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

[Smallc]

So your Hornet with the buddy stores flies to the FOB with magic?

The hornet flies to the FOB the same way it would have otherwise. Of course, it would mean having a small ground contingent, meaning it may not be reasonable in Inuvik.

[Smallc]

That's different from the chart in the link I provided. It says the Gripen has a 1,300 km range with a 290 gal centreline tank. And a 4,000 km+ ferry range with external tanks.

Yeah, I'm going to need him to cite that. The website paints the Gripen in a very good light, but I'm not sure that it's all so good. Otherwise, why would they have pulled out?

[Derek 2.0]

If course they will. The two are not mutually exclusive. Companies are involved in lawsuits and complete other transactions at the same time often.

No, I expect the three companies to launch their own WTO challenges..........feel free to highlight pass transactions, Boeing or Airbus, made during a WTO dispute process

[Derek 2.0]

The hornet flies to the FOB the same way it would have otherwise. Of course, it would mean having a small ground contingent, meaning it may not be reasonable in Inuvik.

So the Hornet isn't carrying buddy-tanks, but it's own external drops, to fly to the FOB.......brilliant, now give this a good think, and ponder why what you propose makes no sense, likewise, why other land based air forces don't operate in such a manner.

[Smallc]

No, I expect the three companies to launch their own WTO challenges..........feel free to highlight pass transactions, Boeing or Airbus, made during a WTO dispute process

Like I said, you're reaching.

[Smallc]

So the Hornet isn't carrying buddy-tanks, but it's own external drops, to fly to the FOB.......brilliant, now give this a good think, and ponder why what you propose makes no sense, likewise, why other land based air forces don't operate in such a manner.

So a third hornet flies to the FOB, loads with buddy fuel, and refuels the other jets so that they don't have to land. It could also be used to refuel them after take off, the largest fuel burn, increasing their loiter time. Canada''s north is not unlike over water operations.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Like I said, you're reaching.

Reaching back to reality

[Smallc]

Reaching back to reality

In the real world:

"When you have a project of this size, you always know there are going to be some disagreements. So we fully expected there would be some claims at the end of the project," Rempel said.

"It's got nothing to do with good company or bad company, good relationship or bad relationship," he added. "A claim is just a natural outcome of any major construction project."

He has said in past the WAA built contingency costs into the original budget to handle any unexpected expenses that might arise.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/terminal-legal-woes-134306878.html

In other words, lawsuits are just part of doing business, and they won't affect further business. This situation is really no different. If Boeing wants to sue, they will. Similarly, if Boeing wants to compete for the soon upcoming fighter competition (beginning work now and escalating in December) they'll offer a product. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Smallc]

Doing some thinking on this, with the new government's stated objective, it's entirely possible that SAAB puts forward a bid and wins on cost balanced with the stated goals (territorial defence) of the government.

[Derek 2.0]

So a third hornet flies to the FOB, loads with buddy fuel, and refuels the other jets so that they don't have to land. It could dos be used to refuel them after take off, the largest fuel burn, increasing their loiter time. Canada''s north is not unlike over water operations.

You're talking gibberish, as a single Super Hornet with buddy-stores, after landing, then refueling, and taking off again, getting to altitude and then refueling the other two Hornets, won't carry enough fuel in its buddy tanks to refuel both Hornets, to say nothing of the fact, well said Hornet with tanks landed etc, the other two hornets will be apart of the countryside......

Second, your buddy-laden Hornet won't be able to fully refuel a pair of Hornets after take-off, and more fuel will be wasted refueling both aircraft, then gained.......hence why air forces use actual tankers and not other fighters to refuel their aircraft.

And no, Arctic operations and naval operations are different, as said arctic bound aircraft take-off from a long runway, versus an aircraft carrier, where there is a requirement, if a full weapons load out is required, to reduce the amount of fuel to save weight on a catapult launch. Likewise, unlike airfields, aircraft landing on carriers, at times, require numerous attempts to land........of course, the USN will now use USAF (or allied) tankers when it can.

[Derek 2.0]

In other words, lawsuits are just part of doing business, and they won't affect further business. This situation is really no different. If Boeing wants to sue, they will. Similarly, if Boeing wants to compete for the soon upcoming fighter competition (beginning work now and escalating in December) they'll offer a product. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In other words, your link doesn't support your point.

[Derek 2.0]

Doing some thinking on this, with the new government's stated objective, it's entirely possible that SAAB puts forward a bid and wins on cost balanced with the stated goals (territorial defence) of the government.

Not with one engine it won't........nor costing as much as production F-35A.......nor having ~25-30% US produced content.

[Smallc]

In other words, your link doesn't support your point.

Yeah, it does actually. My point is that business lawsuits are normal, even with good relations. There's no reason that one will stand in the way of the other.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Not with one engine it won't........nor costing as much as production F-35A.......nor having ~25-30% US produced content.

Yeah, I actually can't find any source for it's low price. It seems to be more than the Super Hornet and considerably more than the advanced Viper.

[Smallc]

Second, your buddy-laden Hornet won't be able to fully refuel a pair of Hornets after take-off, and more fuel will be wasted refueling both aircraft, then gained.......hence why air forces use actual tankers and not other fighters to refuel their aircraft.

That doesn't even make any sense. If that were the case, no one would ever do it.

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah, I actually can't find any source for it's low price. It seems to be more than the Super Hornet and considerably more than the advanced Viper.

The Gripen NG doesn't have a low price, and would cost more than the F-35 (Per the Norwegian Government) when both were in full-rate production.

[Derek 2.0]

That doesn't even make any sense. If that were the case, no one would ever do it.

Other than navies, nobody does it as a tactical practice.......hence my point.

[Smallc]

Other than navies, nobody does it as a tactical practice.......hence my point.

Ummm, no

http://defence.pk/threads/buddy-to-buddy-refueling.392362/

[Smallc]

The Gripen NG doesn't have a low price, and would cost more than the F-35 (Per the Norwegian Government) when both were in full-rate production.

And that's probably why they didn't even bother to submit information for the market analysis.

[Derek 2.0]

Ummm, no

http://defence.pk/threads/buddy-to-buddy-refueling.392362/

You just provided pictures confirming my point.......thanks.

[Smallc]

You just provided pictures confirming my point.......thanks.

Yeah, it's only for naval aircraft, like the Tornado.

[bush_cheney2004]

Damn...it's hard to nail requirements down for even the last ruling government. However, Canada does seem to consistently refer to the "new jets" procurement as "CF-18 replacements", which is a limiting way of looking at things. Canada must like its old U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter a lot !

Jane's 360 offered up this last year, and echos one member's concern over obsolescence and support in the post 2030 timeframe.

http://www.janes.com/article/46967/canada-releases-cf-18-replacement-report

Edited November 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah, it's only for naval aircraft, like the Tornado.

An unarmed Italian Tornado, refueling another unarmed Italian Tornado, does not make a tactical practice........said aircraft of course are apart of the Italian air force trials unit, in partnership with Aermacchi, developing the aerial refueling system for the Italian navies F-35s..........next.

[Derek 2.0]

Damn...it's hard to nail requirements down for even the last ruling government. However, Canada does seem to consistently refer to the "new jets" procurement as "CF-18 replacements", which is a limiting way of looking at things. Canada must like its old U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter a lot !

Jane's 360 offered up this last year, and echos one member's concern over obsolescence and support in the post 2030 timeframe.

http://www.janes.com/article/46967/canada-releases-cf-18-replacement-report

My point exactly:

Broadly, every platform included in the study was considered to be of low to medium risk of not being able to complete most of the range of missions. One exception to this was the case of operations in a full state-on-state war, where the panel conceded that all platforms showed a low to significant risk in the 2020-30 timeline, rising to a medium to high risk beyond 2030.

[bush_cheney2004]

My point exactly:

As was this....Canada can't buy something that is no longer in production:

As previously noted by IHS Jane's , however, the F-35 and Saab Gripen E/F may be the only US or European fighter aircraft left in production after 2025 unless Boeing, Dassault, or Eurofighter manage to secure a large export deal. Since Saab is presently not entering the Gripen E/F into the competition, Lockheed Martin's F-35 could very likely be the only remaining competitor.