bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Any DND requirements determined beforehand will be trimmed/altered to meet replacement cost bogies. That's how Canada ended up with a salty U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Again, you haven't offered anything to counter the head of the RAAF's sworn statement, a statement that aligns with the stated price of the (production) aircraft by Lockheed..........If the buyer and seller are reading from the same "script", where is the disconnect? sworn statement? Say what? What reality are you in here? Again, you're attempting to take a projection where the use of the word "EXPECT" is distinctly used and declare it, as you said, "the TRUTH"... where you used a definitive declaration in your use of the word "WILL". . F-35 partner nations have stated requirements, requirements communicated to the DoD and Lockheed........despite suggestions otherwise in some segments of the media or by bloggers, often quoting the same troika that spearheads the anti-F35 agenda.............until said requirements have changed officially by send end users, then those are the intended numbers. no procurement numbers have certainty; quite obviously they are all subject to available funding within respective countries. No procurement numbers have contractual attachment to them... until there's an actual contract! How many of those are out there... for how many planes? That is clearly shown by how many countries have cut their initial numbers back. For you to imply, for example, that the U.S. will actually purchase ~2400 F-35s is pure folly given the state of U.S. military cutbacks and fiscal conditions. . I suppose I could, but why would I? I continue to tout lower procurement costs because with each LRIP block buy the procurement costs have decreased..... In LRIP 1 the aircraft were ~$250 million a piece, with last year's LRIP 8 the aircraft were ~93 million + $18 for the LRIP 7 engine or ~$112 million flyaway.........LRIP 9 and 10 should be finalized by the end of the year/into the New Year.......I will go out on a limb and predict said reduction trend will continue with both orders..... if as you say you could, you would... such a listing doesn't exist. Such a listing that can provide a definitive accounting of intended procurement per timeline doesn't exist, let alone one that might give some idea of actual funded/contracted planes, per country, per time frame. If it did exist you would certainly put it forward - oh wait, would you? I doubt it as it surely wouldn't speak very positively of the basis of your parroted LockMart procurement costing! I've shown past LRIP costs have not always come down with each iteration... I can't recall which ones at the moment, but I provided full detail with accompanying sources at that time. You keep, as you say, "touting" some unknown (but significantly lower) production procurement cost, but you can't provide the basis for that cost... you can't provide a by-timeline accounting of production planes that aligns with so-called intended procurement... notwithstanding none of that intended has even been paid for... other than the onesey-twosey type orders to allow countries to kick the tires. . Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 No I don't.......ask the 25000 Syrian refugees to be taken in by years end. a frivolous response! The refrain is consistent and has been amplified in the face of questioning that aligns with your same wishful thinking. Don't you think it would be more prudent to simply suggest the forthcoming intended open competition will be open even to the F-35 rather than continue to state the F-35 will not be purchased? . How much money is the Trudeau Government giving Boeing (Super Hornet), Dassault (Rafale) and Airbus (Eurofighter), likewise, how many GoC personal are apart of each other program? is this you again speaking to additional funding being paid by Canada to the JSF program... per your many times repeated posting about some upcoming meeting that Canada hasn't pulled out of? You still flogging this - cause I can't find anything about any new monies. Again, your continued speaking of $150 million, as if it is additional money over and above the 2002 commitment of $150 million seems at odds to my googly prowess - again, do you have a cite to confirm Canada will be paying an additional $150 million as a part of attending some upcoming JSF meeting? . Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Riddle me this Waldo, if the Trudeau Liberals, based on them going business as usual with the F-35, held a dog & pony show "fair and transparent" competition for a Hornet replacement, and it was determined that the F-35 would actually meet the needs of the RCAF, likewise, the program offered the most industrial benefits to the aerospace and technology industries within Canada, would the Waldo want a seat upon the bandwagon your premise is not sound. When you speak of the needs of the RCAF, you have the proverbial cart-before-the-horse. As I interpret, the intended review of Canada's role and requirements will start from the point of role and move outward/beyond from there. Are you able to project upon those RCAF needs without first determining just what role the review will set for Canada? Notwithstanding, in your view will the... or should the... review role determination be limited/isolated only to the RCAF. My impression is that we might just see revision/update to Harper's First Defense Strategy - yes? . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 sworn statement? Say what? What reality are you in here? Again, you're attempting to take a projection where the use of the word "EXPECT" is distinctly used and declare it, as you said, "the TRUTH"... where you used a definitive declaration in your use of the word "WILL". . Sure, testimony before a governing body in the Westminster system is under oath..........you suggested a "vested interest" on the part of the head of the RAAF........does Waldo have privilege? no procurement numbers have certainty; quite obviously they are all subject to available funding within respective countries. No procurement numbers have contractual attachment to them... until there's an actual contract! How many of those are out there... for how many planes? That is clearly shown by how many countries have cut their initial numbers back. For you to imply, for example, that the U.S. will actually purchase ~2400 F-35s is pure folly given the state of U.S. military cutbacks and fiscal conditions. Though I don't discount a given countries finances will dictate the course ahead in some respects, case in point the British or Dutch (which both had far larger air forces at the onset of the program, since reduced, ergo their requirement for a replacement), for the Americans, ~2400 is the size of the current requirement to replace in service legacy types...... If they don't replace the current in service types, the force structure will be reduced by attrition........there is no serious desire, from either US parties, for that........for example, US lawmakers refused a USN request to retire a portion of their cruiser fleet, likewise a refusal by lawmakers to retire the entire A-10 fleet from the USAF....even when the military itself wants to retire some capabilities, lawmakers find money to make it happen from with the couch cushions. if as you say you could, you would... such a listing doesn't exist. Such a listing that can provide a definitive accounting of intended procurement per timeline doesn't exist, let alone one that might give some idea of actual funded/contracted planes, per country, per time frame. If it did exist you would certainly put it forward - oh wait, would you? I doubt it as it surely wouldn't speak very positively of the basis of your parroted LockMart procurement costing! As I said, if one were so inclined, they could without a doubt go to each nations Government/military websites etc and obtain said data to compile such a list........but for what purpose? I've shown past LRIP costs have not always come down with each iteration... I can't recall which ones at the moment, but I provided full detail with accompanying sources at that time. You keep, as you say, "touting" some unknown (but significantly lower) production procurement cost, but you can't provide the basis for that cost... you can't provide a by-timeline accounting of production planes that aligns with so-called intended procurement... notwithstanding none of that intended has even been paid for... other than the onesey-twosey type orders to allow countries to kick the tires. In fairness, I do remember that now, I think it was LRIP 4 or 5, where due to Sequestration, the overall numbers were reduced for that purchase, increasing the average per plane cost as a result of lost production. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 a frivolous response! The refrain is consistent and has been amplified in the face of questioning that aligns with your same wishful thinking. Don't you think it would be more prudent to simply suggest the forthcoming intended open competition will be open even to the F-35 rather than continue to state the F-35 will not be purchased? . I suppose, as I said, if new information became known to the current Government, that would suggest the selection of the F-35 was the best fit for Canada, forcing them to change directions from a previous election promise, I couldn't find fault in that. is this you again speaking to additional funding being paid by Canada to the JSF program... per your many times repeated posting about some upcoming meeting that Canada hasn't pulled out of? You still flogging this - cause I can't find anything about any new monies. Again, your continued speaking of $150 million, as if it is additional money over and above the 2002 commitment of $150 million seems at odds to my googly prowess - again, do you have a cite to confirm Canada will be paying an additional $150 million as a part of attending some upcoming JSF meeting? Yes, I posted it several times in this thread....... Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Sure, testimony before a governing body in the Westminster system is under oath..........you suggested a "vested interest" on the part of the head of the RAAF........does Waldo have privilege? yeesh! So the guy gave "sworn testimony" that there is an expectation! And, again, you proceeded to call that expectation... that projection... the "truth" and proceeded to use the definitive word "WILL" to suggest that WILL be the cost. You don't know that anymore than the guy giving the testimony. . Though I don't discount a given countries finances will dictate the course ahead in some respects, case in point the British or Dutch (which both had far larger air forces at the onset of the program, since reduced, ergo their requirement for a replacement), for the Americans, ~2400 is the size of the current requirement to replace in service legacy types...... If they don't replace the current in service types, the force structure will be reduced by attrition........there is no serious desire, from either US parties, for that........for example, US lawmakers refused a USN request to retire a portion of their cruiser fleet, likewise a refusal by lawmakers to retire the entire A-10 fleet from the USAF....even when the military itself wants to retire some capabilities, lawmakers find money to make it happen from with the couch cushions. uhhh... the refusal to retire the A-10 fleet was to do with concerns the F-35 can't match the unique capability of the A-10. You sure you wanted to highlight that? you're discounting the role drones will play. All this talk of the F-35 (or any plane for that matter) being the prominent air defense or combat vehicle into 2040-2050 is ridiculous. That on its own will cut the F-35 numbers back... notwithstanding the continued delays and doubts on the F-35 capabilities in actual combat, military cutbacks and fiscal restraints. . As I said, if one were so inclined, they could without a doubt go to each nations Government/military websites etc and obtain said data to compile such a list........but for what purpose? simple - to provide some semblance of legitimacy to projected production procurement costs. Right now, the numbers out there, the numbers you continue to speak to, those numbers aren't based on anything other than presumed procurement "of some undetermined number by some unknown date". . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 your premise is not sound. When you speak of the needs of the RCAF, you have the proverbial cart-before-the-horse. As I interpret, the intended review of Canada's role and requirements will start from the point of role and move outward/beyond from there. Are you able to project upon those RCAF needs without first determining just what role the review will set for Canada? Notwithstanding, in your view will the... or should the... review role determination be limited/isolated only to the RCAF. My impression is that we might just see revision/update to Harper's First Defense Strategy - yes? . Based on the new Government's stated intentions of continuing with the NORAD/Defense of Canada role, yes I feel I can offer some level of projection on future requirements. Simply put, if one were to completely divorce previous usage of our current Hornets, by both past PC/LPC/CPC governments "overseas", and assumed this Government going forward would refrain from said use, there would still be a need to address our NORAD requirements. As such, Canada will require an aircraft to operate out to the 2060s. Based on the simple fact that our lone partner will be operating the F-35A as their primary contribution through this timeline, synergies offered in interoperability, training and support alone should make our choice clear........to say nothing of positive effects on our industries and the ability, if required, to operate decades from now in a high threat environment under the auspices of NATO. As I've said before, when we selected our current Hornets ~35 years ago, with a requirement to defend Canada through NORAD and contribute to NATO's low-level strike mission in West Germany (ala bomb truck), there is no feasible way for the then Trudeau Government to have predicted their actual future usage as per historic.........such a realization should factor into our process today. Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I suppose, as I said, if new information became known to the current Government, that would suggest the selection of the F-35 was the best fit for Canada, forcing them to change directions from a previous election promise, I couldn't find fault in that. not what I asked you. If you don't accept the repeated and ongoing statements that the F-35 won't be purchased, and you continue to believe it will actually be included within an open competition, why didn't the Defense Minister just days ago when last asked to confirm... why didn't he just say that yes, the F-35 will be a part of the open competition? Why continue to say otherwise and set themselves up for even a bigger and more profiled "flip-flop" at some later date? . Yes, I posted it several times in this thread....... but that link doesn't speak to any new $150 million investment... that's the very $150 million from day one, from 2002. That's just what I've been saying through these recent posts. Your posts were implying some new additional funding; that's clearly not the case. Are you saying/implying... is your linked journalist saying/implying, that Canada has not paid any of that initial pledge amount from 2002? Really? How can that be? My understanding is that money allowed participating countries to receive information/documents on the program that non-participating countries aren't privy to. Are you saying Canada's been getting all that information without paying anything all these last decade+ years? Really? . Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Based on the new Government's stated intentions of continuing with the NORAD/Defense of Canada role, yes I feel I can offer some level of projection on future requirements. Simply put, if one were to completely divorce previous usage of our current Hornets, by both past PC/LPC/CPC governments "overseas", and assumed this Government going forward would refrain from said use, there would still be a need to address our NORAD requirements. As such, Canada will require an aircraft to operate out to the 2060s. Based on the simple fact that our lone partner will be operating the F-35A as their primary contribution through this timeline, synergies offered in interoperability, training and support alone should make our choice clear........to say nothing of positive effects on our industries and the ability, if required, to operate decades from now in a high threat environment under the auspices of NATO. As I've said before, when we selected our current Hornets ~35 years ago, with a requirement to defend Canada through NORAD and contribute to NATO's low-level strike mission in West Germany (ala bomb truck), there is no feasible way for the then Trudeau Government to have predicted their actual future usage as per historic.........such a realization should factor into our process today. so... uhhh... no need for a review on role/requirements then, hey! Well that was easy peasey! Wonder why they seem so determined to have that review? And now you up the "operate out to" point to the 2060s!!! That's just nonsense. Drone baby, drone! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 .uhhh... the refusal to retire the A-10 fleet was to do with concerns the F-35 can't match the unique capability of the A-10. You sure you wanted to highlight that? Yes and no. Yes in that the A-10 is very, very good at several niche roles (killing large concentrations of people in a permissive environment at a relatively low cost) and it couldn't be fully replaced by current legacy types or the F-35 in said role. No in that the A-10 can't perform the far more wide ranging roles carried out by legacy types and then the F-35. you're discounting the role drones will play. All this talk of the F-35 (or any plane for that matter) being the prominent air defense or combat vehicle into 2040-2050 is ridiculous. That on its own will cut the F-35 numbers back... notwithstanding the continued delays and doubts on the F-35 capabilities in actual combat, military cutbacks and fiscal restraints. There are currently no UCAV programs (in the United States or Europe) that will see unmanned aircraft used in a "air defense" role..........the 6th generation concepts, that will replace the F-15/Super Hornet/F-22, likewise the recently signed next generation bomber program with Northrop, will be manned aircraft, with the possibility to be unmanned for some tasks........perhaps the F-35 will replaced by a 7th generation UCAV in said role in the 2050s and beyond, but the technology is not anywhere close. simple - to provide some semblance of legitimacy to projected production procurement costs. Right now, the numbers out there, the numbers you continue to speak to, those numbers aren't based on anything other than presumed procurement "of some undetermined number by some unknown date". Fair enough...........how well does the Waldo speak Italian, Yiddish, Japanese, Korean, Danish, Turkish and Norwegian? I'll take care of the American/British/Australian/Canadian/Dutch requirements.......when's the due date? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Now here is an interesting idea, so desperate is Canada to keep its hard won F-35 sub contracts: Buy ONE (1) F-35A and park it just to meet minimum JSF Tier 3 partner requirements. I like it !! http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/how-much-has-canada-spent-on-the-f-35-so-far ETA: Canada needn't worry about A-10 Warthog capabilities...something it never had. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 not what I asked you. If you don't accept the repeated and ongoing statements that the F-35 won't be purchased, and you continue to believe it will actually be included within an open competition, why didn't the Defense Minister just days ago when last asked to confirm... why didn't he just say that yes, the F-35 will be a part of the open competition? Why continue to say otherwise and set themselves up for even a bigger and more profiled "flip-flop" at some later date? . Distance between the eventual selection and said election promise.......as I said before, I doubt any aircraft will be selected inside this mandate (the Harper Government had no intention of purchasing the aircraft until it entered full rate production, hence they wouldn't have purchased a replacement inside this mandate either)..........and if/when there is an eventual "flip-flop", who is really going to care? but that link doesn't speak to any new $150 million investment... that's the very $150 million from day one, from 2002. That's just what I've been saying through these recent posts. Your posts were implying some new additional funding; that's clearly not the case. Are you saying/implying... is your linked journalist saying/implying, that Canada has not paid any of that initial pledge amount from 2002? Really? How can that be? My understanding is that money allowed participating countries to receive information/documents on the program that non-participating countries aren't privy to. Are you saying Canada's been getting all that information without paying anything all these last decade+ years? Really? No, we've spent, to date (since 1997) just over $300 million, the touted $150 million figure is the next level of investment going forward into the production and sustainment phase. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Now here is an interesting idea, so desperate is Canada to keep its hard won F-35 sub contracts: Buy ONE (1) F-35A and park it just to meet minimum JSF Tier 3 partner requirements. I like it !! http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/how-much-has-canada-spent-on-the-f-35-so-far Bumped, same source as mine, sans the National Post paywall. -------- I'm to assume the strategy is as suggested.......punt on a official selection, pay our dues to get us into the next (far larger) round of contract bidding, see what pork comes our way (or doesn't) then decide........with the planned center barrel replacement of our Hornets, there is no urgent need to "decide" inside this decade........and government mandate. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 ....I'm to assume the strategy is as suggested.......punt on a official selection, pay our dues to get us into the next (far larger) round of contract bidding, see what pork comes our way (or doesn't) then decide........with the planned center barrel replacement of our Hornets, there is no urgent need to "decide" inside this decade........and government mandate. You got it....that's what this game is really about anyway....getting the contracts for full rate production of all those (mostly American) deliveries. Canada will make a very small buy to stay in the JSF partnership and get away as cheap as possible...Canada likes cheap ! It's a win-win...Trudeau can avoid the worst case scenario of losing Tier 3 privileges while spending the bare minimum on new F-35A "jets". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Now here is an interesting idea, so desperate is Canada to keep its hard won F-35 sub contracts: Buy ONE (1) F-35A and park it just to meet minimum JSF Tier 3 partner requirements. I like it !! http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/how-much-has-canada-spent-on-the-f-35-so-far ETA: Canada needn't worry about A-10 Warthog capabilities...something it never had. Pentagon already said the contracts are signed and sealed whether or not we buy the turkey. They need to expertise we offer. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Canada will make a very small buy to stay in the JSF partnership and get away as cheap as possible...Canada likes cheap ! It's a win-win...Trudeau can avoid the worst case scenario of losing Tier 3 privileges while spending the bare minimum on new F-35A "jets". I'm not so sure they could reduce the fleet size without screwing with our NORAD requirements........They will need 48 operational aircraft regardless........maybe a small initial order, 24-30 aircraft, and spread out the usage of the remaining Hornets for the remainder of the requirement until they start dropping out of the skies in the later 2020s?????? The cost of operating a mixed fleet would increase though, but perhaps offset by spreading out the purchase, instead of one time large block buy???? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I'm not so sure they could reduce the fleet size without screwing with our NORAD requirements........They will need 48 operational aircraft regardless........maybe a small initial order, 24-30 aircraft, and spread out the usage of the remaining Hornets for the remainder of the requirement until they start dropping out of the skies in the later 2020s?????? The cost of operating a mixed fleet would increase though, but perhaps offset by spreading out the purchase, instead of one time large block buy???? Right...you know they have some bean counters with spreadsheets trying to find the best (cheapest) mix. Politically, Trudeau is in a box, so the soft back pedal will be tolerated if the costs are not for the whole enchilada of 48 or 65 Lightning II's. Other partners have gotten away with far smaller commitments. Call it "savings" instead of "spending" ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Right...you know they have some bean counters with spreadsheets trying to find the best (cheapest) mix. Politically, Trudeau is in a box, so the soft back pedal will be tolerated if the costs are not for the whole enchilada of 48 or 65 Lightning II's. Other partners have gotten away with far smaller commitments. Call it "savings" instead of "spending" ! Call it more sensible spending. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Right...you know they have some bean counters with spreadsheets trying to find the best (cheapest) mix. Politically, Trudeau is in a box, so the soft back pedal will be tolerated if the costs are not for the whole enchilada of 48 or 65 Lightning II's. Other partners have gotten away with far smaller commitments. Call it "savings" instead of "spending" ! 48 is the hard figure for operational squadrons, the remaining 17 aircraft are for sustaining the operational aircraft (training/deep maintenance/attrition), but as noted in past F-35 threads, prior to the end of production, there would likely have to be an additional buy of attrition replacements.......based on our loss rate of the Hornet, one could assume an additional 5-10 aircraft would be eventually needed.....Something that would also have to be factored into selection of a legacy aircraft going out of production....... ----------- Here's another idea, used as a stick before, offer up the Snowbirds .........their replacement would equate to 6-8 additional fighters, likewise their annual operating budget. I know the RCAF has floated the idea in the past (as did the RCMP with the Musical Ride) when faced with funding shortages, just as the USN did with the Blue Angles and the USAF with the Thunderbirds........pisses off the voting public and embarrass the Government. Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 There are currently no UCAV programs (in the United States or Europe) that will see unmanned aircraft used in a "air defense" role..........the 6th generation concepts, that will replace the F-15/Super Hornet/F-22, likewise the recently signed next generation bomber program with Northrop, will be manned aircraft, with the possibility to be unmanned for some tasks........perhaps the F-35 will replaced by a 7th generation UCAV in said role in the 2050s and beyond, but the technology is not anywhere close. didn't say there were; however, there will be... long before those extended dates into the 2040s, 2050s and now where you even speak of flying the F-35 into the 2060s! And again, that will be... that should be a consideration for any country that presumes on requiring any jet fighter for any long-term extended usage. You have no qualms in touting technology advances... until such talk and eventuality infringes on the lifetime of the F-35. . Fair enough...........how well does the Waldo speak Italian, Yiddish, Japanese, Korean, Danish, Turkish and Norwegian? I'll take care of the American/British/Australian/Canadian/Dutch requirements.......when's the due date? isn't it at all surprising no such list/accounting is out there? You say the information exists, that it's all out there, and yet no summary accounting to that end, as I'm aware... apparently, as you're aware, exists! Why would that be? . Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Now here is an interesting idea, so desperate is Canada to keep its hard won F-35 sub contracts: Buy ONE (1) F-35A and park it just to meet minimum JSF Tier 3 partner requirements. I like it !! http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/how-much-has-canada-spent-on-the-f-35-so-far no - there are NO requirements to purchase to belong to the program... that's been the situation from day one. That linked article you provide offers nothing to suggest otherwise! There are also no requirements to purchase to bid on and secure contracts for the F-35 - clearly! Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Distance between the eventual selection and said election promise.......as I said before, I doubt any aircraft will be selected inside this mandate (the Harper Government had no intention of purchasing the aircraft until it entered full rate production, hence they wouldn't have purchased a replacement inside this mandate either)..........and if/when there is an eventual "flip-flop", who is really going to care? should there be that 'flip-flop'... you've even gone so far as to suggest LockMart might bring legal suit to ensure the F-35 is included... your "who would care" statement is here to ensure you don't come back and show you care by speaking to your wishful hoping for "flip flop"... cause you won't care, right? . No, we've spent, to date (since 1997) just over $300 million, the touted $150 million figure is the next level of investment going forward into the production and sustainment phase. your link states the F-35 is already into that phase... since 2006. Do you have anything to support those partner level payment requirements... my googlies continue to fail me? Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I'm not so sure they could reduce the fleet size without screwing with our NORAD requirements........They will need 48 operational aircraft regardless........maybe a small initial order, 24-30 aircraft, and spread out the usage of the remaining Hornets for the remainder of the requirement until they start dropping out of the skies in the later 2020s?????? The cost of operating a mixed fleet would increase though, but perhaps offset by spreading out the purchase, instead of one time large block buy???? a 'large one-time purchase block buy'? When has that ever been the stated intent for the F-35? If only we had some kind of a list... a summary accounting of presumed country-by-country intent by time frame. The "missing list", hey! Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Re Snowbirds. We should be able to get another 30 years out of those old things. Seriously, we already operate Hawks for NATO training. Seems like a replacement should be a no brainer if we could still get some more. Or have we missed that boat as well? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.