F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[shortlived]

Yup, but much more in Boeing.

yeah thought so.

[Guest Derek L]

Is the CBC starting to ever so slightly change their F-35 tune after being the victims of Boeing agitprop recently:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV%2BShows/The%2BNational/ID/2374751666/

Hell hath no furry like a women media outlet scorn

Edited April 10, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

And Norway is in:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130426/DEFREG01/304260023/Norway-F-35-Deliveries-Begin-2017

LONDON — Norway is set to take delivery of six Joint Strike Fighters in 2017 and repeat the exercise every year until 2024, by which time it will have acquired its full fleet of 52 aircraft, the government announced in Oslo on April 26.

The government submitted a formal request to the Norwegian Parliament today for approval to purchase six F-35s for delivery in 2017 and also laid out its plans for the country’s biggest ever defense acquisition.

Further purchases remain subject to annual approval by Parliament.

The plan accelerates the initial intended purchase date by one year but stretches the total delivery schedule out to 2024.

How will the Norwegians deal with their ageing F-16 fleet, a fleet that is slightly older than our CF-18 fleet? Simple, speed up their purchase plans.

Amazing what the Norwegian’s can achieve with bipartisanship within their Parliament. For the Norwegians, their involvement with the F-35 began under a coalition between their Conservatives and Christian party, and has continued under a repeat coalition of their Labour and Socialist parities.

I suppose the same could be said of most of the F-35 partner nations, minus the Dutch and Canadians, in that both sides of the political spectrum realize that they need an air force equipped with modern combat aircraft into the middle of this century, as such, there is no point taking part in political theatre over a major defence acquisition.

The total acquisition cost of the 52 aircraft is estimated at NOK 62.6 billion and includes four F-35s that have already been purchased for delivery in 2015 and 2016 for training purposes.

Announcing the move, Norwegian Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen said that the government had “concluded convincingly that the F-35 is the only aircraft that fulfills our future operational requirements. This continues to be true today and we have no time to lose. Our F-16s remain among the most capable aircraft of their kind, but they are also among the world’s oldest.”

And the Royal Norwegian Air Force has near exact same requirements as the RCAF, coupled with the fact that they also have a major requirement to operate their fighters in a Arctic environment, and in their case, they’ve been operating their single engine F-16s for decades.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Simply put, the manned Bomber component of their strategic nuclear triad is more valuable, accurate and will last longer then the USAF’s ICBMs………Both the Bomber replacement and ICBM replacement will be expensive programs, yet as it’s been demonstrated in numerous conflicts since the Korean War, the strategic bomber component can make a valuable contribution to a conventional war, but also signals intelligence, reconnaissance and as a close support asset……..The ICBMs stay in their holes…….

And I can’t see the Americans relying on a unmanned component for their nuclear arsenal.

And here you go:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-leader-confirms-manned-decision-for-new-bomber-385037/

The US Air Force has confirmed for the first time that the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS- will be manned on entry-into-service, one of a few new details revealed about the classified programme.

Several military experts have predicted the LRS-B programme would eventually become optionally-manned but enter service with a flight crew or a pilot, but the USAF has never revealed such details publicly.

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said today at a Defense Writers Group breakfast that the service will initially field the new stealth bomber as manned aircraft. "It's likely that we'll start the bomber programme as a manned programme," Donley says. "It'll have the option to be unmanned at some point and so I think that option will be protected."

And from Boeing:

[Guest Derek L]

I seem to recall some felt the Australians were going to opt for more Super Hornets as opposed to purchasing the F-35:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE94201E20130503

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia committed to long-term plans to buy up to 100 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighters as part of its new defense strategy on Friday, easing concerns about the future of the controversial fighter from a major foreign buyer.

Canberra, a close U.S. ally, would also buy 12 Boeing Co EA-18G electronic attack planes, modified versions of the 24 Super Hornets already equipping Australia's air force, as a stopgap until the F-35 is delivered.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith announced the decisions as he released a new defense white paper, which is the first reassessment of Australia's military priorities since 2009, and since the U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific, which included U.S. marine rotations through northern Australia.

"This important decision will assure a first-class air combat capability for Australia through the transition period to the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35), which will proceed on its current schedule," Smith said.

Australia's first two F-35s are due in 2014-15.

Canberra's decision reinforces positive steps for the F-35, coming on the heels of a decision by Norway to buy six F-35s a year earlier than planned, and the Dutch parliament's decision not to reassess F-35 rivals to replace aging F-16s, despite cost overruns and development delays.

Based on their firm commitment, the planned forward basing of units from the USMC to Northern Australia and the two Canberra class LHDs entering service in the next several years, I’m forced to wonder if we could see an alteration of the Australian order to replace a squadrons worth of F-35A’s with F-35Bs, with the final result being this:

My other question:

[bush_cheney2004]

USMC (Marines) VMFAT-501 training squadron at Eglin AFB:

[Guest Derek L]

USMC (Marines) VMFAT-501 training squadron at Eglin AFB:

Why call me The Great Santini........I thought the "experts" said the "B" was going to be dropped

[Guest Derek L]

And lookie here:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/uk-unitedtechnologies-pratt-fighterb-idUKBRE95F08J20130616

Hess said negotiations were still under way with the U.S. Defense Department but he expected the contract's final price to reflect a further cost reduction of less than 10 percent, continuing a trend seen in recent years.

Costs going down? Nah.

But a Canadian angle:

He said he was also confident that Canada would decide to stick with the F-35 program despite its recent discussions about having a new competition.

If the orders did go to another company, Pratt & Whitney could decide to move some of the industrial base work it is currently doing in Canada, Hess said.

"We might reallocate the work elsewhere," he said, adding that reduced order volumes would likely trigger changes in Canada.

See P&W facilities in Quebec.........I suppose the Liberals and NDP could campaign on hurting Quebec’s aerospace industry……..

[On Guard for Thee]

.Lets thank our lucky stars the F35 deal is dead. Otherwise we would have had to fire up our money printing machines in similar fashion to the US. And the damn plane would be stuck in a snowbank in Inuvik.

[waldo]

And lookie here:

Costs going down? Nah.

are they... by a huuuuuge amount? Let's see... for 2014 the USAF pays $185.5 million per F-35A (19 planes for $3.582 billion). That's quite a stretch from Harper Conservative original claims the F-35A would cost Canada... $75 million per plane! Wouldn't you say? By the by, what do you think these Pentagon F-35 cut-backs will do to costs?

why don't you step-up and compare that cost to FY 2014 costs for the Super Hornet & Growler, hey? Sure you can!

[Guest Derek L]

are they... by a huuuuuge amount? Let's see... for 2014 the USAF pays $185.5 million per F-35A (19 planes for $3.582 billion). That's quite a stretch from Harper Conservative original claims the F-35A would cost Canada... $75 million per plane! Wouldn't you say? By the by, what do you think these Pentagon F-35 cut-backs will do to costs?

why don't you step-up and compare that cost to FY 2014 costs for the Super Hornet & Growler, hey? Sure you can!

Ah.......couldn't you find an older article......The F-35 dodged sequester cuts

And costs are being reduced, nations are placing their initial orders, the Canadian Government made it’s final developmental payment a few months ago and the flight testing is progressing well………And the aircraft entry date into USAF regular squadron service has moved up by nearly a year

[waldo]

And costs are being reduced

then you shouldn't have any trouble showing that cost reduction... should you? You know, something other than you simply stating it! Don't forget those Super Hornet & Growler cost comparisons, hey?

[waldo]

The F-35 dodged sequester cuts

really... you're complaining about a dated article? Here's one 5 days... fresh! Enjoy: Pentagon Releases Report on Sequestration Cuts’ Effects

The Pentagon sent Congress a report providing details of $37 billion in sequestration cuts affecting defense contractors from Lockheed (LMT) Martin Corp. to Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII)

The report, provided yesterday and required by the current year’s defense appropriations measure, lists the amounts that Congress appropriated for the Pentagon’s 2,500 programs, project and budget activities, and shows how much each will be reduced by the automatic spending reductions that took effect March 1.

The Air Force’s $2.5 billion to buy 19 F-35 jets made by Lockheed reflects a sequestration cut of $503 million, according to the report. The Navy’s final $808 million to buy four carrier-model F-35s incorporates a $157 million cut, and its $1 billion for six Marine Corps short-takeoff-and vertical landing fighters reflects a $146 million reduction.

.

[Guest Derek L]

really... you're complaining about a dated article? Here's one 5 days... fresh! Enjoy: Pentagon Releases Report on Sequestration Cuts’ Effects

.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/pentagon-releases-report-on-sequestration-cuts-effects.html

While the report doesn’t spell out the number of weapons cut in each program, defense companies will be able to use the report to determine “what funding is available for that particular program for the fiscal year,” John Roth, the Pentagon’s deputy comptroller for programs and budgets, said in an interview.

Meanwhile:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/lockheed-martin-says-f-35-production-gain-to-reduce-costs.html

The Pentagon is in final talks with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin on several billion dollars in orders for the next two annual batches of F-35 production amid efforts to make up for earlier delays stemming from cost and technology disputes. The new contracts may exceed 70 planes.

[bush_cheney2004]

really... you're complaining about a dated article? Here's one 5 days... fresh! Enjoy: Pentagon Releases Report on Sequestration Cuts’ Effects

.

Thanks for all the American budget and procurement data....how does it directly apply to Canada or the price of tea in China ? Is Canada considering all variants of the F-35 now ? Will the offending red, white, and blue paint jobs break the budget ?

[waldo]

really? Does your quote and a rolly-eyes negate my quote... from the same article... specifically categorizing F-35 attachments. Oh wait, can you categorically state those Pentagon cuts won't associate to the F-35? You said something about the F-35 program, as you said, "dodged sequester cuts" - citation request... you know, something above and beyond your usual unsubstantiated statement/claim.

your other link speaks to the future... and I know you just luv-luv to quote LockMart! You said costs had come down - show it! Citation request.

Edited June 17, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

Thanks for all the American budget and procurement data....how does it directly apply to Canada or the price of tea in China ? Is Canada considering all variants of the F-35 now ? Will the offending red, white, and blue paint jobs break the budget ?

you're welcome. Are you suggesting the USAF price isn't a good reference benchmark? Are you saying Canada will get a "better deal" than the USAF? Is that what you're saying?

[Guest Derek L]

really? Does your quote and a rolly-eyes negate my quote... from the same article... specifically categorizing F-35 attachments. Oh wait, can you categorically state those Pentagon cuts won't associate to the F-35? You said something about the F-35 program, as you said, "dodged sequester cuts" - citation request... you know, something above and beyond your usual unsubstantiated statement/claim.

your other link speaks to the future... and I know you just luv-luv to quote LockMart! You said costs had come down - show it! Citation request.

Sure it does, as it stated:

While the report doesn’t spell out the number of weapons cut in each program, defense companies will be able to use the report to determine “what funding is available for that particular program for the fiscal year,” John Roth, the Pentagon’s deputy comptroller for programs and budgets, said in an interview.

[Guest Derek L]

you're welcome. Are you suggesting the USAF price isn't a good reference benchmark? Are you saying Canada will get a "better deal" than the USAF? Is that what you're saying?

We’ll get an equal deal as the USAF, once it’s in full production, since we’ll be purchasing through the Pentagon as a FMS.

[bush_cheney2004]

you're welcome. Are you suggesting the USAF price isn't a good reference benchmark? Are you saying Canada will get a "better deal" than the USAF? Is that what you're saying?

I'm "saying" that this continued apples to oranges game you keep playing only demonstrates the lack of real procurement and operating costs for Canada. Last time it was the use of American F/A-18 E/F/G flight hour costs because apparently the Canadian data was "too hard" to aggregate.

So called "fly away" costs vary greatly on any such procurement. Perhaps you are choosing the bloated American costs for shock effect ?

Besides, isn't "American style" anything considered bad form in Canada ?

[waldo]

We’ll get an equal deal as the USAF, once it’s in full production, since we’ll be purchasing through the Pentagon as a FMS.

perhaps you should direct this to Mr. BC_2004... he seems to really want to make a case that comparing the USAF cost is verboten! Can you guys get your talking points linked up, hey?

[waldo]

got that citation yet? You know, the one that supports your claim the F-35, as you say, "dodged the sequestration cuts". Your article certainly doesn't state that, right? I'm not interested in another 20-post silly-buggar act from you - show your citation or move on.

[Guest Derek L]

perhaps you should direct this to Mr. BC_2004... he seems to really want to make a case that comparing the USAF cost is verboten! Can you guys get your talking points linked up, hey?

Why is that? Clearly we won’t be purchasing our aircraft during the initial production, including the forthcoming 6th tranche of aircraft, as such, quoting the figure the Americans are paying today is not accurate, as that is not the figure they’ll be paying in several years………And to add, each follow on order has seen a reduction in costs, as the fifth batch saw the F-35A come under the current full production prices associated with the French Rafale and the Eurofighter…….

[waldo]

Why is that? Clearly we won’t be purchasing our aircraft during the initial production, including the forthcoming 6th tranche of aircraft, as such, quoting the figure the Americans are paying today is not accurate, as that is not the figure they’ll be paying in several years………And to add, each follow on order has seen a reduction in costs, as the fifth batch saw the F-35A come under the current full production prices associated with the French Rafale and the Eurofighter…….

huh! Quoting the most current figure available... that's not allowed? I mean, c'mon - you're certainly free to put up LockMart projection propaganda on what production cost Canada will actually pay. Where's the bouncing projection number at today?

And to add, each follow on order has seen a reduction in costs, as the fifth batch saw the F-35A come under the current full production prices associated with the French Rafale and the Eurofighter…….

you keep saying costs have come down... you keep saying it! Again, citation request. By the by, why are you ignoring my repeated references to the Super Hornet & Growler?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is that? Clearly we won’t be purchasing our aircraft during the initial production, including the forthcoming 6th tranche of aircraft, as such, quoting the figure the Americans are paying today is not accurate, as that is not the figure they’ll be paying in several years………And to add, each follow on order has seen a reduction in costs, as the fifth batch saw the F-35A come under the current full production prices associated with the French Rafale and the Eurofighter…….

Agreed.....such comparisons are just wild ass guesses as of today. Hell, Canada's own PBO estimated "true" procurement and life cycle costs by projecting backwards for cost/kilogram of fighters over the past 50 years, and adding a jack factor for growth in average fighter/attack aircraft weight (75% confidence level).

What the Americans pay now or are willing to pay in the future cannot be directly applied to Canada.

Edited June 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004