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

[bush_cheney2004]

As mentioned, conduct the conversion of Hornet pilots to the F-35B currently…….They will be deployable, like the Hornets they replaced, next year……..

Right...how many existing CF-188s are deployable ? Combat ready ?

Edited July 23, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Right...how many existing CF-188s are deployable ? Combat ready ?

combat ready? Why that's the pointed reference I just made. And what does the number of existing Canadian CF-18s have to do with questioning whether the USMC F-35B variant is combat ready... or will be combat ready by the much politicized and critically questioned IOC date chosen? You do realize it's the 'A' variant that Canada has expressed past designs on, right?

[Smallc]

Right...how many existing CF-188s are deployable ? Combat ready ?

I believe the number, on any given day, is 34...give or take...but only 8 on an immediate basis.

[GostHacked]

The various current users of the aircraft.

The only one using this plane at the moment is the USA.

[Moonbox]

Yet more personal attacks……..Again, as I said earlier, who has had more recent experience in armoured warfare? Germany or Egypt…………You celebrate German success, even though they ultimately ended in defeat, but assume the Egyptians had no successes of their own because they also lost?

They weren't personal attacks, and if you believe so you can report me. Asking a rhetorical question that you've already answered yourself several times, and which I never disputed, is completely absurd. It serves no constructive purpose other than generating frustration. It's a childish tactic, trolling even, and calling it such is not a personal attack.

As to technical specifications upon the tanks in question, I’ve provided my reasoning, coupled with the Abrams proven combat record…….

You glossed over a few peripheral advantages (electronics packages, ammunition choice), while outright dismissing any of its disadvantages with your 'witticisms'. The superior gun on the Leopard 2A6 is a fact. If it were loading the depleted uranium ammo, the M1A2 could not match it. If the Leopard 2 operators needed to load DU ammo, this could be quickly and cheaply accommodated, whereas replacing the gun on the M1A2 is another story.

The enormous cost advantage of the Leopard 2 is also a fact, and goes back to the reason I brought it up in the first place. The American military procurement budget is so bloated right now that the companies contracted to build the stuff don't seem much inclined towards efficiency and value. Your previous argument that the US army doesn't need value because their budget is so big, and that I need to take off my 'accountant hat' when comparing equipment is case in point for the general silliness of your position.

The Pentagon fella in charge of the F-35 program has stated that when he took over, the relationship between LM and the Pentagon was dysfunctional and the program had "ran off the rails". Key to his bringing the program back in line was to make LM accountable for their contractual obligations and promises, quoting loosely that "LM only gets winner's profit by performing" which apparently wasn't the case before. That speaks volumes for how ridiculous the system was, and it's not much of a stretch to assume this sort of environment permeates large parts of the US M.I.C.

A good indication of this phenomenon is the US MBT. The newer Leopard 2 models cost 30-40% less than the American M1A2, yet a direct technical comparison between the two does not offer up a clear winner, which it should. You've tried to suggest it has, but failed remarkably. "But...but...Ammunition!" doesn't cut it. The engine is more powerful, yet the Leopard 2 has better off-road mobility. The electronics and communication package might be better, but similar features are being implemented in the 2A7 and beyond and we're unlikely to see a corresponding 30-40% increase in cost.

Clearly your inability to have a discussion without resorting to personal and emotional attacks is a clear indication of you being fatigued…….don’t worry, I certainly don’t take it personal and hope you return once you’re rested and in good spirits.

Like I said, if you think those were personal attacks, feel free to report me. Ridiculing bad logic and mocking schoolyard tactics of persuasion (that repetition omg) weren't emotional or personal attacks. They were highlighting how bad your arguments were, how baffling your red herrings were and how irrational (foolish) it was to repeat a rhetorical question over and over that we'd both already answered!

Edited July 23, 2014 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

I believe the number, on any given day, is 34...give or take...but only 8 on an immediate basis.

Sounds about right to me....let's go with those numbers. I think one squadron of 6 to 8 are deployed to Europe for NATO (Ukraine conflict). The 100 or so existing F-35s (all variants) probably had more actual flight hours than CF-188s did last year.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sounds about right to me....let's go with those numbers. I think one squadron of 6 to 8 are deployed to Europe for NATO (Ukraine conflict). The 100 or so existing F-35s (all variants) probably had more actual flight hours than CF-188s did last year.

That's rather doubtful since they spend so much time either grounded or being inspected. I see the Aussies are extending their "Classic Hornet" fleet out to 2022.

[Derek 2.0]

It's a big challenge from basic supply system logistics to depot repair to flight line maintenance, often while keeping parallel support for existing aircraft. Canada is watching all this activity for the U.S. and other partners...the clock is ticking.

It most certainly is, and further compounded with bastard fleets.

[bush_cheney2004]

Further, it can be demonstrated that Canada's CF-188 pilots are actually getting far fewer annual proficiency flight hours than in the 1980's....down to about 180 hours average from 240 hours. So there is actually less available readiness and availability for this long established aircraft type. Maybe this is because of the upgrade program (for some, not all remaining aircraft).

[Derek 2.0]

which is simply you avoiding the question as to what the plane is actually capable of today? That trumped up USMC IOC date is meaningless in terms of the existing problems, the numerous LRIPs still to go, retrofits to bring current, etc.. Notwithstanding, it presumes on no additional compounding problems surface - ain't concurrency a biatch?

I already answered that for you, the F-35B is currently conducting training, at squadron level, to convert former Hornet pilots and maintainers to the F-35B……I fail to see the problem in comprehension.

I think I asked you recently what deployable actually meant in terms of so-called "combat ready"... I do believe you ignored that question. Probably no sense in me asking it again, right?

You did and I answered several months ago…….deployable means exactly that…….The aircraft is replacing former Marine Hornet strike-fighter squadrons, that when required, are combat ready.

[Derek 2.0]

Right...how many existing CF-188s are deployable ? Combat ready ?

70-75% of 48 aircraft at anyone time.....

[Derek 2.0]

Sounds about right to me....let's go with those numbers. I think one squadron of 6 to 8 are deployed to Europe for NATO (Ukraine conflict). The 100 or so existing F-35s (all variants) probably had more actual flight hours than CF-188s did last year.

Without a doubt......at most, Between the two combat squadrons and the conversion squadron, you have 50-60 aircraft operational at any one time.

[Derek 2.0]

Further, it can be demonstrated that Canada's CF-188 pilots are actually getting far fewer annual proficiency flight hours than in the 1980's....down to about 180 hours average from 240 hours. So there is actually less available readiness and availability for this long established aircraft type. Maybe this is because of the upgrade program (for some, not all remaining aircraft).

It’s all but complete, but it defiantly negatively effected availability during the last decade.

[Derek 2.0]

The only one using this plane at the moment is the USA.

And the United Kingdom, the Dutch and on Thursday Australia

[bush_cheney2004]

It’s all but complete, but it defiantly negatively effected availability during the last decade.

Right....and the main reason for this line of thought is to demonstrate the realities for Canada's well established strike fighter compared to the much criticized F-35. The majority of flight hours are not spent dogfighting fake MiGs over the Indian Ocean a la Top Gun.

[bush_cheney2004]

And the United Kingdom, the Dutch and on Thursday Australia

Cool....the Australians are all in. Infrastructure has to be built. Lots to do. Canada is playing the delay game for domestic politics...as always.

[Derek 2.0]

Right....and the main reason for this line of thought is to demonstrate the realities for Canada's well established strike fighter compared to the much criticized F-35. The majority of flight hours are not spent dogfighting fake MiGs over the Indian Ocean a la Top Gun.

Indeed, operability will steadily decrease as the Hornet fleet continues to age.

[Derek 2.0]

Cool....the Australians are all in. Infrastructure has to be built. Lots to do. Canada is playing the delay game for domestic politics...as always.

The Australians, like the British, have their own domestic roadblocks firmly entrenched, but overall there is a bipartisan understanding between the political parties that have a chance to form Government, on how best to address their respective defence needs and not turn major programs into a conjured political hot-potato.

[Derek 2.0]

A further update from the Land of Oz:

THE Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning codenamed AU-1 is one of two constructed for Australia. It will be rolled out at an event attended by Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Chief of Air Force Air Marshall Geoff Brown.

and

After further testing, Aircraft AU-1 and AU-2 will be delivered to the RAAF for training in the US later in the year.

Neither has actually flown yet and won't until a new computer processor is fitted under a scheduled upgrade program to allow use of the latest computer software.

And so will begin the RAAF’s transition from legacy Hornet’s (of the same vintage as ours) to the F-35A….

As to the price:

As early production aircraft, AU-1 and AU-2 are expensive, costing about $120 million each.

But as production ramps up, manufacturer Lockheed Martin is predicting the price will drop to around $US80 million ($A86.56 million) each.

Nice looking livery:

[waldo]

Nice looking livery:

Props-R-Us

.

[waldo]

As to the price:

As early production aircraft, AU-1 and AU-2 are expensive, costing about $120 million each.

But as production ramps up, manufacturer Lockheed Martin is predicting the price will drop to around $US80 million ($A86.56 million) each.

I'm shocked that you would once again flog LockMart projections! Wonder how they managed to wrangle a $120M cost... even better than the U.S. could secure - go figure!

oh wait... I forgot about the current sales push! You know, where Bogdan is out flogging 2-for-1 offers... apparently, a bake-sale is next! All this talk about a F-35 death spiral because no actual orders have been coming in... you know, contracts, money exchanged and all that. I wonder what the hesitation by other countries is all about. Perhaps a fire-sale is needed... I kid, I kid!

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Cool....the Australians are all in. Infrastructure has to be built. Lots to do. Canada is playing the delay game for domestic politics...as always.

Is that why Aus. is ordering up to two dozen more F 18's?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada gets spruce mock-ups....Australia get the real thing.

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess it's a worry over the "mock up" nature of the plane that has caused them to buy the F 18's.

[Smallc]

Is that why Aus. is ordering up to two dozen more F 18's?

They're not.