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

[Derek 2.0]

what about that onesy, twosesy buy several partners went to? Uhhh... trust... but verify!

.

Well that is what some members are doing (Britain, Australia, Turkey, the Dutch) with a small initial purchase of a handful of aircraft that are contributed to the multinational pool of aircraft in the United States. These aircraft are being used to train the initial conversion instructors of said nations militaries........

[waldo]

those onesy, twosey purchases don't account for all the "prototype" planes in the training squadrons? So, when one reads that the stipulaton was the planes can't leave the U.S., that had nothing to do with keeping them for ongoing retrofits? And the onesy, twosey purchases had nothing to do with (some) countries wanting to see/fly (with their own pilots) before making any real commitments?

[Derek 2.0]

those onesy, twosey purchases don't account for all the "prototype" planes in the training squadrons? So, when one reads that the stipulaton was the planes can't leave the U.S., that had nothing to do with keeping them for ongoing retrofits? And the onesy, twosey purchases had nothing to do with (some) countries wanting to see/fly (with their own pilots) before making any real commitments?

It some respects, but it’s more so the realities associated with transitioning form current legacy aircraft to a new aircraft…..i.e. ~5-10 pilots from a given nation will become type qualified, then return to their respected nations to stand-up a conversion squadron with their initial purchased aircraft, that will then start transitioning the remainder of their force to the new aircraft…….The same is also true with enlisted aircraft maintainers…..As is the case with the Royal Navy presently that has up to 1/3rd of some trades on exchange with the Americans and to a lesser extent the French, so as to ease the transition to the F-35B and Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

This is not a unique method only associated with the F-35, but common practice amongst many modern militaries with a working relationship with the United States (and other major defence hardware producing nations)

[On Guard for Thee]

It some respects, but it’s more so the realities associated with transitioning form current legacy aircraft to a new aircraft…..i.e. ~5-10 pilots from a given nation will become type qualified, then return to their respected nations to stand-up a conversion squadron with their initial purchased aircraft, that will then start transitioning the remainder of their force to the new aircraft…….The same is also true with enlisted aircraft maintainers…..As is the case with the Royal Navy presently that has up to 1/3rd of some trades on exchange with the Americans and to a lesser extent the French, so as to ease the transition to the F-35B and Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

This is not a unique method only associated with the F-35, but common practice amongst many modern militaries with a working relationship with the United States (and other major defence hardware producing nations)

Anmybody in the aviation business knows that is sort of standard practice. What those same peoiple are worried about are all the snags with this beast. One engine that runs too hot, ejection seat doesn't work, software snags, the hugely expensive "all seeing" helmet has double vision, and the cost for all this is going through the roof. Bail!

[Derek 2.0]

Anmybody in the aviation business knows that is sort of standard practice. What those same peoiple are worried about are all the snags with this beast. One engine that runs too hot, ejection seat doesn't work, software snags, the hugely expensive "all seeing" helmet has double vision, and the cost for all this is going through the roof. Bail!

Your point of view doesn’t appear simpatico with the actions of the JSF partner nations, be it the elected governments and/or the military end users…..They of course are in various stages of transition to the F-35. One could surmise that if they actually shared your point of view, that they would be looking elsewhere….this of course isn’t so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has always wanted the F-35...just didn't want to pay for them. Same thing happened with the CC-177.....once Canada got their hands on them it was love at first flight. No more begging for leased AN-124's.

[Derek 2.0]

Canada has always wanted the F-35...just didn't want to pay for them. Same thing happened with the CC-177.....once Canada got their hands on them it was love at first flight. No more begging for leased AN-124's.

That’s true in some regards, but the RCAF has always set it’s sights on mission effectiveness over politics……Be it the F-4/F-105/A-4, to a desire for C-141s back in the 60s and 70s, the EH-101 and now the F-35.

[waldo]

Your point of view doesn’t appear simpatico with the actions of the JSF partner nations, be it the elected governments and/or the military end users…..They of course are in various stages of transition to the F-35. One could surmise that if they actually shared your point of view, that they would be looking elsewhere….this of course isn’t so.

that 'looking elsewhere' you speak to could be said to reflect upon the significant reduced commitment numbers... notwithstanding the absence of contracts/money exchanged. But somehow you overlook JSF partner nation Denmark that has shifted back/away and announced a competition... with strong suggestion coming forward that this is also what the Netherlands will do (after it originally voted to withdraw within the Dutch Parliament).

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your point of view doesn’t appear simpatico with the actions of the JSF partner nations, be it the elected governments and/or the military end users…..They of course are in various stages of transition to the F-35. One could surmise that if they actually shared your point of view, that they would be looking elsewhere….this of course isn’t so.

Of course it is so. Even the pentagon is cutting back their order.

[On Guard for Thee]

Canada has always wanted the F-35...just didn't want to pay for them. Same thing happened with the CC-177.....once Canada got their hands on them it was love at first flight. No more begging for leased AN-124's.

Unfortunately we have a lot of geography up here where it's cold a lot of the time. The F 35 doesn't like to be cold. Too bad, so sad but we need something a little tougher.

[waldo]

That’s true in some regards, but the RCAF has always set it’s sights on mission effectiveness over politics……Be it the F-4/F-105/A-4, to a desire for C-141s back in the 60s and 70s, the EH-101 and now the F-35.

while you were gone walkabout, I put up a post that had yet another top guy go "off script"... in relation to that "mission effectiveness" wording you just used, what would the RCAF say... what do you say, to the statement made?

further to the earlier reference where U.S. General Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S, went "off script" --- "F-35 ‘irrelevant’ without accompanying F-22 jet as support"

But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22. “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.”

[Derek 2.0]

that 'looking elsewhere' you speak to could be said to reflect upon the significant reduced commitment numbers... notwithstanding the absence of contracts/money exchanged. But somehow you overlook JSF partner nation Denmark that has shifted back/away and announced a competition... with strong suggestion coming forward that this is also what the Netherlands will do (after it originally voted to withdraw within the Dutch Parliament).

.

As we've had the Dutch conversation prior, I fully expect the Danes to follow suite.....I see no indications as to why they wouldn't, Especially based on their longstanding bilateral military cooperation with the Norwegians……Just as I expect the Belgians to follow the Dutch.

[On Guard for Thee]

So now we need to also purchase a "babysitter" for the F 35. How much does that increase the cost I wonder?

[waldo]

hey now! If Denmark can have a competition... why not Canada? You know, a legitimate one, where written requirements aren't tailored to the exclusion of all other planes! Again, there's no hurry, right?

[waldo]

As we've had the Dutch conversation prior, I fully expect the Danes to follow suite.....I see no indications as to why they wouldn't, Especially based on their longstanding bilateral military cooperation with the NorwegiansJust as I expect the Belgians to follow the Dutch.

as you know, as the waldo beat upon... the only thing keeping that significantly reduced Dutch commitment "active" is a tenuous coalition government. If the election outcome hadn't shifted, the Dutch would be gone from JSF as, again, before Parliament dissolution, the government at the time (with a different coaltion makeup) voted to pull out of JSF. As for Denmark, whatever you "expect it to do", it is still moving forward with an actual competition. If Denmark can have a competition, why not Canada?

.

[Derek 2.0]

while you were gone walkabout, I put up a post that had yet another top guy go "off script"... in relation to that "mission effectiveness" wording you just used, what would the RCAF say... what do you say, to the statement made?

Not off script, but not fully quoted both in word and context.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS04/302020005/Air-Combat-Command-s-challenge-Buy-new-modernize-older-aircraft%3Cbr/%3E

The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system. But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22.

Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.

Of course this is in view with the current and past make-up of the USAF, which relied on a similar complementary relationship between the F-15 and F-16.

[Derek 2.0]

hey now! If Denmark can have a competition... why not Canada? You know, a legitimate one, where written requirements aren't tailored to the exclusion of all other planes! Again, there's no hurry, right?

The Danes "competition" mimics ours in nearly every way, with the Rafale replaced by the Gripen NG.

[waldo]

The Danes "competition" mimics ours in nearly every way, with the Rafale replaced by the Gripen NG.

"our competition"??? What competition are you speaking of? I'm talking about a real competition... with real requirements, not tailored requirements, with the manufacturers going up against each other... with real competition at play... with manufacturers subject to offering competitive prices, offering real enticements to purchase, etc.

[waldo]

Not off script, but not fully quoted both in word and context.

which doesn't change any of the pertinent and pointed wording used... if the top guy says the F-35 "is not built as an air superiority platform"... what's it built as? A bomb truck?

[Derek 2.0]

which doesn't change any of the pertinent and pointed wording used... if the top guy says the F-35 "is not built as an air superiority platform"... what's it built as? A bomb truck?

A multipurpose fighter, like the aircraft that it will namely replace, the F-16 and F/A-18......A true air superiority fighter is not multirole and is intended as a pure air-to-air asset…...

[Derek 2.0]

"our competition"??? What competition are you speaking of? I'm talking about a real competition... with real requirements, not tailored requirements, with the manufacturers going up against each other... with real competition at play... with manufacturers subject to offering competitive prices, offering real enticements to purchase, etc.

Do you think the RCAF is not capable of defining the requirements? If so, why and who do you think is better suited?

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you think the RCAF is not capable of defining the requirements? If so, why and who do you think is better suited?

Do you think your 16 year old havind acquired his DL is the best person to select his new car? Would you sign a blank check and send him out to the car lots? That's more or less what the Harper crowd did. As always a "second sober thought" might be a better idea.

[Derek 2.0]

Do you think your 16 year old havind acquired his DL is the best person to select his new car? Would you sign a blank check and send him out to the car lots? That's more or less what the Harper crowd did. As always a "second sober thought" might be a better idea.

So you’re comparing the RCAF to a 16 year old? Who do you think is better suited to define technical requirements for our military? And as already pointed out, our participation in the program began with Chrétien.

[bush_cheney2004]

That’s true in some regards, but the RCAF has always set it’s sights on mission effectiveness over politics……Be it the F-4/F-105/A-4, to a desire for C-141s back in the 60s and 70s, the EH-101 and now the F-35.

Must be frustrating for the DND, but like them, I have grown to expect a glorious circle jerk of politics and labour offsets when it come to procuring any such platform for Canada. That's just the way it is done. It is normal.....

[waldo]

what other (claimed) foreign nationals think about Canadian military procurement is completely irrelevant