours (due to being designed as a cheap interim aircraft for the USN).....versus the F-35, and most other 4th generation aircraft, which have an engineered life of ~8500-9000 hours..............and of course, this is why the Super Hornet has received very little in export sales.....If your aircraft has 2/3rds the life of the others, but near the same cost, why would you purchase it.

And that was shown to you being dated information, the cost has risen due to Boeing's plant reducing its rate of production.......to say nothing of the required FMS fee, that could be upwards of 15-20% in additional costs........so the Finnish price, like the Danes (that also found the F-35 to be cheaper than the Super Hornet) price are what Canada would be paying.........to say nothing, as found by the Danes, the far greater through life support costs associated with the Super Hornet over the F-35.