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

[GostHacked]

asked and answered - you received 2 responses. The realistic one from me; the propaganda line from another guy. Even accepting to the existing schedule... that no further delays will occur... that reduced procurement purchases will not affect production/cost, etc., etc., etc., the latest understanding I have is that operational testing is not scheduled to complete until 2019.

So we are waiting at least 6 years for this aircraft then. Let's hope the Chinese and Russians don't get uppity in the next 6-10 years.

[DogOnPorch]

the theme was a transport role would meet Canada's NATO obligations... as a part of the imaginary enemies attacking Canada and the 'one enemy attacks one country, they attack all NATO countries' creed, no worries - NATO to the rescue!!!

you keep forgetting I advocate drones for surveillance and to allow Peter McKay an occasional chasing back the Russian bear photo-op! I believe I prefaced any advocating for the SuperHornet with a 'if you must spend the damn money... then', type sentiment.

A Tu-95 could do a July 1st overflight of Ottawa and we'd be caught completely off guard. The Tu-95, while long in the tooth, is as big a threat to one's safety as the B-52. Too many megatons aboard to scoff at.

Edited June 27, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

747s can NOT be 'converted' into bombers.

[GostHacked]

747s can NOT be 'converted' into bombers.

Only one 747 'bomber' I know exists, and that is an aircraft from Evergreen. One 747 was converted into a water bomber for forest fires.

[DogOnPorch]

Only one 747 'bomber' I know exists, and that is an aircraft from Evergreen. One 747 was converted into a water bomber for forest fires.

Next to even the antiquated Martin Mars...of limited use. But it makes good airshow fodder.

[AlienB]

747s can NOT be 'converted' into bombers.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/benson.htm

[PIK]

;m not sure who we are planning to attack...or who we fear is about to attack us, but keeping those fears alive, once again we get out pockets drained. don't get me wrong, I like airplanes...been a pilot all my working life, but maybe we should try working away from exhausting our resources on killing machines.

Thank god you are not ''On guard for thee''

[DogOnPorch]

So we are waiting at least 6 years for this aircraft then. Let's hope the Chinese and Russians don't get uppity in the next 6-10 years.

They're already pretty upity...never stopped being upity. There's already a high likelihood that Russian 'observers' are on the ground in combat roles. Perhaps the FSA will shell Bien Hoa and Da Nang...errr...Tartus and then the first official Russian units will arrive.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/benson.htm

There's many a reason they do not do it...conceptual only. That's some Starlifter pilot named Bryan going for his degree...btw. I could come-up with conceptual plans to turn BC Ferries into small flat tops for F-35s. Doesn't mean it's actually worth doing.

[AlienB]

There's many a reason they do not do it...conceptual only. That's some Starlifter pilot named Bryan going for his degree...btw. I could come-up with conceptual plans to turn BC Ferries into small flat tops for F-35s. Doesn't mean it's actually worth doing.

No there is more information but I'm not writing a paper to convince you its been looked into very heavily, Read on E-747 and look into DOD docs on B-747 here is some info on the e747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4 Did You Know, the planes can shoot down enemy fighters... and have missile interdiction capacities THAT WAS 40 YEARS AGO. http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/e-4b-emergency-command-post-doubles-as-secdefs-ride/

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090823.aspx

I think in some type of "global war" situation it might be worth doing due to production needs and available assembly lines none the less Canada really doesn't need to be attacking the 2nd and 3rd worlds to begin with, they are domestic concerns, I'd really love to be convinced waging war on the other side of the planet is beneficial but I havn't yet been convinced of that.

I still think Canadians are better served with nuclear weapons than f35s because with nukes atleast you take them down too. Canadians need not fear the third world if we blow up their boats on the way with coastal defences and tighten immigration rules.

Let them kill themselves if they want, its their country.Canada has its own major failures to correct the f35 as the only aircraft for the next 30 years is one of them.

Edited June 27, 2013 by AlienB

[AlienB]

Perhaps the FSA will shell Bien Hoa and Da Nang...errr...Tartus and then the first official Russian units will arrive.

The Russians evacuated all Defence Department Personnel from Tartus. Diplomatic staff - left only, and perhaps some civillians who did not leave, none the less I cannot comment on other Russian aligned forces in Syria. Tartus has been shut by the Russians.

Sorry this just in http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/27-06-2013/124965-russia_tartus-0/

The press reports earlier were incorrect quoting Russian Foreign Affairs........... it seems that the military and foreign affairs havn't agreed on this, or the press is misreporting. FOG much.

I don't know.

Its pravda it must be true.

Apparently it seems civlians ---- not russian defence personnel? unless they are diplomatic are still operating pravda

.... but tartus is still open.. but the military is not there..?

I don't know.

http://inserbia.info/news/2013/06/withdrawal-from-the-syrian-port-tartus-untrue-russian-ministry-of-defence/

It seems for the time being Tartus may be an annex, and this is all easily understood.

None the less didn't the government recently buy a whole lot of smart bombs for the cf-18s? Wouldn't it make sense to buy CF-18s to deliver those many millions of dollars worth of munitions.

It is also confusing to hear

we won't drop as many bombs with the f35? uhm how do you know how many bombs you need?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/national-defence-to-buy-fewer-bombs-if-f-35-selected-as-new-air-force-fighter/article8705866/

52 million for 30 years of weapons? talk about peacemakers.

Edited June 27, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

only a real cheerleader would read a positive end to this latest update... coalition governments arrive at interesting compromises to stay afloat. There's no firm commitment and what I read is that the program will be reviewed for 6 months... nothing will happen during that review period.

two definitive statements were made:

- 1. an emphasis on Parliamentary approval to actually spend any more money. Considering the country has... no money... even if the program continues, it's being called "a given" that the already reduced procurement number (from the original intended 131 to the current 90), will be further reduced, significantly. Again, the country has no money.

Yet, the Italians didn’t leave the program, nor alter their commitment as a tier 2 member……..just like the Dutch….

2. a motion calling on the government to push for further integration of European Union defense projects to reduce costs. Uhhh, since Italy has already received 60+ of the 90 ordered Eurofighter, I'm reading all kinds of speculation on what this motion is intended to emphasize.

As to European content, that’s open to interpretation, since in the JSF program there is one tier 1 And two tier 2 European members……..Ultimately though, further purchases of the more expensive Eurofighter (for a country you mention that has no money) won’t be chosen for namely two reasons………first it costs more……Second, and more importantly, it won’t meet the requirements of the Italian air force and navy (which happen to be exactly the same as the British), since the Eurofighter is not an optimal strike/interdiction aircraft like the Italian air forces Tornados and it certainly won’t replace the Italian navies Harriers……….

Eurofighter don’t surf…….

[Guest Derek L]

Let's go with the Super Hornet. Pilots are already familiar with the aircraft, as are ther maintenance people. Of course some upgrade training would be needed, but at least we know the damn thing worked in it's previous incarnation.

Nope, neither the aircrew or the maintainers are familiar with the Super Hornet……completely different aircraft.

[Guest Derek L]

light ground attack and observation? Drone baby, drone! I see you didn't bite at my only meeting the "stealthy strategic bomber" slag.

transports pricey? Sure. But I don't think Canada would need to buy... 65. Notwithstanding that '65' number is a false-front, since it doesn't account for attribution requirements... I can't be bothered to look now, but I recall that could be as high as another dozen required. Of course, all we ever heard was 65 wouldn't meet the need anyway; that it would barely fill minimum requirements. Which, of course, brings up the spidey senses so as to imply Harper Conservatives were low-balling the actual 65 number, and the real requirement number would get "phased in" later, including attribution needs!

more importantly, from the post preceding yours: Wild Bill is (back) in the House!

The stated attrition requirement is just that……when we purchased the Hornets in the 80s we also had an option to purchase further attrition aircraft…….we never had the need to exercise it……

And likewise with the F-35.…….if some time in the late 2020s or early 2030s we needed replacements, then we purchase them……….How do you think a purchase of attrition Super Hornets (or Eurofighter, Rafales etc) would work out in the same timeframe when the lines have long since been closed?

As such, if we purchased a generation 4 aircraft, we also would require purchasing 10-15 additional aircraft as a hedge against attrition over the life of the aircraft.

[Guest Derek L]

Super Tucanos, Broncos, Mohawks and their ilk are not expected to fulfill the air superiority role. Their role is simply light ground attack and observation. There's Ahmed and his AK-47...get 'im. Age of design is much less an issue. Heck, IL-2 Sturmoviks would give the Taliban headaches. As for transports...have you seen what a C-5 or C-17 goes for? You'd complain about that, too.

And what makes you think we will be fighting in another insurgency in a benign environment anytime soon?

We are much better severed by an INGRESS upgraded Griffon for such stated roles, and when the time comes, a similar aircraft to replace it……..

Edited June 28, 2013 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope, neither the aircrew or the maintainers are familiar with the Super Hornet……completely different aircraft.

Yes.....these aircraft are significantly different from F-18 A/B/C/D:

[Guest Derek L]

Yes.....these aircraft are significantly different from F-18 A/B/C/D:

Exactly.....avionics.....engines,,,,,,radar etc etc

Our Hornets and a brand spanking new Super Hornet is a completely different aircraft………Any shared benefits were between late model C/D Bugs and the initial production Super Hornets…….but that was nearly twenty years ago……..Of the few remaining shared characteristics, the question that must be asked, do we wish to move forward out into the 2040-50 timeframe with technology of the 1970s?

That’s a 70+ year timeframe, or as a visual reference, that would be akin to using these today:

Oh the whimsy............

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh the whimsy............

If 1970's technology be Canada's desire, should have gotten these instead:

[waldo]

Yet, the Italians didn’t leave the program, nor alter their commitment as a tier 2 member……..just like the Dutch….

that's the way you always respond... after the waldo comes by and trumps your latest 'ta da'! Your, "Well, they haven't left yet!!!", is always a testament to your fortitude!

[waldo]

The stated attrition requirement is just that……when we purchased the Hornets in the 80s we also had an option to purchase further attrition aircraft…….we never had the need to exercise it……

And likewise with the F-35.…….if some time in the late 2020s or early 2030s we needed replacements, then we purchase them……….How do you think a purchase of attrition Super Hornets (or Eurofighter, Rafales etc) would work out in the same timeframe when the lines have long since been closed?

it's a cost factor, one never highlighted/factored in cost estimates released to the public. If you say it was never exercised with the CF-18, I guess that reflects upon all those that were 'moth-balled' early on... that makes for a ready go-to source of needed aircraft - yes? Of course, the kind of attrition Canada is used to associates with training losses... since there's never actually been any air-to-air combat - yes? It would seem all this bluster about needing the F-35 actually presumes it will, uhhh... engage - ya, engage, right? Don't tell me the F-35 will forever sit on the benches like the F-22 shouting, "just give me a chance coach"!

[Guest Derek L]

that's the way you always respond... after the waldo comes by and trumps your latest 'ta da'! Your, "Well, they haven't left yet!!!", is always a testament to your fortitude!

Well yeah, the Waldo keeps suggesting that JSF partner members are running from the program…though none have………If you call your prior ascertain being proven to be incorrect, a trumping……Well there’s not much I can do for you……….

Care to take a crack on what the Italians could replace their Harriers and Tornados with? Didn’t think so….

[Guest Derek L]

it's a cost factor, one never highlighted/factored in cost estimates released to the public. If you say it was never exercised with the CF-18, I guess that reflects upon all those that were 'moth-balled' early on... that makes for a ready go-to source of needed aircraft - yes? Of course, the kind of attrition Canada is used to associates with training losses... since there's never actually been any air-to-air combat - yes? It would seem all this bluster about needing the F-35 actually presumes it will, uhhh... engage - ya, engage, right? Don't tell me the F-35 will forever sit on the benches like the F-22 shouting, "just give me a chance coach"!

And what historic event reduced our requirements, hence the allowance of mothballing a portion of the fleet? Also, during the Hornet IMP, early last decade, we didn’t require upgrading those aircraft that were “mothballed”…..What we did upgrade to meet our requirements , were 18 conversion aircraft and 62 single seat Hornets….With the F-35, conversion training will be carried out with our current Hawks and new budgeted simulators, hence no requirement for a conversion squadron of F-35s……..

Soooo our two current Hornet squadrons operate 24 aircraft a piece, for a total of 48 aircraft, leaving ~10-12 remaining single seat Hornets for deep maintenance and attrition…….We’ll be purchasing 65 F-35s to equip our two squadrons with 48 aircraft, leaving us 17 aircraft for deep maintenance and attrition………

Now of course once the F-35 production line starts winding down in the 2030s, we’ll have to tally any losses to date and then decide if we require further replacement purchases to carry us over till the F-35s replacement/retirement. As such, we can’t reasonably budget for possible circumstances that we won’t know until the 2030s………

And though our Hornet losses to date have all been attributed to non-combat operations, said Hornets have been involved in several conflicts where allies did lose aircraft to enemy action, we of course being fortunate not to.

So care to highlight how one would hedge our bets into the 2030s over possible attrition replacements with 4th gen aircraft with lines long since closed? I noticed you missed that direct question…….Clearly we either purchase additional aircraft now as a hedge or accept that any losses can’t be replaced past the 2020s (and that’s being generous, since all touted alternative aircraft lines will be complete in the next several years)

[waldo]

Well yeah, the Waldo keeps suggesting that JSF partner members are running from the program…though none have………If you call your prior ascertain being proven to be incorrect, a trumping……Well there’s not much I can do for you………

running from the program? No, but I've certainly highlighted procurement intent decreases... I've certainly highlighted when a country has stalled out on it's intent and moved into a period of uncertainty and/or review. All those most significant delays, cost overruns and performance/testing concerns, apparently, take their toll - go figure! In this latest case you threw down your "Viva Italiano" exclamation over your incorrect interpretation of happenings in Italy. Just as you did with the Dutch a while back. One can only surmise you did so with this latest Italy situation, because they didn't (at least for now) trash their complete involvement - as I said, your excitement over the fact "they haven't left yet"! I simply brought reality back to your selective quote; highlighting that, in fact, the Italians have gone into a 6 month moratorium on spending anything... and are going into a formal review of the program and need, balanced against available options. Considering a second accompanying motion was one to, "further integration of European Union defense projects to reduce costs"......

[waldo]

Soooo our two current Hornet squadrons operate 24 aircraft a piece, for a total of 48 aircraft, leaving ~10-12 remaining single seat Hornets for deep maintenance and attrition…….We’ll be purchasing 65 F-35s to equip our two squadrons with 48 aircraft, leaving us 17 aircraft for deep maintenance and attrition………

Now of course once the F-35 production line starts winding down in the 2030s, we’ll have to tally any losses to date and then decide if we require further replacement purchases to carry us over till the F-35s replacement/retirement. As such, we can’t reasonably budget for possible circumstances that we won’t know until the 2030s………

some of what I've come across speaks to a glaring deficiency with only 2 squadrons (even in today's CF-18 scenario)... either this is just a desire for more shiny baubles, or there is some legitimacy behind concerns of 2 squadrons being able to... properly... cover the complete country, including a more 'visible' Arctic surveillance presence. 65 is forever being declared as insufficient, particularly when compared to the described (at least initial) procurement intentions of other countries.

but again, the main point being made here: attrition will occur. Attrition is a cost - one never factored into overall cost estimates provided to the public. If the focus is on the life-cycle of the plane (the plane itself and related operational costs), attrition is a part of that life-cycle. Estimate the number and include it in the overall cost estimates. Seems pretty basic to me... unless the intent is to add another low-ball try into the mix!

[Guest Derek L]

running from the program? No, but I've certainly highlighted procurement intent decreases... I've certainly highlighted when a country has stalled out on it's intent and moved into a period of uncertainty and/or review. All those most significant delays, cost overruns and performance/testing concerns, apparently, take their toll - go figure! In this latest case you threw down your "Viva Italiano" exclamation over your incorrect interpretation of happenings in Italy. Just as you did with the Dutch a while back. One can only surmise you did so with this latest Italy situation, because they didn't (at least for now) trash their complete involvement - as I said, your excitement over the fact "they haven't left yet"! I simply brought reality back to your selective quote; highlighting that, in fact, the Italians have gone into a 6 month moratorium on spending anything... and are going into a formal review of the program and need, balanced against available options. Considering a second accompanying motion was one to, "further integration of European Union defense projects to reduce costs"......

There’s no excitement in my stance regarding Italy (or the Dutch) remaining within the program because, to be blunt, their aerospace industry (like ours and the other partners) can’t afford to be on the outside looking in with this program…….simply put, there’s no other game in town that will foster the same economic footprint as the F-35 program………

And as I said prior, you couple this with their military requirements going forward, and I have no doubts that all the partners will remain, well other nations are added to the fold……..Over the past several years of me posting on this board (and long prior) I’ve suggested and was proven correct on the likes of Israel and Japan joining, as I will be correct with other countries (South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Taiwan, Belgium and Saudi Arabia) eventually joining.

[Guest Derek L]

some of what I've come across speaks to a glaring deficiency with only 2 squadrons (even in today's CF-18 scenario)... either this is just a desire for more shiny baubles, or there is some legitimacy behind concerns of 2 squadrons being able to... properly... cover the complete country, including a more 'visible' Arctic surveillance presence. 65 is forever being declared as insufficient, particularly when compared to the described (at least initial) procurement intentions of other countries.

but again, the main point being made here: attrition will occur. Attrition is a cost - one never factored into overall cost estimates provided to the public. If the focus is on the life-cycle of the plane (the plane itself and related operational costs), attrition is a part of that life-cycle. Estimate the number and include it in the overall cost estimates. Seems pretty basic to me... unless the intent is to add another low-ball try into the mix!

Our Hornet (and eventual F-35) Force Structure has been constant, aside from administrative wrangling (reducing four squadrons of 12 aircraft to two squadrons of 24 aircraft), since the end of the Cold War. Even going back into the Cold War in the early 80s when the Hornet entered service, our domestic requirements and the ability for further force generation has been the same.

Once we no longer required Hornets in Germany, that portion was mothballed……Once we no longer required the Freedom Fighters as a reserve to NATO’s Northern Flank in Norway, they too went. As such ,with our NORAD commitments remaining coupled with a requirement to offer a small contingency for foreign operation, 48 F-35s in the Operational squadrons will meet the same precedents set by the Hornets for the Government of Canada’s requirements of a modern fighter force.