F-35 Purchase

[Argus]

And then it goes on to say how the Hornets and Super Hornets meet that need. Sooo......nothing about the F35 thanks.

Do you honestly think an aircraft which is decades old now will meet our need in thirty years?

Those aircraft will be a joke in 30 years, akin to the relics flown by third world air forces now.

[Argus]

Yah cause they only bought what 400 of them last year?

I notice the US Navy is putting out a tender for a new fighter. Hmmmmm. Makes you wonder. Also this article says the US wont retire all the Super Hornets until the mid 2030s that is more then 25 years away. So this only makes me believe you guys don't know anything you are talking about.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/super-hornet-jsf/

What the Americans do is pass those aircraft down to the reserves and national guard when they get old. They can do that because they will have the F-35 for front line use.

[Argus]

Yah it says the US Military you claim is going to rid of the Hornets in 10 years will actually be using them for 20-30 years more so your whole NORAD bs was a lie. Like the most of the stuff you guys seem to say in this thread.

Actually it said from about 10-20 years, but as I said, that'll likely be because they'll be passed down to the reserves and national guard. And our new aircraft has to last more than 30 years, probably closer to 40.

[Argus]

Again I was pointing out the lie that the Super Hornets will be gone in 10 years they wont. I was pointing out the lie the only plane the US will use in 10 years will be a F35 it wont.

Punked, when it says the 2020s and 2030s remember that 2020 is only 7 years away. So if we ordered these aircraft, we would just be starting to equip our air force with them as the US is getting rid of them. And our air force would be expected to make do with them for 40 years after that.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Derek L]

They don't pay 'even 1/3'. As I said, it's more like 1/12th. Also, since they're conscripts in for limited years the Chinese military probably isn't responsible for pensions and other long term health costs.

I know……And no, I doubt they have to take into account pensions & healthcare etc……….Even then, they’re stated figures still don’t seem to add up.

[YEGmann]

I know……And no, I doubt they have to take into account pensions & healthcare etc……….Even then, they’re stated figures still don’t seem to add up.

It was a subject of discussions at least fourty years ago: the budget of Ministry of Defence in communist countries was a small fraction of the total defence spendings. Military spendings were spread among many other ministies. Some had funny names, like "Ministry of General Machine Building", "Ministry of Medium Machine Building". Of course, there were "Ministry of Heavy Machine Building" and "Ministry of Transport Machine Building". All had their own budgets.

This was a principal difference with Western countries.

That's why the MoD budget of the USSR was relatively very small. I think the same is applicable to China.

[punked]

It was a subject of discussions at least fourty years ago: the budget of Ministry of Defence in communist countries was a small fraction of the total defence spendings. Military spendings were spread among many other ministies. Some had funny names, like "Ministry of General Machine Building", "Ministry of Medium Machine Building". Of course, there were "Ministry of Heavy Machine Building" and "Ministry of Transport Machine Building". All had their own budgets.

This was a principal difference with Western countries.

That's why the MoD budget of the USSR was relatively very small. I think the same is applicable to China.

Nope. Those were the lies told by team B to up military spending.

[Guest Derek L]

Nope. Those were the lies told by team B to up military spending.

What's the net effect of the state buying from the state?

[bush_cheney2004]

Punked, when it says the 2020s and 2030s remember that 2020 is only 7 years away.....

An important observation...but alas, when it comes to Canada and military aircraft...time just stands still.

[DogOnPorch]

An important observation...but alas, when it comes to Canada and military aircraft...time just stands still.

Plus, if a flight of Blackjacks wanted to, they could do an overflight of Parliament Hill on Canada Day with a pretty fair chance of not being caught...by Canada, at least.

MP: My goodness. Are those ours? They're huge.

Aide: I think they're....RUSSIAN! (dramatic music)

MP: Launch the F-18s!!

Aide: All active F-18s are doing airshows! But the 235th People's Liberation Army Air Force squadron based out of Vancouver has offered to send out some planes to take a look.

[waldo]

oh my! When the Canadian F-35 production ready "sweet spot"... isn't so... sweet, after all!

Previously, the Canadian government determined it would receive the F-35 during peak production – the so-called “sweet spot’’ that Defence Minister Peter MacKay and others have repeatedly talked about. That was to be 2016, according to DND and government officials. According to Mr. MacKay and others, the “sweet spot” is the year the jets are to achieve their peak production rate, thus coming off the assembly line at their lowest cost. Over the last year DND officials have extended the “sweet spot” to include a wider range, expanding the period to focus on 2016 to 2021.

But in a March 29 report sent to Congress, the Pentagon’s plan for near peak production rates for the Lockheed Martin jet is now set for 2018. In that year, U.S. F-35 program officials say they will be able to purchase 110 jets, according to a recent article by my colleagues at Defense News. By 2021, the production rate will hit 130 jets, which includes versions for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

So from that congressional report it appears that the “sweet spot” has moved from the original 2016 to at least 2021.

But there are concerns that the peak F-35 production year could shift even further. And Defense News is reporting that there are serious concerns within the U.S. Air Force and Navy about whether they will be able to afford the number of aircraft projected to be bought around 2020 and the years following.

Late in the decade, around 2018, the Air Force and Navy are expected to have a number of expensive programs enter production such as the USAF KC-46A tanker aircraft now in development. Defense News also lists other examples such as a new rescue helicopter and bomber. Will the U.S. be able to afford the F-35 at a high production rate around the same time or could the U.S., and ultimately the Canadian, “sweet spot” slip further because of budget issues in the U.S.?

[waldo]

holding a committee majority membership, the "open, transparent and accountable" Harper Conservatives refuse to allow the following persons to appear before the Public Accounts Parliamentary Committee:

- Auditor General Michael Ferguson

- Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page

- Defence Department assistant deputy minister Dan Ross

- F-35 project manager Michael Slack

- Public Works assistant deputy minister Tom Ring

- Royal Air Force Commander Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps

hey booster club... is there a problem? Is there something to hide?

[cybercoma]

holding a committee majority membership, the "open, transparent and accountable" Harper Conservatives refuse to allow the following persons to appear before the Public Accounts Parliamentary Committee:

- Auditor General Michael Ferguson

- Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page

- Defence Department assistant deputy minister Dan Ross

- F-35 project manager Michael Slack

- Public Works assistant deputy minister Tom Ring

- Royal Air Force Commander Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps

hey booster club... is there a problem? Is there something to hide?

When you build your brand on openness and accountability, this is completely indefensible.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When you build your brand on openness and accountability, this is completely indefensible.

Harper is still here. Net impact to chosen course of action, zero. At least so far anyway. No sign of the government doing a flip flop for now.

[cybercoma]

Harper is still here. Net impact to chosen course of action, zero. At least so far anyway. No sign of the government doing a flip flop for now.

Of course he's still here. Where is he going to go before 2015?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Of course he's still here. Where is he going to go before 2015?

Calgary. No really, I do mean Calgary. That will be an issue for Harper, if Redford crashes and burns.

[Smallc]

Calgary. No really, I do mean Calgary. That will be an issue for Harper, if Redford crashes and burns.

Extremely doubtful.

[Guest Derek L]

oh my! When the Canadian F-35 production ready "sweet spot"... isn't so... sweet, after all!

Speculation from Mr Puglise (and friends)? And what would be the result if we chose an aircraft no longer in production later this decade?

As for their idle speculation and “concerns” , the Boeing KC-46 deliveries will take place prior to said “sweet spot”, and the manned bomber replacement is vapour ware and won’t even begin until the 2030s, with current budget shortfalls, being addressed by further increasing the numbers B-1s going into early retirement/storage in the desert…….As for the CSAR Helicopter, look for ~100 PaveHawks being replaced by ~100 PaveHawks in ~2017-2018.…..Again, prior to the new “sweet spot”.

Again, these are all USAF purchases & programs, and wouldn’t effect the USN/USMC anyways, so I fail to see why the author mentions them………..

[bush_cheney2004]

Speculation from Mr Puglise (and friends)? And what would be the result if we chose an aircraft no longer in production later this decade?

Then the only thing Canadian Forces would be getting is the "wet spot"!

[Guest Derek L]

holding a committee majority membership, the "open, transparent and accountable" Harper Conservatives refuse to allow the following persons to appear before the Public Accounts Parliamentary Committee:

- Auditor General Michael Ferguson

- Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page

- Defence Department assistant deputy minister Dan Ross

- F-35 project manager Michael Slack

- Public Works assistant deputy minister Tom Ring

- Royal Air Force Commander Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps

hey booster club... is there a problem? Is there something to hide?

From quoted article:

In response, Byrne had been pushing for a number of senior bureaucrats — most of which have been working on the stealth fighter program for years — to appear before the public accounts committee to explain what they and the government knew, and when.

I wonder if, under said MOU signed by Mr Williams in February of 2002, said witness that have “worked on the program for years” would be able, under the terms of the MOU’s restrictions on disclosure of information, to provide any viable information to the grandstanding Opposition.

But what about this:

Committee members later agreed to select witnesses on Tuesday, but the Conservatives rejected an NDP effort to have the witness list prepared in public.

Conservative committee members could still agree to prepare the witness list in public on Tuesday and include the Defence Department and Industry Canada officials requested by Byrne.

But the senior Conservative on the committee, Andrew Saxton, refused to say whether either was a possibility.

"We'll decide that on Tuesday," he repeatedly told reporters as he sped-walked through the halls of Parliament.

So said decision is being put off till Tuesday? What an affront to Democracy, how dare they make the committee wait a few additional days……….And what is their contention about having said witness list prepared in public as opposed to private?

I will revert back to said MOU signed by Mr Williams, in February of 2002, which places restrictions on public disclosure of classified project information……..

[Guest Derek L]

Then the only thing Canadian Forces would be getting is the "wet spot"!

I wonder what the cost would be, from say Boeing, if after they close the Super Hornet line in 2014-2015, we were to ask them to reopen it later this decade and into the next?

Another factor that can be added, is that unlike the F-35, we’ll also have to purchase enough aircraft from the onset to equip a conversion squadron, in addition, purchase enough aircraft for a viable attrition reserve into the 2050s………So said initial requirements, of an aircraft other than the F-35, would see us need to purchase a initial order of 80-100 aircraft…………..As I’ve said previous, the RAAF purchased 24 Super Hornets for 6.6 billion………So 80-100 would be ~ 23 billion, plus the additional ~10 billion the “Tories had hidden”………

Edited April 20, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder what the cost would be, from say Boeing, if after they close the Super Hornet line in 2014-2015, we were to ask them to reopen it later this decade and into the next?

That would only happen if Canada also paid for mothballing the production tooling and fixtures, tech data package, etc. What makes it nearly impossible to resurrect is the loss of critical supplier based components. The delay would end up costing more in the long run.

Another factor that can be added, is that unlike the F-35, we’ll also have to purchase enough aircraft from the onset to equip a conversion squadron,

Right....waiting forever begins to incur other costs that could have been avoided. The CF-188 upgrade program is going to cost nearly $3 billion+ as it is.

[Guest Derek L]

That would only happen if Canada also paid for mothballing the production tooling and fixtures, tech data package, etc. What makes it nearly impossible to resurrect is the loss of critical supplier based components. The delay would end up costing more in the long run.

Exactly, then throw in the prerequisite pork offsets, and I fail to see how producing an out of production aircraft, is viable for any manufacturer……..If it’s to be something other than the F-35, we’d better piss or get off the pot yesterday………hence the Auditor General’s statement that it was already too late to choose an aircraft other than the F-35.

Right....waiting forever begins to incur other costs that could have been avoided. The CF-188 upgrade program is going to cost nearly $3 billion+ as it is.

Makes one wonder why we didn’t take our initial orders of Hornets in two tranche’s…….We were still accepting A/B Hornets well the C/D Hornets were starting to come on line with the USN……to me, it would have seemed more viable to split our initial order in two, half A/Bs (~70 aircraft) the other C/Ds(~70 aircraft), then per historic, during the budget troubles of the mid 90s, retire half the A/Bs (~35-40 aircraft), then instead of upgrading the remaining fleet to C/D configuration in the early 2000s as historic, replace the remaining A/Bs (~30 aircraft) with Super Hornets with a OSD of the early 2030s, and replace the remaining C/Ds (~40 aircraft) with JSF in the early to mid 2020s………

Edited April 21, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

Lockheed Martin doesn't want you to go for Brand-X (Boeing). They've already set up a web site with news of UK and The Netherlands F-35s being delivered for testing. Nothing beats that new car strike-fighter smell in the cockpit!

http://f-35.ca/

[Guest Derek L]

Lockheed Martin doesn't want you to go for Brand-X (Boeing). They've already set up a web site with news of UK and The Netherlands F-35s being delivered for testing. Nothing beats that new car strike-fighter smell in the cockpit!

http://f-35.ca/

Ahh, that's old news...I've seen it once or twice..

Meanwhile:

LockMart

Boeing

What’s more telling, is if one looks at the trending for both from the last year……….One would think all the “negative news” would have taken it’s toll……One would think.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Derek L