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

[waldo]

I've asked you in the past and I re-asked you just a few posts back in this thread... and now I'll ask you again - offer-up your swag on what you believe the price Canada will pay to acquire the F-35. If you want to play that out over early LRIPs (assuming HarperConservatives are stupid enough to take them) and phased real production, just offer up an average cost. As I did a few posts back, I'll also ask you to attribute the estimated cost increases from the early estimates on through to the latest number you (indirectly) identified by linking to the most recent DND/Canadian Forces F-35 annual/status update report... what do you attribute those estimated cost increases to... if not delays in the JSFail program? Clearly, you have a real aversion to putting yourself out there - to offering up an estimate. Perhaps you still believe some magic fairy dust will validate those early HarperConservative numbers... but you're just not willing to say/write it!

With through life support and operation costs factored in, oh about 690-700 million per plane………..Perhaps you’ve missed my prior guesstimates……….

of course, once again... you won't answer the question. You have this absolute aversion/unwillingness to provide an estimate, your estimate (your swag) on the acquisition cost. Instead... you bury it (as an unknown number... cause you won't say what that number is). You have been forever against factoring life-cycle costs into the mix... until you want to leverage them as an umbrella to bury the acquisition cost. Like I said, you must still be holding out for that 'fairy dust', hey?

And your estimate(s) for operating the Super Hornet and/or some yet to be developed “drone”?

operating cost for the Super Hornet? You mean beyond the operational flying cost per hour of the Super Hornet... the number that's half that of the F-35... the number you accept/acknowledge? Operational costs beyond that number? C'mon, have you forgotten? Since you were the first to link to your referenced Australian Super Hornet purchase... where you highlighted the purchase included support... where you failed to properly account for Australian dollars and properly identify the support interval (10 years), I suggested the onus was on you to specifically identify those support costs and their makeup. I mean, c'mon... it was your initiative, your link, your reference.

operation costs for drones? I don't think you've asked for that before? But why are you distracting again? Do you have a point; if so, Governor, please proceed!

[waldo]

no - the repeated ask is intended to highlight your flippant attitude towards concurrency costs... costs that the program must bear, costs that LockMart will assign to, ultimately, your described paying customers... including the U.S. military branches; increased costs which reflect on the dollars your country's citizens are paying. So, apparently, you're a hawk... just not a budget hawk! Uhhh, is there such a thing as a budget chicken-hawk?

But none of this has anything to do with Canada, which has no contract for F-35s.

whaaat! You mean we/Canada have no fixed-price contract for F-35s? Hopefully, MLW member, 'Derek L', reads this/your revelation!

[bush_cheney2004]

...As you will see, both Officers are experienced instructors & functional check flight pilots, indicative of an operational squadron that is in the process of familiarizing it’s commissioned and non commissioned members with a new aircraft.

Yep....must be like all those F-22 and F/A-18 E/F/G test pilot squadrons deployed around the world. Who knew that the 'test pilot' occupation would be booming ! The new Top Gun movie will have test pilots too...test pilots are very popular these days. I would think that peace loving Canadians would like the idea of test pilots bombing people instead of those mean old fighter pilots.

Edited March 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

...operating cost for the Super Hornet? You mean beyond the operational flying cost per hour of the Super Hornet... operation costs for drones?

You mean American operational costs ? Canada's DND seemed a bit challenged when it came to documenting its own flight hour costs for CF-18s....so as is the habit...just gazed America's way for 'data'.

[waldo]

You mean American operational costs ? Canada's DND seemed a bit challenged when it came to documenting its own flight hour costs for CF-18s....so as is the habit...just gazed America's way for 'data'.

is your one-trick pony hungry? A quick read shows some very specific Canadian CF-18 usage aspects... along with industry standard metrics. Are you in a desperate need to wrap your, 'America's way' blankee around an 'industry standard designation'.

[bush_cheney2004]

is your one-trick pony hungry? A quick read shows some very specific Canadian CF-18 usage aspects... along with industry standard metrics. Are you in a desperate need to wrap your, 'America's way' blankee around an 'industry standard designation'.

Never hungry around here...always able to find lots of American home cooking in your data. The larger point raised by another member (and ignored by you) is relevance to Canadian procurements and operational costs regardless of when it may happen. I completely understand living vicariously through the Americans yet again, but it becomes apples and bananas very soon in the process. The Americans scrap more aircraft than Canada will ever buy and think nothing of it.

[DogOnPorch]

Geesh. Must be time for more flight porn.

A great choice for Canada with suitable range to cross the Channel!

In Swedish...

[waldo]

The larger point raised by another member (and ignored by you) is relevance to Canadian procurements and operational costs regardless of when it may happen.

if we're talking about the same thing, I didn't ignore it at all. In fact, I pointed out, I emphasized (ultimate) procurement costs are a direct reflection on the F-35 program delays. Perhaps you haven't heard... JSF member countries are a bit ticked at the history of exorbitant cost increases... why... it's affected purchase commitments... it's outright delayed purchasing. Haven't you heard?

I completely understand living vicariously through the Americans yet again, but it becomes apples and bananas very soon in the process. The Americans scrap more aircraft than Canada will ever buy and think nothing of it.

and..... the one-trick pony gets fed again!

[bush_cheney2004]

if we're talking about the same thing, I didn't ignore it at all. In fact, I pointed out, I emphasized (ultimate) procurement costs are a direct reflection on the F-35 program delays.

In other news, Chevy Malibus may cost more in the future too.....oh my !

Perhaps you haven't heard... JSF member countries are a bit ticked at the history of exorbitant cost increases... why... it's affected purchase commitments... it's outright delayed purchasing. Haven't you heard?

Me no care about hand wringing from "member countries", especially Tier 3 wannabes. If you have to constantly ask how much it costs.....

and..... the one-trick pony gets fed again!

If a tree falls in a Canadian forest, does it make any noise if not heard by an American ?

[DogOnPorch]

In other news, Chevy Malibus may cost more in the future too.....oh my !

Indeed. That Bleriot (replica) probably cost $2000 bucks in 1909. I bet it's worth MUCH more now.

Edited March 8, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

Me no care about hand wringing from "member countries", especially Tier 3 wannabes. If you have to constantly ask how much it costs.....

we get it! You want your shiny toy at any cost; those Americans and politicos who similarly scrutinize the failed F-35 program... dagnabit, those Americans have no standing to challenge the MIC!!! I appreciate you're becoming flustered that pressures have finally risen to the point where LockMart is actually being held responsible for costs/delivery scheduling (what's a decade too late, hey?). I appreciate you're very taken aback that the U.S. military is ever-increasingly constrained over budgetary fiscal limits - that real-world prioritization is being forced upon the U.S. military. What a concept!

If a tree falls in a Canadian forest, does it make any noise if not heard by an American ?

can an American hear anything other than a falling American tree... in an American forest?

[bush_cheney2004]

we get it! You want your shiny toy at any cost; those Americans and politicos who similarly scrutinize the failed F-35 program...

That's just part of the game....we already have the plane into production. Remember the B-1A.....Carter canceled it but it came right back as a "B1-B Jobs Program". None of this has anything to do with Canada's legendary procurement fiascos that result in getting nothing.

....I appreciate you're very taken aback that the U.S. military is ever-increasingly constrained over budgetary fiscal limits - that real-world prioritization is being forced upon the U.S. military. What a concept!

Got no problem with reduced military budgets.....it will just take a little longer to destroy the world ten times over ! Gee, it might even force Canada to pay for more of its NATO/NORAD share of resources.

can an American hear anything other than a falling American tree... in an American forest?

Yes...the Americans have wired the oceans, earth, and sky. When a recent quake hit off the B.C. shore, smart Canadians went to the USGS site and tsunami warning system, not waiting for the locals to figure things out.

[waldo]

None of this has anything to do with Canada's legendary procurement fiascos that result in getting nothing.

whoa! Economies of scale don't favour you designating another country's military procurement's as... legendary fiascos. We could delve into the ether, but it requires you to first state, categorically, that the U.S. has no history of an inordinate number of military procurement failures; of your own... legendary fiascos. Just say it.

Got no problem with reduced military budgets.....it will just take a little longer to destroy the world ten times over ! Gee, it might even force Canada to pay for more of its NATO/NORAD share of resources.

might is right, hey? Speaking of payments, is the U.S. all caught up again with your U.N. dues owed... or are you still shorting the UN?

Yes...the Americans have wired the oceans, earth, and sky. When a recent quake hit off the B.C. shore, smart Canadians went to the USGS site and tsunami warning system, not waiting for the locals to figure things out.

no, no, no, grasshopper! For earthquake monitoring/notification we can rely on NRCan... or BC Emergency Management, which also provides tsunami notifications. Ultimately, of course, Canada (NRCan)... as all other countries bordering the North Pacific, feeds information into and relies upon the international Tsunami Warming System.

have you finished attempting to derail this thread... or do you have more?

[bush_cheney2004]

whoa! Economies of scale don't favour you designating another country's military procurement's as... legendary fiascos. We could delve into the ether, but it requires you to first state, categorically, that the U.S. has no history of an inordinate number of military procurement failures; of your own... legendary fiascos. Just say it.

Finally...it took forever, but now the focus is squarely where it should be...on Canada's procurements...not the USA's. If only because the USA's fiascos usually result in some actual platforms being produced as prototypes instead of artificial reef material in Lake Ontario or, worse yet, huge cancellation penalties with no platforms at all.

might is right, hey? Speaking of payments, is the U.S. all caught up again with your U.N. dues owed... or are you still shorting the UN?

The U.N. is a joke.....American can pay when it feels like it. Sue us.....

no, no, no, grasshopper! For earthquake monitoring/notification we can rely on NRCan... or BC Emergency Management, which also provides tsunami notifications. Ultimately, of course, Canada (NRCan)... as all other countries bordering the North Pacific, feeds information into and relies upon the international Tsunami Warming System.

Nice try...but there was much criticism for just how late any such warnings were...long after the Americans issues immediate warnings. Don't shine me on.

have you finished attempting to derail this thread... or do you have more?

I have lots more....anytime I get a whiff of wannabe comparisons between the U.S. and Canada for defense program procurements I will first laugh, then offer up my unique wisdom on such matters. You see, I was working on "LRIP" contracts long before there was any Internet or Google (also from America) to help you figure it out.

Edited March 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

If only because the USA's fiascos usually result in some actual platforms being produced as prototypes

usually? How discriminating of you. In line with my highlighting economies of scale, I guess when you spend more than the next dozen+ countries combined, the unusual will usually happen, right? Here's a handy lil' 2011 snapshot - USA!, USA!, USA!

why so paranoid chum?

The U.N. is a joke.....American can pay when it feels like it. Sue us.....

huh! I thought the UN fronted your foreign policy! Go figure.

Nice try...but there was much criticism for just how late any such warnings were...long after the Americans issues immediate warnings. Don't shine me on.

no - you are shining quite brightly. Warnings went out within minutes to local community officials and first-responders (described as having sent out, 'thousands of voice calls, emails, and faxes', to first-responders)... additionally 9 operations centers were activated. The current BC Emergency Management protocol is said to rely upon local communities enacting their own process/procedures... this is currently under review given how certain local communities handled their alert. But don't let any of that stop you from your perpetual need to chest-thump!

I have lots more....anytime I get a whiff of wannabe comparisons between the U.S. and Canada for defense program procurements I will first laugh, then offer up my unique wisdom on such matters. You see, I was working on "LRIP" contracts long before there was any Internet or Google (also from America) to help you figure it out.

oh yes, we're all familiar with the tales from MLW's old salt!

[bush_cheney2004]

usually? How discriminating of you. In line with my highlighting economies of scale, I guess when you spend more than the next dozen+ countries combined, the unusual will usually happen, right? Here's a handy lil' 2011 snapshot - USA!, USA!, USA!

Now that's the spirit. Compare that to Sea Kings forever.....look at all the money Canada has "saved" !

The cool part is that this pathetic procurement dance will go on for years and years, meaning the entertainment well will never run dry.

[Guest Derek L]

your question has been asked and answered and answered again... an easy fix is something opposite to a non-easy fix! I gave you a ream of suggestions as to something that's the opposite of easy... you know, "arduous, complex, complicated, demanding, difficult, hard, intricate, involved, laborious"!!!

I can play your game, as well. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked for a distinction between easy... and uneasy. "Uneasy"!!! Really? Try a dictionary!

Hey, you’re the one that suggested that three of four required improvements to the F-35 would not be a “easy fix”………So what does a “uneasy” fix translate to in terms of both cost and time?

[Guest Derek L]

are you trying to bump your posting numbers? In your roundabout way, are you suggesting that U.S. budgetary constraints affecting the U.S. military, in turn affecting U.S. military F-35 prioritization, has no affect on the overall F-35 program?

No, I'm asking how US requirements for new trainers will effect Canadian requirements….It was your distraction.

[Guest Derek L]

of course, once again... you won't answer the question. You have this absolute aversion/unwillingness to provide an estimate, your estimate (your swag) on the acquisition cost. Instead... you bury it (as an unknown number... cause you won't say what that number is). You have been forever against factoring life-cycle costs into the mix... until you want to leverage them as an umbrella to bury the acquisition cost. Like I said, you must still be holding out for that 'fairy dust', hey?

I did in the passage that you quoted……..If I provided a per plane cost, sans support, spares etc, you’d be complaining about that…..

operating cost for the Super Hornet? You mean beyond the operational flying cost per hour of the Super Hornet... the number that's half that of the F-35... the number you accept/acknowledge? Operational costs beyond that number? C'mon, have you forgotten? Since you were the first to link to your referenced Australian Super Hornet purchase... where you highlighted the purchase included support... where you failed to properly account for Australian dollars and properly identify the support interval (10 years), I suggested the onus was on you to specifically identify those support costs and their makeup. I mean, c'mon... it was your initiative, your link, your reference.

operation costs for drones? I don't think you've asked for that before? But why are you distracting again? Do you have a point; if so, Governor, please proceed!

Are you not the one that brought up Super Hornets 50% off, coupled with a yet undeveloped UCAV over the last several days………clearly the onus is on you to provide a costing for the cause(s) that you champion.

Or are you backtracking since your CBC centric claim has been disproved relating to the Super Hornet………As for “drones”, your second go to “solution”, are you also backing away after the early retirement of the Global Hawk fleet in favour of the manned U-2, coupled with the fact that there currently isn’t a UCAV program in development (In open source) that could meet even a fraction of the requirements set-out to replace the Hornet Fleet?

When all UCAVs are currently only operated in restricted airspaces, how would your hypothetical “drones” intercept an airliner that’s squawked a distress call, one of the simplest required tasks of the RCAF under the auspices of NORAD?

[waldo]

no - the visibility constraints were attributed to four factors, only one of which is said to be quite readily dealt with; specifically: the canopy bow, the high-glare shield, the HMD cable... and the ejection seat headrest. Of those, the cable is described as the only 'easy fix'.

For clarification, care to define an easy and uneasy “fix”?

really? That's your comeback? Gee, what might be the opposite of easy? Perhaps something that affects design... that affects testing... that might have performance implications... that might have dependencies... that might be dependent on something else... that might presume upon new/additional testing requirements... that might have implications on past testing and performance results... that might change procedures... that might affect or impact on standards... etc., etc., etc.

So nothing to offer to clarify your “easy fix”, and by extension, an “uneasy fix”?

apparently you can't be bothered to read. Please continue with your silly-buggar act - you wear it well! Let's recap: you were adamant that the visibility concern raised by F-35 test pilots was nothing more than what you trivialized as a 'head rest'. I proceeded to correct you and advise that there were actually 4 items identified as raising pilot concerns... apparently, I went over your distraction threshold and advised only one of those 4 was suggested to be an "easy fix". Enter the Derek L distraction dragon avoiding acknowledging you were wrong; of course, at the same time you peel off into another distraction layer.

So what is an "easy fix"?

your question has been asked and answered and answered again... an easy fix is something opposite to a non-easy fix! I gave you a ream of suggestions as to something that's the opposite of easy... you know, "arduous, complex, complicated, demanding, difficult, hard, intricate, involved, laborious"!!!

I can play your game, as well. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked for a distinction between easy... and uneasy. "Uneasy"!!! Really? Try a dictionary!

Hey, you’re the one that suggested that three of four required improvements to the F-35 would not be a “easy fix”………So what does a “uneasy” fix translate to in terms of both cost and time?

and here we have another classic case of you at your most anally-retentive best! Do you have a point to end your idiocy? And... no - read it again... I suggested 1 of 4 was an 'easy fix'. You've yet to even admit you were wrong about the causation number (4 not your repeated insistence that it was just 1). So you distract... it's what you do! Since you want to play games, as I suggested - try a dictionary - I don't know what an, 'uneasy fix' is... I'm not familiar with anxious or apprehensive fixes! And, ah... again, do you actually have a point here?

[Guest Derek L]

Yep....must be like all those F-22 and F/A-18 E/F/G test pilot squadrons deployed around the world. Who knew that the 'test pilot' occupation would be booming ! The new Top Gun movie will have test pilots too...test pilots are very popular these days. I would think that peace loving Canadians would like the idea of test pilots bombing people instead of those mean old fighter pilots.

Indeed…….with the flooding of “test pilots” onto the market, “Corporate American” no longer required importing cheap Canadian FCF zoomies……..Word on the street has it that Boeing recruits pilots for it’s CHAPS program from a nondescript white van early in the morning with offers of cash for a days labour

[waldo]

No, I'm asking how US requirements for new trainers will effect Canadian requirements….It was your distraction.

didn't say anything about (related) requirements... read it again! What I did say was prefaced in terms of fiscal constraint affecting the U.S. military; as I stated, another example of ever increasing budgetary impacts affecting U.S. military prioritization. A secondary aspect of that fiscal constraint identified the F-16 bridge training concern for the F-35... that they have to, 'figure out a way to train for the F-35 that doesn't involve the F-16'. Of course, in the continued context of training/additional costs, this allowed for a convenient segue to identify a training constraint facing the RCAF... since it can't use its current complement of (20) CT-155 jet trainers to train for the F-35. Inconvenient for you I costed one of the alternates the RCAF is said to be considering as a replacement - the T2 Hawk... I costed that at a cool half-billion dollars for a full replacement. Apparently, you really took exception to this as you went into a series of unsupported posts suggesting Bombardier would be responsible for those costs. You still haven't shown that to be the case... as I repeated, several times, you're quite willing to spend Bombardier's money!

[Guest Derek L]

and here we have another classic case of you at your most anally-retentive best! Do you have a point to end your idiocy? And... no - read it again... I suggested 1 of 4 was an 'easy fix'. You've yet to even admit you were wrong about the causation number (4 not your repeated insistence that it was just 1). So you distract... it's what you do! Since you want to play games, as I suggested - try a dictionary - I don't know what an, 'uneasy fix' is... I'm not familiar with anxious or apprehensive fixes! And, ah... again, do you actually have a point here?

So perhaps an easy fix could be a couple of technicians with a multi-head screwdriver? A uneasy fix, six guys with a Sears socket set perhaps?

So, I’ll assume that you are declining to qualify yourself, as such, I’ll no longer pursue this particular “point” of yours……

[waldo]

So perhaps an easy fix could be a couple of technicians with a multi-head screwdriver? A uneasy fix, six guys with a Sears socket set perhaps?

So, I’ll assume that you are declining to qualify yourself, as such, I’ll no longer pursue this particular “point” of yours……

you have the list, all 4 causal ties were mentioned. Please proceed to show where 3 of those 4 can be addressed with your, "six guys and a Sears socket set"!

[Guest Derek L]

didn't say anything about (related) requirements... read it again! What I did say was prefaced in terms of fiscal constraint affecting the U.S. military; as I stated, another example of ever increasing budgetary impacts affecting U.S. military prioritization. A secondary aspect of that fiscal constraint identified the F-16 bridge training concern for the F-35... that they have to, 'figure out a way to train for the F-35 that doesn't involve the F-16'. Of course, in the continued context of training/additional costs, this allowed for a convenient segue to identify a training constraint facing the RCAF... since it can't use its current complement of (20) CT-155 jet trainers to train for the F-35. Inconvenient for you I costed one of the alternates the RCAF is said to be considering as a replacement - the T2 Hawk... I costed that at a cool half-billion dollars for a full replacement. Apparently, you really took exception to this as you went into a series of unsupported posts suggesting Bombardier would be responsible for those costs. You still haven't shown that to be the case... as I repeated, several times, you're quite willing to spend Bombardier's money!

It can't? Waldo, clearly your rush to respond has failed you.............Fore you clearly don't know what trainers the USN/USMC, RAF/RN and RAAF use