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

[Scotty]

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

What makes you think we won't?

Military preparedness is preparing for possibilities not certainties. There are precious few of the latter in reading the future.

[Wild Bill]

What makes you think we won't?

Military preparedness is preparing for possibilities not certainties. There are precious few of the latter in reading the future.

The most expensive military you can have is one that is guaranteed not to be up to the job.

[Guest Derek L]

What makes you think we won't?

Lack of political capital.

Military preparedness is preparing for possibilities not certainties. There are precious few of the latter in reading the future.

Exactly, as such, with our financial constraints, purchasing a pigeon holed piece of military equipment, as was suggested with purchasing COIN type aircraft, is not a prudent acquisition and would only serve Canada in another Afghanistan like deployment……..Be that as it may, purchasing aircraft that can do counter insurgency, amongst a whole host of other missions, is the prudent choice.

[waldo]

Theres no excitement in my stance regarding Italy (or the Dutch) remaining within the program

I guess I misinterpreted your "Viva Italiano", the most-selective quote extract you made... your failure to highlight the Italian (coalition) government has put a moratorium on any additional spending while it goes into a 6 month review of need and the program, proper... and their motion put forward to bring forward further integration of European Union defense projects to reduce costs......

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) Ive 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.

everything I read says Israel's involvement/costs are being subsidized by the U.S. government... we've already beat on Japan in the past: they were offered huge incentives in terms of direct U.S. support/protection (as a part of the so-called Pacific pivot) and manufacturing incentives to allow their F-35s to be manufactured in Japan. Of course, these are the kinds of things required when decisions can't be made relative to the state of the actual plane/program. After all, who would (today) after a decade+ of failed delivery/scheduling, ginormous cost overruns, and continued significant problems in testing/production, make a decision to purchase the F-35? Well... who other than, perhaps, Harper Conservatives?

.

[Guest Derek L]

I guess I misinterpreted your "Viva Italiano", the most-selective quote extract you made... your failure to highlight the Italian (coalition) government has put a moratorium on any additional spending while it goes into a 6 month review of need and the program, proper... and their motion put forward to bring forward further integration of European Union defense projects to reduce costs......

As I said prior, the F-35, like the Eurofighter, has European content and like the Eurofighter, the JSF also see’s the Italian aerospace industry as a committed partner……..Taking the fact that the Eurofighter won’t fulfill all the Italian’s requirements aside, for the Italian aerospace industry, what do feel is the better long term investment? The remaining ~150 Eurofighter yet to be complete (which they will get a sniff of anyways) in addition to ~100 hypothetical Eurofighter for the Italians in lieu of the F-35s, or being part of the F-35 program, that will see production into the thousands out past the 2030s? Taking aside of course the Italians requirements for both their air force and navy.

everything I read says Israel's involvement/costs are being subsidized by the U.S. government... we've already beat on Japan in the past: they were offered huge incentives in terms of direct U.S. support/protection (as a part of the so-called Pacific pivot) and manufacturing incentives to allow their F-35s to be manufactured in Japan. Of course, these are the kinds of things required when decisions can't be made relative to the state of the actual plane/program. After all, who would (today) after a decade+ of failed delivery/scheduling, ginormous cost overruns, and continued significant problems in testing/production, make a decision to purchase the F-35? Well... who other than, perhaps, Harper Conservatives?

Why you're talking out of your arse:

I suppose those Japanese will never learn when it comes to selecting American designs and producing them locally………Of course the whole Japanese post-war constitution and the limits placed on both military imports and exports, coupled with the fact that the Americans have been subsidizing the defence of Japan in a mutually beneficial relationship for decades, well operating their own designs in country. Of course there would be no synergies between the Americans and Japanese Forces operating a common type……Of course not right?

It must have been a Lockheed swindle........

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose those Japanese will never learn when it comes to selecting American designs and producing them locally………Of course the whole Japanese post-war constitution and the limits placed on both military imports and exports, coupled with the fact that the Americans have been subsidizing the defence of Japan in a mutually beneficial relationship for decades, well operating their own designs in country. Of course there would be no synergies between the Americans and Japanese Forces operating a common type……Of course not right?

It must have been a Lockheed swindle........

Then it must have included Honeywell too, which licensed Japan to make Mk46 Lightweight Torpedoes for many years (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries).

[Guest Derek L]

And for the Eurofighter lovers out there:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/safety-problems-eurofighter-costs-soar-amid-mismanagment-a-910231.html

A software error was to blame, but it wasn't the only problem that would be found in Eurofighter jets. Together with European partners, the company that eventually became defense contractor EADS took 25 years to develop and produce the aircraft. Their aim was to prove that the Americans weren't the only ones capable of building high-tech fighter jets, but what has become Europe's largest defense project was ill-fated from the start.

Well they sure showed those pesky Americans......

Now internal documents show that the aircraft's problems are much more serious than previously known. In addition, SPIEGEL calculations indicate that, by the end of this year, the Bundeswehr will already have spent €14.5 billion ($18.6 billion) of the roughly €14.7 billion that the German parliament has approved for the program. But when the money is used up, only 108 of the 143 Eurofighters ordered to date, not to mention the 180 originally planned, will have been delivered. EADS will not continue making the planes for free, though.

Even the Bundeswehr estimates the cost of the program at €16.8 billion by 2018. But that represents only 143 delivered aircraft. The last jets, part of the so-called Tranche 3 B, will cost the government billions more.

18.6 billion / 143 Eurofighters = waaay more then the F-35 LRIP aircraft, let alone full production aircraft........

One reason behind the skyrocketing costs of the Eurofighter is the apparently unprecedented sloppiness in production. SPIEGEL has obtained documents from the Bundeswehr and EADS that provide an insight into the problems. There was so much mismanagement that, on Oct. 1, 2008, the military did not extend the license to remain a Bundeswehr aviation site for an EADS plant in the Bavarian town of Manching.

Let me know when Lockheed loses it’s business licence in the United States..

But this is still an estimate based on the most favorable assumptions, which will not be sufficient, as Chancellor Angela Merkel knows all too well. That's because the last 37 aircraft the Bundestag will receive are among those with the most complex technology. They are jets with "multiple banking capability," which can both engage in air strikes and intercept enemy aircraft.

As I’ve said numerous times, the Eurofighters currently in service are unable to function as a true strike fighter without an older 4th generation aircraft painting targets….

But back to Lockheed and the F-35:

http://www.twst.com/news/1100-lockheed-martin-corporation-lmt-grows-dividend-expects-growt

“In addition, Lockheed is buying in shares each year, so their share count is obviously getting smaller. We think Lockheed could trade 13 times earnings, so we see appreciation in the share price. We think it could go to $130 over the next 12 months or 18 months, but we see the dividend increasing on top of the 4.43% yield, and it should continue to be a very good total-return vehicle,” Bradshaw said.f

excellent.

[waldo]

But back to Lockheed and the F-35:

and now, in recent days, we get another news cycle round for the U.S. Navy's (USN) 'next one' aspirations... as discussed several times in the past, the FA-XX. Of course, in the past the heightened press/need by the USN was always couched in terms of the USN's apparent 'reluctance' to accept the F-35C. This latest go round has the USN's Director of Air Warfare, speaking of the FA-XX within a replacement timeline... a replacement for existing Super-Hornets... in a, as described, "late 2020's to early 2030's" time frame. The emphasis here being that the USN has no intentions for any F-35-C aircraft to replace any Super-Hornets... the emphasis here being (mine), the USN is fully satisfied in keeping its existing Super-Hornets/Growlers in play for another ~20 years (which, as of today (including new orders) stands at 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs).

of course, this begs the question... if the USN is fully accepting to flying the Super-Hornets/Growlers as far into "the early 2030s (based simply on flying hours lifetime)", why wouldn't this same rationale fit Canada's "interim" approach needs... particularly, when the cost savings difference, for Canada, is stated as $23 Billion - the difference between the costs for the F-35 versus the Super-Hornet. It would seem, if nothing else, that $23 Billion could be better applied elsewhere, even within the Canadian military/Coast Guard, itself. Of course, my "interim" reference presumes upon a more prolific alternate positioning for unmanned options.

[DogOnPorch]

Speaking of F-35s and cutting edge technology...the X-47B did some cool stuff recently.

But, they're off to the museums...I wonder what is next?

[waldo]

Speaking of F-35s and cutting edge technology...the X-47B did some cool stuff recently.

But, they're off to the museums...I wonder what is next?

off to the museums? Well... eventually, only because it's a prototype... what's next? More drones... drone baby, drone!

[DogOnPorch]

off to the museums? Well... eventually, only because it's a prototype... what's next? More drones... drone baby, drone!

It's not really a drone as we're used to them. This one thinks.

Yes, off to the Air-Space museums I'd imagine. They're part of the X program. Not a current weapon system, the X-47 program is done...and very successful.

Edited July 11, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

not really a drone? When is UCAV a drone... and not? It seems 'every' media outlet I've noticed is referring to it as a drone. My understanding has this program continuing with the final target of 2018-2020 intending to deliver the completed 'combat ready' deployed... X-47C.

[DogOnPorch]

not really a drone? When is UCAV a drone... and not? It seems 'every' media outlet I've noticed is referring to it as a drone. My understanding has this program continuing with the final target of 2018-2020 intending to deliver the completed 'combat ready' deployed... X-47C.

My understanding is that human input is minimal...which makes it unlike the drones we've been seeing that are remotely controlled. The C model is proposed only. No aircraft enters regular service with the 'X' designation, btw.

Edited July 11, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

My understanding is that human input is minimal...which makes it unlike the drones we've been seeing that are remotely controlled. The C model is proposed only. No aircraft enters regular service with the 'X' designation, btw.

but... still a drone. 'C' is proposed? It's being referred to as the extension of 'B'... as 'B' was the extension of 'A'. Final name - whatever... it's 'proposed C' designation will carry till then.

[DogOnPorch]

but... still a drone. 'C' is proposed? It's being referred to as the extension of 'B'... as 'B' was the extension of 'A'. Final name - whatever... it's 'proposed C' designation will carry till then.

You can make-up stuff if you like. I'll visit them at the museum.

[waldo]

You can make-up stuff if you like. I'll visit them at the museum.

yeesh! What's been made up?

- are you saying the USN, DARPA and Northrop are abandoning the X-47... at the 'B' stage? After you repeatedly referred to its success? If you prefer calling the 'C' progression a proposal only - go for it... what I read speaks to the natural progression continuing on from the 'B'... as it continued from the 'A'.

- notwithstanding your caveat on degree of involvement, are you saying it's not a drone?

[DogOnPorch]

yeesh! What's been made up?

- are you saying the USN, DARPA and Northrop are abandoning the X-47... at the 'B' stage? After you repeatedly referred to its success? If you prefer calling the 'C' progression a proposal only - go for it... what I read speaks to the natural progression continuing on from the 'B'... as it continued from the 'A'.

- notwithstanding your caveat on degree of involvement, are you saying it's not a drone?

I assure you, you'll be able to visit the X-47B in museums. What comes from this program's success is another story. A drone is a male bee. UCAV is the correct designation. As mentioned, it differs from other 'drones' in that it runs mainly from software as opposed to human input. If the so-called 'C' is built, it will be a different machine, altogether. Twice as big, for one. If it enters service, it will get a proper designation (not 'X' for experimental). Chances are it will simply lead to the next design past 'C'. Neither of us know. But not to worry, folks like yourself freaked-out when they saw the X-43 thinking it was a 'drone' to be used to knock-off Taliban in their beds at Mach 7.

Edited July 11, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

I assure you, you'll be able to visit the X-47B in museums. What comes from this program's success is another story. A drone is a male bee. UCAV is the correct designation. As mentioned, it differs from other 'drones' in that it runs mainly from software as opposed to human input. If the so-called 'C' is built, it will be a different machine, altogether. Twice as big, for one. If it enters service, it will get a proper designation (not 'X' for experimental). Chances are it will simply lead to the next design past 'C'. Neither of us know. But not to worry, folks like yourself freaked-out when they saw the X-43 thinking it was a 'drone' to be used to knock-off Taliban in their beds at Mach 7.

you and your museum hangup! I called it a prototype... that's what it is - ya, you'll see it in a museum - so? You're advising me that UCAV is the correct designation? Wasn't I the guy who first called it a UCAV... who asked you... "When is UCAV a drone... and not? For whatever reason you've decided to beat on this "is it a drone point". Should I do a MLW search and see how many times you've used the term drone? Don't make me now!

of course the next iteration... the 'C' will be different. Thanks for your scoop! You say "folks like myself freaked-out over the X-43". Really? Says the guy who freaks out over imaginary Russian/Chinese invasions of Canada.

[DogOnPorch]

you and your museum hangup! I called it a prototype... that's what it is - ya, you'll see it in a museum - so? You're advising me that UCAV is the correct designation? Wasn't I the guy who first called it a UCAV... who asked you... "When is UCAV a drone... and not? For whatever reason you've decided to beat on this "is it a drone point". Should I do a MLW search and see how many times you've used the term drone? Don't make me now!

of course the next iteration... the 'C' will be different. Thanks for your scoop! You say "folks like myself freaked-out over the X-43". Really? Says the guy who freaks out over imaginary Russian/Chinese invasions of Canada.

I've never claimed Canada is going to be invaded. But you don't want Tu-95s loaded with nuclear cruise missiles given a free run of the High Arctic. Oh wait...you do.

[Guest Derek L]

and now, in recent days, we get another news cycle round for the U.S. Navy's (USN) 'next one' aspirations... as discussed several times in the past, the FA-XX. Of course, in the past the heightened press/need by the USN was always couched in terms of the USN's apparent 'reluctance' to accept the F-35C. This latest go round has the USN's Director of Air Warfare, speaking of the FA-XX within a replacement timeline... a replacement for existing Super-Hornets... in a, as described, "late 2020's to early 2030's" time frame. The emphasis here being that the USN has no intentions for any F-35-C aircraft to replace any Super-Hornets... the emphasis here being (mine), the USN is fully satisfied in keeping its existing Super-Hornets/Growlers in play for another ~20 years (which, as of today (including new orders) stands at 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs).

I fail to see the point of your stated emphasis, we’ve already discussed how the USN & USMC will replace their legacy Hornets, Harriers and Prowlers (over 700 aircraft) with the F-35. To add, there is no indication (fore or against) as to if they’ll also replace a portion of their Super Hornet fleet with a yet to be determined variant of the F-35C……

of course, this begs the question... if the USN is fully accepting to flying the Super-Hornets/Growlers as far into "the early 2030s (based simply on flying hours lifetime)", why wouldn't this same rationale fit Canada's "interim" approach needs... particularly, when the cost savings difference, for Canada, is stated as $23 Billion - the difference between the costs for the F-35 versus the Super-Hornet. It would seem, if nothing else, that $23 Billion could be better applied elsewhere, even within the Canadian military/Coast Guard, itself. Of course, my "interim" reference presumes upon a more prolific alternate positioning for unmanned options.

And where is it stated the cost difference is 23 billion? Obviously if we purchased Super Hornets now and only operated them for ~15-20 years, in effect halving the service life, we would reduce through life support costs when contrasted with operating the F-35A for 35-40 years ……..But we’d also reduce the costs associated with the F-35 if we only operated them into the early 2030s…..

Of course, it shouldn’t need to be stated that purchasing an “interim” type aircraft now to operate for only ~15 years then replace is whole heartedly foolish…..especially when the USAF and Lockheed have moved forward the IOC of the F-35A to late 2016.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

I fail to see the point of your stated emphasis, we’ve already discussed how the USN & USMC will replace their legacy Hornets, Harriers and Prowlers (over 700 aircraft) with the F-35. To add, there is no indication (fore or against) as to if they’ll also replace a portion of their Super Hornet fleet with a yet to be determined variant of the F-35C……

the ultimate replacement number will reflect upon the final F-35 cost (not the target costs)... and its real capability/performance (not the target ones). You say 'no indication' in regards a Super Hornet complement replacement??? I just relayed that to you... the latest news cycling Q/A with the USN's Director of Air Warfare, has him stating there is no intention to replace any of their Super-Hornets until they are forced to by the flying time hours those planes accrue... in the time frame he uses as "late 2020s to early 2030s" (of course, depending on the plane and hours accrued). So the USN is quite content to rely upon those Super Hornets right up until their described 9000 hours flying time limit (the number directly mentioned by the USN's Director of Air Warfare)... a limit which is, of course, artificial in that the number can be extended upon (with maintenance/upgrades) if desired. And that is the essence of my reference as it might apply back to a Canadian purchase option for the Super Hornets... of course, considering the planes would be new, as purchased, that could/would paint an entirely different Canadian replacement timeline (for these newly purchased Super Hornets).

And where is it stated the cost difference is 23 billion? Obviously if we purchased Super Hornets now and only operated them for ~15-20 years, in effect halving the service life, we would reduce through life support costs when contrasted with operating the F-35A for 35-40 years ……..But we’d also reduce the costs associated with the F-35 if we only operated them into the early 2030s…..

Of course, it shouldn’t need to be stated that purchasing an “interim” type aircraft now to operate for only ~15 years then replace is whole heartedly foolish…..especially when the USAF and Lockheed have moved forward the IOC of the F-35A to late 2016.

I thought that $23 billion number would get your bite! Of course, it's the number you had no concerns over... from that CBC article/review (re: Milewski) comparing the costs of the Super Hornet versus F-35-A. I kid, I kid! The gist of that article, as you know (as I know), was to play off the highlighted disparity costs where the Super Hornet acquisition/operational flying costs are half that of the F-35 (acquisition: $55 million per vs. $110 million per; operational flying cost: $16,000 per hour vs. $32,000 per hour). Of course Milewski took liberties and applied that halving difference across the board for the 42 year life-cycle duration used by DND. The misdirected point being, there are cost savings to be had with the Super Hornet... I don't think (I can't recall) if you ever directly challenged that cost disparity difference... if you have, you can update; if you haven't this is your opportunity.

my use of 'interim' was clearly relative... as I stated in this reply, the referenced 'late 2020s to early 2030s' applies to the USN reaching that suggested (artificial) 9000 flying hours number. Perhaps you could advise, on a comparative historical tracking, how long would it take Canada to reach 9000 hours on a newly acquired Super Hornet? Because that's when the relative 'interim' would really kick in. But, of course, a longer-term trajectory factoring in UCAV/drones, suggests Canada would be dipping in... at some point anyway. A point that I've never seen addressed by Harper Conservatives and/or DND and or the military directly. At some point UCAV begins to dominate. How does that factor into the longer-term, regardless of what Hornet replacement Canada ultimately chooses... would you think it more prudent to temper that replacement (as an outright full replacement) factoring in that, at some point, UCAV/drones will be purchased. That's the obvious reality... butting up against your apparent disdain for unmanned aircraft.

.

[waldo]

…..especially when the USAF and Lockheed have moved forward the IOC of the F-35A to late 2016.

that was quite the... move. How did they do that? Oh, that's right, they scaled back the acceptable/target weapons, testing, software, etc. requirements for IOC. Of course, it really highlights the year-upon-year-upon-year refusal for the F-35 Program/LockMart to provide that IOC. And, of course, they're only providing one now because the U.S. Congress put an ultimatum down and forced the issue. Obviously it provided an avenue for 'F-35 cheerleaders' to flaunt that (compromised) IOC date... a date which bears absolutely no relevance to reality and when a true operational F-35 will be ready/delivered... in relation to it's already prior reduced design, operational, testing, performance, etc., requirements/targets outside of any of these latest IOC downscaled moves.

[waldo]

But back to Lockheed and the F-35:

http://www.twst.com/news/1100-lockheed-martin-corporation-lmt-grows-dividend-expects-growt

In addition, Lockheed is buying in shares each year, so their share count is obviously getting smaller. We think Lockheed could trade 13 times earnings, so we see appreciation in the share price. We think it could go to $130 over the next 12 months or 18 months, but we see the dividend increasing on top of the 4.43% yield, and it should continue to be a very good total-return vehicle, Bradshaw said

excellent.

hey, LockMart is number 1 here too! And let's not forget those GMI Ratings that give LockMart a very 'negative' "High Governance Risk" assessment... that really shows how dependent LockMart is on the U.S. Government for sales. Which really puts moves by the U.S. Government to downsize the military/military funding into perspective... and how it could affect a company so reliant upon the U.S. Government. Which really emphasizes where much of LockMart's ability to offer shareholder dividends has come from... like the 2 wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. Do you see anything like an American appetite for more Iraq and Afghanistan type wars in the future? You know, something to keep your dividends rolling in?

[Guest Derek L]

the ultimate replacement number will reflect upon the final F-35 cost (not the target costs)... and its real capability/performance (not the target ones). You say 'no indication' in regards a Super Hornet complement replacement??? I just relayed that to you... the latest news cycling Q/A with the USN's Director of Air Warfare, has him stating there is no intention to replace any of their Super-Hornets until they are forced to by the flying time hours those planes accrue... in the time frame he uses as "late 2020s to early 2030s" (of course, depending on the plane and hours accrued). So the USN is quite content to rely upon those Super Hornets right up until their described 9000 hours flying time limit (the number directly mentioned by the USN's Director of Air Warfare)... a limit which is, of course, artificial in that the number can be extended upon (with maintenance/upgrades) if desired. And that is the essence of my reference as it might apply back to a Canadian purchase option for the Super Hornets... of course, considering the planes would be new, as purchased, that could/would paint an entirely different Canadian replacement timeline (for these newly purchased Super Hornets).

As you correctly stated, the Super Hornet will start retiring from USN service in the late 2020s and early 2030, but of course that is dependent on when the individual aircraft entered service obviously. The 9k hour limit isn’t artificial though, in that it’s a predetermined number associated with the conditions the aircraft are used based on years of precedent. Like other Naval aircraft before, physics dictates that the aircraft won’t last longer in it’s intended use…….No amount of “upgrades” will revitalize the structural strength of an aircraft that operates off an aircraft carrier.

And of course, Canadian Super Hornets could reasonably be flown into the 2040s (perhaps even 2050s) and surpass the predetermined number of airframe hours that is associated with USN usage…….Of course, we don’t operate our aircraft in a maritime environment, as demonstrated by the lifespan of our current Hornets (and those of the Spanish and RAAF) when contrasted with USN & USMC Hornets of a similar (and recently newer) vintage being sent to the high desert.

Of course this doesn’t address the RCAF being beset with a bastard fleet once the USN retires their Super Hornets, and what ensuing support costs will do.

I thought that $23 billion number would get your bite! Of course, it's the number you had no concerns over... from that CBC article/review (re: Milewski) comparing the costs of the Super Hornet versus F-35-A. I kid, I kid! The gist of that article, as you know (as I know), was to play off the highlighted disparity costs where the Super Hornet acquisition/operational flying costs are half that of the F-35 (acquisition: $55 million per vs. $110 million per; operational flying cost: $16,000 per hour vs. $32,000 per hour). Of course Milewski took liberties and applied that halving difference across the board for the 42 year life-cycle duration used by DND. The misdirected point being, there are cost savings to be had with the Super Hornet... I don't think (I can't recall) if you ever directly challenged that cost disparity difference... if you have, you can update; if you haven't this is your opportunity.

We’ve already went through those costs Waldo and once the actual cost of purchasing and operating the Super Hornets was defined, the difference is negligible…….of course we never determined what Super Hornet support costs would do once the USN retires theirs and the supply chain wanes….Of course I don’t expect the operating costs to drop…

my use of 'interim' was clearly relative... as I stated in this reply, the referenced 'late 2020s to early 2030s' applies to the USN reaching that suggested (artificial) 9000 flying hours number. Perhaps you could advise, on a comparative historical tracking, how long would it take Canada to reach 9000 hours on a newly acquired Super Hornet? Because that's when the relative 'interim' would really kick in. But, of course, a longer-term trajectory factoring in UCAV/drones, suggests Canada would be dipping in... at some point anyway. A point that I've never seen addressed by Harper Conservatives and/or DND and or the military directly. At some point UCAV begins to dominate. How does that factor into the longer-term, regardless of what Hornet replacement Canada ultimately chooses... would you think it more prudent to temper that replacement (as an outright full replacement) factoring in that, at some point, UCAV/drones will be purchased. That's the obvious reality... butting up against your apparent disdain for unmanned aircraft.

Now I think I addressed your questions relating to a hypothetical RCAF Super Hornet purchase above, but I’m surprised with your lack of knowledge relating to the Canadian use of UAVs. Canada already operates a small force of UAVs in the battlefield surveillance role (to great success I might add in Afghanistan) as replacement of our long since retired Kiowa helicopters, and I would assume that some point going forward, these will eventually be replaced by something similar to Obama’s beloved Reapers……We also have a ongoing program looking at the (partial) eventual replacement of our Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, in all likelihood the eventual replacement would be a mixture of manned and unmanned aircraft.

As to use, one day in the future, I’ve no doubt that UCAVs will dominate the battlespace…….Based on the recent ambivalence by the USAF towards the prospects of replacing their strategic bombers with a unmanned option, coupled with the early proposals of the sixth generation fighter being possibly dual use, in that they could be flown in a predetermined mission unmanned, well also being able to fly a conventional manned mission, I would assume that fully unmanned high performance UCAV won’t approach total viability until the middle of the century……or perhaps a viable replacement for the F-35.….

[Guest Derek L]

that was quite the... move. How did they do that? Oh, that's right, they scaled back the acceptable/target weapons, testing, software, etc. requirements for IOC. Of course, it really highlights the year-upon-year-upon-year refusal for the F-35 Program/LockMart to provide that IOC. And, of course, they're only providing one now because the U.S. Congress put an ultimatum down and forced the issue. Obviously it provided an avenue for 'F-35 cheerleaders' to flaunt that (compromised) IOC date... a date which bears absolutely no relevance to reality and when a true operational F-35 will be ready/delivered... in relation to it's already prior reduced design, operational, testing, performance, etc., requirements/targets outside of any of these latest IOC downscaled moves.

Sure, but as it’s been stated, the initial “watered down” F-35A will be a viable option to replace the oldest of the USAF fleet and then later receive the software upgrade as opposed to purchasing a interim legacy aircraft.