F-35 Purchase

[wyly]

Don't be ridiculous. You may as well dismantle NORAD the way you're talking.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone else here is sometimes, but I really think you're having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.

ridiculous? really...then tell me when did a fighter jet escorting a commercial airliner have any effect on the outcome of a hijacking... Edited June 23, 2012 by wyly

[cybercoma]

and a Super Hornet is more than adequate for any third world enemy we may encounter on NATO missions, any superpower enemy with the capability of invading/attacking canada will brush aside 60 F35s, our country is too large and population too small to offer any serious opposition to any superpower that wants to take us out...the only defensive deterrent we could present is a nuclear defense...splurging billions on useless toys that make the military boys wet their pants is stupid and futile...

Do I need to remind you that I'm not a proponent of the F-35s? All I said is that we need fighter jets. Period. I also made a point above that has been in the news in the last couple days that the F-35s will not be ready before our fleet goes out of commission. We can't be without fighter jets. That's all I'm saying.

[wyly]

Do I need to remind you that I'm not a proponent of the F-35s? All I said is that we need fighter jets. Period. I also made a point above that has been in the news in the last couple days that the F-35s will not be ready before our fleet goes out of commission. We can't be without fighter jets. That's all I'm saying.

I'm aware you're not a proponent...just agreeing with you and adding my 2 cents...justification for jets is way over stated, civilian airline escort? no...meet and greet with russian training missions? no...fly overs in the arctic? no boots on the ground or choppers are much more effective... Edited June 23, 2012 by wyly

[cybercoma]

I'm aware you're not a proponent...just agreeing with you and adding my 2 cents...

Ah. I misinterpreted your tone. I thought you were offering the F-18 commentary to refute what I was saying.

Edited June 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[waldo]

I also made a point above that has been in the news in the last couple days that the F-35s will not be ready before our fleet goes out of commission.

yes, as I highlighted... it's been an obvious point, one not owned up to by either the DND or Harper Conservatives... once again a most egregious covering up of failure and required additional major expenditure - we already sunk $2 billion into keeping the CF18s going... can we expect... another $2 billion to be needed, or what?

... we already laid out 2 billion to extend the life of the CF-18s... get ready for... some more:

Further Life Extension for RCAF CF-18s Being Considered As Delivery of F-35 Expected to Be Delayed

“The planned CF-18 estimated life expectancy is currently 2020,” reads one email dated Sept. 21, 2011, and obtained by Postmedia News through access to information laws.

“However, the current Next Generation Fighter Capability project scheduled is based on the last of Canada’s F-35s being delivered in 2022 or 2023. CF-18 estimated life expectancy requirements are currently being assessed and a request for an extension will be made once the required date is confirmed.”

It also comes after the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the equivalent of Canada’s auditor general, warned on June 14 that allies are increasingly delaying their plans to purchase F-35s, and testing of the stealth fighter is behind schedule.

Both issues have consequences for Canada as the government’s plan to purchase 65 F-35s requires doing so when full production is already underway.

[punked]

NDP save transparency on F-35 as the government tries to bury it. Why would they want to bury something that helps them prove what they have been saying all along.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/109875-ndp-filibuster-saves-f-35-probe

[waldo]

The price quoted by reuters appears to be the simple purchase price. Ie, this is the kind of thing you and others have decried as fraud since you insist on the full lifetime cost of maintenance and operations, right down to the stickers on the pilots helmets be applied at the outset.

as stated, the article was offered in response to MLW member 'Derek L's' earlier reference to the amount paid in 2007 for 24 Super Hornets (which as I highlighted, were more than just Super Hornets... where half were provisioned to allow upgrade to the G variant)... in any case, it was an 'apples to apples' comparison in that the reference offered was a straight acquisition cost, as is the Reuters article reference. Acquisition cost compared to acquisition cost. Nice try... but try to keep up next time, hey?

Second, your cite states this is merely a stopgap measure until the F-35s are ready. Third, the F-18 super hornet is already a 19 year old aircraft with very old technology. They would be a 25 year old aircraft by the time we started taking delivery. Do you realistically expect them to be able to do the job for twenty and thirty years after that? You are talking about using an aircraft as the main fighter for the RCAF some 50 years after its development! By way of comparison, the F-14 was an excellent aircraft in its time. It was developed some 40 years ago, though, and no one flies them anymore other than Iran.

Another comparison would be the Starfighter. It was the mainstay of the RCAF in the 1960s. You would have us still flying them today? Do you think the Starfighter, being flown today, would adequately fulfill our defense needs and be acceptable to our nato allies?

you don't have a clue... you know nothing of what you presume to speak on. But when has that ever stopped you. The E/F variants (the Super Hornets) have undergone significant upgrade/redesign over the original F/A-18... the G variant has only entered into production as of 2007. That so-called "stop gap" measure you allude to has been overtaken by a realization that the JSFail F-35 may never be an affordable option... presuming it doesn't ultimately get killed, outright. As I recently highlighted, as specifically detailed in the latest U.S. GAO report, since 2002, the U.S. military branches have reduced total quantity procurement totals by three-fourths, from 1591 to 365... under a presumptive "push out" into some as yet "undeclared time period". Notwithstanding, the U.S. Navy, for all intents and purposes, has abandoned it's procurement intentions toward its variant of the F-35.

[Argus]

you don't have a clue... you know nothing of what you presume to speak on. But when has that ever stopped you.

You know, I used to know this retarded guy. He was big, and loud and obnoxious, and waved his arms around wildly whenever he got agitated, which was just about all the time, especially when anyone questioned him. His name wasn't Waldo, but aside from that you two have a lot in common. Especially with regard to social skills.

So you've evidently settled on the super hornet as an alternative. Maybe you'd like to price it out for us now, including lifetime maintenance, fuel, pilots salaries, etc., the whole deal, so we could evaluate the cost benefits. Not much point in arguing about which is the better plane without knowing about costs, now is there?

[Guest Derek L]

"protect our own airspace"... from what? At least you're not echoing the "first-strike" nonsense... as we have seen reflected by Canada bombing... bombing... in two separate "campaigns" over a decades period. That's it... a couple of 'bombs away' undertakings over multiple decades. In any case, for those die-hard, "gotta have a jet" types, we already laid out 2 billion to extend the life of the CF-18s... get ready for... some more:

Further Life Extension for RCAF CF-18s Being Considered As Delivery of F-35 Expected to Be Delayed

correcto mundo. Again, for the crew that just must have a jet, Canada could follow the lead of Australia - purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Now, in a most disingenuous mode, MLW member 'Derek L' through up the price associated with Australia's 2007 purchase of 24 Super Hornets... of course, what he didn't bother to advise on was that half of those were equipped to convert to the "Growler" version. In any case, this lil' Reuters ditty suggests what Australia would pay for another 12 of the Super Hornet (only) version - $1.6 billion. What you also won't read from the disingenuous types is some of the design direction Boeing is taking the Super Hornet toward... like being able to mount/launch UCAVs.

now, equally... for those "must have a jet, we have NATO commitments" types, would a Super Hornet meet those commitments? Yes or No? Notwithstanding the argument previously made that Canada could, alternatively, decide to become the world leader in transport... would this not meet those NATO commitments? Yes or No?

the devil is in the minutiae

Ahh, So you’ve finally mentioned an “alternative”…………….First, the Australians didn’t purchase Growlers (Uncle Sam doesn’t export those) but (12 of 24) conventional Super Hornets with the centerline and mid-board pylons pre wired to accept high/low band jamming pods (ALQ-99) of Vietnam vintage if the Australians should choose to include an additional purchase later and this same practice was also used with a portion of (Former SAC aircraft) the fleet the Super Hornets is replacing, the F-111’s…………

As to the est. 6.6-7 billion dollar price tag, that is costing including support into the early 2030s, at which time the USN will start retiring their fleet………Of course that figure doesn’t include full life-cycle costs like fuel, salaries, upkeep of airfields etc……..As is now the practice when taking into account the purchasing of the F-35 buy the Americans, Canadians etc……….As to the 1.6 dollar figure, as mentioned by Argus, that is only the flyaway cost without support……..But the point is moot, since that article was released almost a year prior to the recent Australian defence white paper…….

Of course, in fairness, solely basing the RAAF 6.6 billion dollar purchase of 24 Super Hornets into a deal for 65 airframes (~17.5 billion) for the RCAF wouldn’t be truly fair since there would be some economies of scale, and as such, I guesstimate one could shave off 2-3 billion to wind-up with a figure approaching 14-15 billion for such a fleet with contractor support for 20 years……..But again, this doesn’t include the “full lifetime costing”…………….

Of course, any future “improvements” to the Super Hornet will be financed by Boeing (And not DoD or the US Government) with associated developmental costs being passed onto any future customers, such as the case with the Silent Eagle.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ahh, So you’ve finally mentioned an “alternative”…………….First, the Australians didn’t purchase Growlers (Uncle Sam doesn’t export those) but (12 of 24) conventional Super Hornets with the centerline and mid-board pylons pre wired to accept high/low band jamming pods (ALQ-99) of Vietnam vintage if the Australians should choose to include an additional purchase later and this same practice was also used with a portion of (Former SAC aircraft) the fleet the Super Hornets is replacing, the F-111’s…………

Right...as you explained before. Don't hurt 'em too bad.

[Guest Derek L]

Since our aircraft will be out of commission before the Americans are ready to deliver, paper airplanes equipped with elastic band guns would be a more logical alternative at this point.

That’s not necessarily the case………The entire fleet won’t reach it’s “best before date” on a single day……..Unlike many air forces, the RCAF doesn’t spread out airframe usage evenly over the entire fleet, in essence, some airframes are ridden hard and put away wet well others are used sparingly, as demonstrated by us retiring Hornets with zero airframe life left in the 90s, or in the case of other fleets, what allowed us to operate our older Hercules transports for decades, Labradors and the Sea King.

Of our original Hornet purchase, we’ve lost some due to attrition (crashes), some were no longer fit to upgrade or became “surplus to our needs“ during the 90s defence cuts, some will be retired in the next few years and some will still have airframe life left when they’re retired……..

An additional “benefit” for the fleet management process will be the reduction of one squadron’s (Conversion Squadron) worth of Hornets once we stop training our new pilots and ground crew on the Hornet and start sending them to Florida (Eglin AFB) for their initial flight training on the F-35(Several Canadians are already “flying the simulator”), thus “increasing” the pool of Hornets for the two remaining Squadrons by ~20-30 airframes.

[Guest Derek L]

Right...as you explained before. Don't hurt 'em too bad.

Indeed, I’d be remiss by not mentioning the (lack there of) utility of a Spark-Vark/Prowler/Growler accompanying a strike package of stealth aircraft, be they F-117s, B-2s or the F-35.……..Kinda defeating the purpose

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed, I’d be remiss by not mentioning the (lack there of) utility of a Spark-Vark/Prowler/Growler accompanying a strike package of stealth aircraft, be they F-117s, B-2s or the F-35.……..Kinda defeating the purpose

Which just underscores the gross imbalance and ludicrous Canadian comparisons made for the cost and capability of American platforms. The U.S. Navy is procuring real F-18G's today, with F-35C's in the pipeline, and navalised X-47B's (UCAS-D) in the future.

[waldo]

you don't have a clue... you know nothing of what you presume to speak on. But when has that ever stopped you. The E/F variants (the Super Hornets) have undergone significant upgrade/redesign over the original F/A-18... the G variant has only entered into production as of 2007. That so-called "stop gap" measure you allude to has been overtaken by a realization that the JSFail F-35 may never be an affordable option... presuming it doesn't ultimately get killed, outright. As I recently highlighted, as specifically detailed in the latest U.S. GAO report, since 2002, the U.S. military branches have reduced total quantity procurement totals by three-fourths, from 1591 to 365... under a presumptive "push out" into some as yet "undeclared time period". Notwithstanding, the U.S. Navy, for all intents and purposes, has abandoned it's procurement intentions toward its variant of the F-35.

You know, I used to know this retarded guy. He was big, and loud and obnoxious, and waved his arms around wildly whenever he got agitated, which was just about all the time, especially when anyone questioned him. His name wasn't Waldo, but aside from that you two have a lot in common. Especially with regard to social skills.

you sir... are the last person to be speaking of social skills... I'll be glad to re-quote some of your recent gems within this thread. In any case, as I said, you haven't a clue... on one hand your F-35 reference is paper-work vapourware... on the other hand you most incorrectly referenced the Super Hornet in terms of the original F/A-18. Of course, when your boner play is highlighted you proceed to whine about social skills and your imaginary mentally challenged friend... bluster-bus!

[waldo]

Ahh, So you’ve finally mentioned an “alternative”…………….First, the Australians didn’t purchase Growlers (Uncle Sam doesn’t export those) but (12 of 24) conventional Super Hornets with the centerline and mid-board pylons pre wired to accept high/low band jamming pods (ALQ-99) of Vietnam vintage if the Australians should choose to include an additional purchase later and this same practice was also used with a portion of (Former SAC aircraft) the fleet the Super Hornets is replacing, the F-111’s…………

I've mentioned multiple alternative scenarios in the past... from no jets to other existing 4th gen aircraft. Mentioning the Super Hornets was simply coincident with your recent reference to the Australia purchase. In that case, you put up a figure and presumed to contrast it with the unsubstantiated DND/Harper Conservative acquisition cost figure. It is heartening to now read you actually admit the Australia purchase cost was more than straight acquisition... that it also included significant extended support. Funny you didn't bother to make that distinction earlier, hey?

I also didn't say Australia purchased the Growler, proper. I most definitely spoke to a conversion aspect (an upgrade scenario)... which, again, you conveniently left out of that Australia purchase cost number you presumed to suggest/imply was straight acquisition costs. How disingenuous of you, hey?

I note you didn't answer my question about the Super Hornet satisfying Canada's NATO commitments - yes or no?

before this next question, should one also bother to emphasize, as I read/understand, Boeing has never missed a scheduled delivery date... as I, once again, ask you to step up and speak to that so-called "sweet spot" for presumed Canadian F-35 procurement. What imaginary year would you like to go with Lockheed Martin actually producing Canadian jets - 2021?... 2022?... 2023?... or what?

care to comment on that $2 billion... soon to be $4 billion (???) upgrade costs to the Canadian taxpayers to keep the CF-18 flying while the F-35 continues its ever downward spiral into oblivion?

[waldo]

... and start sending them to Florida (Eglin AFB) for their initial flight training on the F-35(Several Canadians are already “flying the simulator”)

flying the simulator, hey? Ya, ya... funny how the South Koreans are put off by Lockheed Martin refusing to allow them to actually fly a 'real jet'... is there a problem? Since you mention Elgin AFB training... and refused to bite on my earlier slag... any update on just when all those pilots waiting at Elgin will actually be able to fly a F-35? You know, when that missing F-35 safety rating will finally arrive?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's Eglin AFB...not Elgin. Sheesh......

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120430/TSJ01/304300006/F-35-Training-Takes-Wing-Eglin-AFB

Edited June 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

This goes on and on, eh? Here's a nice F-4E vid since one got popped the other day.

Any idea the size of the gun that got it? 57mm?? Maybe 23mm?

[waldo]

Here's a nice F-4E vid since one got popped the other day.

wrong thread... have you forgot where to put your jingo-porn?

oh, by the by, according to DND, your Russian boogeyman... isn't!

[DogOnPorch]

Oooooo....a defence analyst. I wonder if he thinks that Hind helicopters are incapable of being used on civilians, too.

Meanwhile...that plane was shot down due to the Soviet era radar locking the gun onto the non-stealthy aircraft. But who cares, eh?

[DogOnPorch]

There's even a good possibility it was a KS-19 100mm which is OLD.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's even a good possibility it was a KS-19 100mm which is OLD.

Well, that's only fair, because the Phantom is old too!

[Guest Derek L]

I've mentioned multiple alternative scenarios in the past... from no jets to other existing 4th gen aircraft. Mentioning the Super Hornets was simply coincident with your recent reference to the Australia purchase. In that case, you put up a figure and presumed to contrast it with the unsubstantiated DND/Harper Conservative acquisition cost figure. It is heartening to now read you actually admit the Australia purchase cost was more than straight acquisition... that it also included significant extended support. Funny you didn't bother to make that distinction earlier, hey?

Where did I contrast it with the planned 14.7 billion Canadian purchase? In said post, I contrasted the Super Hornet with other “alternatives”

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20677&st=2550

I'll second that, there's:

Australia’s 24 Super Hornets for 6.6 billion

The Eurofighter at about 155 million per copy

And India’s purchase of 126 Dassault Rafale’s for $20 billion plus

And he’d prefer purchasing another, older aircraft type for similar money as the F-35?

Why purchase a 2012 Chevy for 20k, when you can purchase a 2000 Chevy for 18k?

Clearly, esteemed member Waldo’s only interest in “stealth”, is in the form of a cut in capability for our armed forces.

I also didn't say Australia purchased the Growler, proper. I most definitely spoke to a conversion aspect (an upgrade scenario)... which, again, you conveniently left out of that Australia purchase cost number you presumed to suggest/imply was straight acquisition costs. How disingenuous of you, hey?

Did you not imply that the 6.6 billion figure for 24 “Super Duper Hornets” was in fact due to the “upgrade”? If you like, we can revisit your passage, until then, this reference:

SUPER HORNETS WIRED FOR FUTURE UPGRADE

The Rudd Government has invested an initial $35 million to boost the capability of the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets the Howard Government controversially ordered in 2007.

After an extensive review of the Super Hornet purchase, the Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced last year that the Rudd Government was left with little choice but to proceed with the $6.6 billion purchase. Mr Fitzgibbon cited financial penalties and the risk of an air capability gap due to poor long-term planning, as the key reasons.

I note you didn't answer my question about the Super Hornet satisfying Canada's NATO commitments - yes or no?

Sure I did, in this thread or one of the others..........

before this next question, should one also bother to emphasize, as I read/understand, Boeing has never missed a scheduled delivery date... as I, once again, ask you to step up and speak to that so-called "sweet spot" for presumed Canadian F-35 procurement. What imaginary year would you like to go with Lockheed Martin actually producing Canadian jets - 2021?... 2022?... 2023?... or what?

Clearly Boeing never missed a “date” with the Super Hornet, a progression of an aircraft designed decades prior by another manufacturer (McDonnell Douglas) and of which Boeing acquired said rights……….If you wish to wonder down the path of other Boeing developments incorporating new technology and said “initial success rates” I’ll point no further than the Osprey……….

With all that being said, and as asked by myself prior, why didn’t Boeing, if it’s such a successful design, submit a Super Hornet and Harrier III combo to satisfy the Joint Strike Fighter competition in the 90s?

care to comment on that $2 billion... soon to be $4 billion (???) upgrade costs to the Canadian taxpayers to keep the CF-18 flying while the F-35 continues its ever downward spiral into oblivion?

I did in response to Cybercoma’s reference……….

[Guest Derek L]

flying the simulator, hey? Ya, ya... funny how the South Koreans are put off by Lockheed Martin refusing to allow them to actually fly a 'real jet'... is there a problem? Since you mention Elgin AFB training... and refused to bite on my earlier slag... any update on just when all those pilots waiting at Elgin will actually be able to fly a F-35? You know, when that missing F-35 safety rating will finally arrive?

What tier of membership are the South Koreans again?

[DogOnPorch]

Well, that's only fair, because the Phantom is old too!

A strong case for new gear for Canada if a Korean War era AA gun with a radar system made up of vacuum tubes can still blast a fast aircraft from the sky. That could have been "prevented" from a defence point of view. To the Turks credit, though, I doubt they were expecting action.