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

waldo · August 16, 2014

Aside from gun ammo, we already can with our current inventory.......

wait! Are you now challenging the cost of new weaponry from that KPMG audit report? Are you saying the reference to 'upwards of $1 billion dollars for new F-35 weapons' is false? Is that what you're saying... is that your position?

waldo · August 16, 2014

The concern of the retirement of the A-10 is fostered not in it's replacement, but the impact on various States Air National Guards and job losses.....

so... by your logic/your talking point, I guess what you're saying is that, similarily, the Super Duper Hornet line will last forevah, hey? :lol: You make my task so easy!

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

got your LockMart talking point, hey?

What talking point? The A-10 fleet is older than our Hornet fleet, and not as flexible.

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

so... by your logic/your talking point, I guess what you're saying is that, similarily, the Super Duper Hornet line will last forevah, hey? You make my task so easy!

The A-10 line has been out of production for decades, and the current inventory can't undertake the various roles performed by current legacy types and their replacements.

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

wait! Are you now challenging the cost of new weaponry from that KPMG audit report? Are you saying the reference to 'upwards of $1 billion dollars for new F-35 weapons' is false? Is that what you're saying... is that your position?

No, I asked for further details on the estimate, likewise what it would cost, from the ground-up, to do the like for the Rafale.

bush_cheney2004 · August 16, 2014

The A-10 line has been out of production for decades, and the current inventory can't undertake the various roles performed by current legacy types and their replacements.

Moreover, Warthogs require a large measure of air superiority to operate effectively, far more than F-35.

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

Moreover, Warthogs require a large measure of air superiority to operate effectively, far more than F-35.

Exactly....I won’t pooh-pooh the A-10’s storied record as a CAS platform, for that it is king……but with funding cuts to DoD, solely niche platforms will face more scrutiny in such political environments……If that wasn’t the case, ASW orientated destroyers, the Iowa Battleships, medium range bombers and IRBMs would still be in service.

I’m surprised the AC-130s weren’t also offered up, but then again, they are also capable ISTAR and battlefield management platforms.

bush_cheney2004 · August 16, 2014

Hey, everybody loves 'dem some A-10's (except enemy amour), but they are going away unless somebody ponies up the money. Sequestration has forced some hard choices, and the venerable A-10 is fighting for its life in the U.S. Congress and DoD.

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

Hey, everybody loves 'dem some A-10's (except enemy amour), but they are going away unless somebody ponies up the money. Sequestration has forced some hard choices, and the venerable A-10 is fighting for its life in the U.S. Congress and DoD.

Indeed.......It is telling that they haven't deployed some to Kuwait to counter ISIS.......I suppose the chance of captured MANPADS weighs heavily?

bush_cheney2004 · August 16, 2014

....I suppose the chance of captured MANPADS weighs heavily?

Yes, that's the rub...A-10's are tough but not that tough. Plus they would need more layers of added support that would look like "escalation" back into Iraq. Grunts love the CAS platforms and the U.S. Army might get the re-winged A-10's as a compromise.

The F-35 will never be a Skyraider or Warthog:

Edited August 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

Grunts love the CAS platforms and the U.S. Army might get the re-winged A-10's as a compromise.

But grunts also loved the CAS provided by B-52s, Strike Eagles, Hornets, Falcons, Apaches etc........I doubt the Army will get them:

That's not to say if funds can be found, keeping them in limited service with the ANG is a bad idea.....It all comes down to money, and if you asked the USAF to pick between several Fighter Wings of F-16s/F-35s and the like amount of A-10s, the choice is clear.

waldo · August 16, 2014

No, I asked for further details on the estimate, likewise what it would cost, from the ground-up, to do the like for the Rafale.

and I asked you... first... to substantiate your claim, to provide what it would cost to equip the F-35 with weaponry. I provided a summary extract from the KPMG audit. Per norm, you've provided nothing more than your continued unsubstantiated claims/opinion. Per norm.

like I said, that you should falsely tout concern for cost is indeed laughable. You're a self-proclaimed F-35 cheerleader... cost means nothing to you; again, to you, "it costs what it costs". KPMG, per feedback it received from DND, offers suggestion that 'upwards of $1 billion will be required to purchase weapons for the F-35'. Yet another cost never attributed/accounted for by Harper Conservatives in their lowball estimate.

waldo · August 16, 2014

The F-35 will never be a Skyraider or Warthog:

quick, someone advise U.S. Secretary of Defense Hagel and the USAF brass who thought to save $4.2 billion by cutting the A-10... cutting in an attempt to save the "venerable" F-35 from reductions itself.

To fund these investments, the Air Force will reduce the number of tactical air squadrons including the entire A-10 fleet. Retiring the A-10 fleet saves $3.5 billion over five years and accelerates the Air Force’s long-standing modernization plan – which called for replacing the A-10s with the more capable F-35 in the early 2020s.

note: the top USAF guy subsequently upped that $3.5 billion figure to $4.2 billion... more "savings" all around! And, of course, as I said, the U.S. Congress would have nothing of it and voted down any attempt to cut the A-10.

.

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

and I asked you... first... to substantiate your claim, to provide what it would cost to equip the F-35 with weaponry. I provided a summary extract from the KPMG audit. Per norm, you've provided nothing more than your continued unsubstantiated claims/opinion. Per norm.

No, you provided an estimate based on the RAAF’s planned purchases……..Of course the Australians, unlike Canada, will be purchasing munitions the RCAF doesn’t deploy from its fighter force, nor intends to, namely anti-ship and stand-off missiles…..Care to further expand on the methodology that estimate uses?

As I said, outside of gun ammunition, the RCAF already has in its inventory munitions that currently equip our Hornet fleet, and will be used on the F-35 fleet…..Your reluctance to include a detail costing of either integrating our current stores or purchasing new French munitions is noted.

waldo · August 16, 2014

No, you provided an estimate based on the RAAF’s planned purchases……..Of course the Australians, unlike Canada, will be purchasing munitions the RCAF doesn’t deploy from its fighter force, nor intends to, namely anti-ship and stand-off missiles…..Care to further expand on the methodology that estimate uses?

As I said, outside of gun ammunition, the RCAF already has in its inventory munitions that currently equip our Hornet fleet, and will be used on the F-35 fleet…..Your reluctance to include a detail costing of either integrating our current stores or purchasing new French munitions is noted.

no - I provided a direct extract from the KPMG audit... one based on KPMG asking for and receiving feedback from DND. I'll ask again, are you stating that KPMG extract (per DND) is false... is 'trumped up'... is without basis? Is that your position?

you refuse to address the point concerning new weaponry - oh wait, is it your position to saddle the "shiny white elephant" with no weapons to "presumably" take advantage of all the whiz-bang wizardry you claim it will... "someday"... be capable of? Is that your position? But like I said, you speaking to a cost concern is the epitome of your cheerleading hypocrisy!

if you're so concerned about cost... how do you like Professor Byers numbers? how risky do you feel? Oh wait, you're the risk guy... you're the King of F-35 risks!!!

waldo · August 16, 2014

Why Canada needs a competitive process to choose a fighter jet

C.S. Sullivan is a former general officer and fighter pilot, has served in senior command and leadership positions in the Canadian Forces, NATO and NORAD, and commanded international combat operations in Afghanistan.

In late 2008, the Royal Canadian Air Force briefed me on its efforts to identify a replacement for Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet. As the former director-general of Capability Development at DND and defence advisor to the Prime Minister’s Privy Council Office, I was surprised to learn that the Air Force was recommending the sole source acquisition of the F-35.

Derek 2.0 · August 16, 2014

no - I provided a direct extract from the KPMG audit... one based on KPMG asking for and receiving feedback from DND. I'll ask again, are you stating that KPMG extract (per DND) is false... is 'trumped up'... is without basis? Is that your position?

I never stated that.....What has been asked for, and you either refuse to provide or can’t, is a detailed methodology explaining how they have reached an estimate based off of RAAF numbers, numbers that include weapons systems we don’t currently, nor intend to use.

How about those Rafale related numbers?

waldo · August 17, 2014

I never stated that.....What has been asked for, and you either refuse to provide or can’t, is a detailed methodology explaining how they have reached an estimate based off of RAAF numbers, numbers that include weapons systems we don’t currently, nor intend to use.

more of your continued BS! It's in the official KPMG audit... if you dispute it, say so - directly and pointedly... and in so doing, provide your alternate costs for new weaponry. Are you claiming no new weaponry to equip the F-35 will be required? Is that your position?..... your completely unsubstantiated opinion, per norm! Per your usual usual norm.

We understand that the acquisition of newer weapons will be considered and funded as separate projects and comparison with Australia would suggest that these costs could be substantial (greater than $1 billion).

the official KPMG audit report appears on the Treasury Board of Canada website... would you like a link? :lol: Of course, it truly begs the question as to why DND has to/wants to put the cost of new weapons as separate projects. Oh wait... must keep up the sham to present low(er) costs than actual.

Derek 2.0 · August 17, 2014

more of your continued BS! It's in the official KPMG audit... if you dispute it, say so - directly and pointedly... and in so doing, provide your alternate costs for new weaponry. Are you claiming no new weaponry to equip the F-35 will be required? Is that your position?..... your completely unsubstantiated opinion, per norm! Per your usual usual norm.

So that’s a no on providing the methodology………….As I’ve clearly stated, new gun ammo will be needed from the start, as would munitions to replace stores used over the aircraft’s life………As I’ve asked numerous times, how can an estimate of RCAF costs be provided by using estimates used by the RAAF?

the official KPMG audit report appears on the Treasury Board of Canada website... would you like a link? Of course, it truly begs the question as to why DND has to/wants to put the cost of new weapons as separate projects. Oh wait... must keep up the sham to present low(er) costs than actual.

By all means, provide the link.

waldo · August 17, 2014

So that’s a no on providing the methodology

By all means, provide the link.

so that's a no to you... evah... providing any substantiation to your perpetual nothingness; ie. your personal unsubstantiated opinions.

what... is this saying you've never read... never scanned/perused... why, never even heard of the KPMG audit? :lol:

waldo · August 17, 2014

How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force

Now, the Air Force has taken steps to make sure that the unmitigated disaster that the F-35 has become does not happen again.

The Air Force, in its 20-year strategic forecast entitled "America's Air Force: A Call to the Future," has called for an end to big-ticket programs like the F-35. Instead, it plans to invest in what DOD officials have called more "agile" weapons that can be adapted for multiple uses.

The report paints a future of the Air Force that resembles an innovative 21st Century company as opposed to a traditional fighting force. The document says that it's now impossible for the United States to build a strategy advantage with large, expensive programs that take years — in the case of the F-35, 14 years and counting to complete.

"We believe rapid change is the new norm and has serious implications for the Air Force," the document states. "The pace at which disruptive technologies may appear and proliferate will result in operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived. Dynamic and increasingly frequent shifts in the geopolitical power balance will have significant implications for basing, posture, and partner capabilities that may favor flexibility over footprint."

The F-35 isn't mentioned by name in the forecast, but the program's greasy fingerprints are all over it. The Air Force is apparently concerned that it is pricing itself out of the weapons market because it is spending so much time and money on large programs.

as the waldo has alluded to many times over... the best approach for Canada... for any country considering fighter jet replacement, is to consider a short(er) period investment! Not the reeediculous "into 2050" nonsense the MLW forum's self-declared F-35 cheerleader keeps blathering on about!

.

Derek 2.0 · August 17, 2014

Why Canada needs a competitive process to choose a fighter jet

Missed this one……this passage is telling of the author's knowledge of the F-35:

Three of the four contenders – Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, and Eurofighter’s Typhoon – meet and, in many cases, exceed the mandatory requirements of Canada’s non-discretionary missions. Surprisingly, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 would not fare as well given its most notable deficiencies: air refueling capability incompatible with Canada’s tanker fleet; no tail-hook for landings on icy runways and in the high Arctic; and a single-engine aircraft with limited range and payload. Losing an engine on a twin-engine fighter is a non-event. An engine failure on a single-engine fighter is catastrophic.

Our current tanker fleet is old and will need to be replaced, none the less, the F-35B & C do have drogue refuelling, so it could be equipped on production…….And of course, the F-35 has a greater range than our current Hornets.

We’ve lost Hornets from engine failures, none the less, the single engine is not an issue with other users of the type…………As to Arctic usage, the F-35A does have a drogue chute (developed and made in Ontario) and of course, it does have a tail-hook..... :rolleyes:

Edited August 17, 2014 by Derek 2.0

On Guard for Thee · August 17, 2014

I can see a scenario upcoming that may be a win for Harper and a huge win for the Canadian taxpayer. Joe Oliver is hopefully, maybe, about to table the first surplus budget since they recieved the healthy bank account the Liberals left them. While basking in the glow of that achievement after lo these many years, he might just decide to scrap plans to buy the world's most expensive "bomb truck" , dust off that old adage about "fiscal conservatism" and claim it was due to the findings of the panel of experts he convened with regard to that particular file. OK ssh, don't tell anybody the panel was convened after the scathing AG's report. That was two years ago. Let's have another BBQ.

Smallc · August 17, 2014

All leaked evidence points to the panel recommending the F-35.

waldo · August 17, 2014

Missed this one……this passage is telling of the author's knowledge of the F-35:

missed JUST that one!!! It seems you've quite regularly been missing a lot of posts lately... one's most inconvenient for you to actually respond to/deal with, hey!

.

Our current tanker fleet is old and will need to be replaced, none the less, the F-35B & C do have drogue refuelling, so it could be equipped on production…….And of course, the F-35 has a greater range than our current Hornets.

why don't you cost those new refuellers out for us. While you're doing that why not take your ever so cavalier reference to "equipping the A variant on production"... and also cost that out for 'A' variant production.

We’ve lost Hornets from engine failures, none the less, the single engine is not an issue with other users of the type…………As to Arctic usage, the F-35A does have a drogue chute (developed and made in Ontario) and of course, it does have a tail-hook.....

the author made no mention of a 'drag chute'... that's on you. However, your link presumes on a concept being fully developed and integrated into production --- that has not occured to-date. Perhaps you can also price out that add-on option for a drag chute as well, hey?

as for the tailhook, I expect the author should have been more qualified in speaking to effectiveness and maintenance requirements relative to a CF-18 comparison. Accordingly - (note: the following is identified as appearing in a DND/CF FAQ):

Although the F-35A has an arresting hook, it is not designed for routine use. The CF-18 was originally designed for use on an aircraft carrier with regular use of the arresting hook.

As such, the more robust arresting hook on the CF-18 requires less maintenance and fatigue monitoring between uses than that of the F-35. This being said, the stopping capability of the F-35 arresting hook is equivalent to the arresting hook on the CF-18. The difference between the two arresting hooks is the maintenance action required after usage to prepare each arresting hook for the subsequent flight?