Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

How many carrier landings over water will the Danish Air Force be undertaking?

Still waiting on that citation - for any of your claims.

I provided one above......your turn.

[Derek 2.0]

You'll have to let Boeing know.

There's no need..........that's why they are performing a center barrel upgrade on the Super Hornet.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is just another trip down the rabbit hole...there is no valid comparison between U.S. forces that fly multiple air superiority and strike aircraft and multiple variants of such aircraft to Canada's sole reliance on one strike fighter platform.

[Derek 2.0]

This is just another trip down the rabbit hole...there is no valid comparison between U.S. forces that fly multiple air superiority and strike aircraft and multiple variants of such aircraft to Canada's sole reliance on one strike fighter platform.

Exactly.........the biggest question, absent the leak obtained by the National Post who first reported the story, was when did this Government intend to notify Canadians.........they speak of NATO and NORAD requirements, but what of their rinky dink defense review? What if Canadians don't share this Government's secretive agenda, which includes the sole sourcing of billions of dollars in contracts to Boeing?

We sure heard about the moves made by the Harper Government and the F-35.........what do the Trudeau Liberals have to hide?

[bush_cheney2004]

....We sure heard about the moves made by the Harper Government and the F-35.........what do the Trudeau Liberals have to hide?

Funny how that works, huh ? Harper was held to an entirely different standard (like the entire life cycle costs for ships and "jets"), but so far nothing out of the Trudeau Dream Team. What's the big frinkin' secret ?

Is this "file" so politically supercharged....they are scared of it ?

Edited June 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Thers a choice between buying something new (the Super Hornet only reached IOC 15 years ago and received its last software update a month or so ago) and spending 1/2 a billion in updates to 65 of our current Hornets.

The difference you are ignoring is that upgrading the existing Hornets is a stopgap measure. Buying the S-hornets will not be UNTIL we get the F-35s but INSTEAD OF.

And technology which is 15 years old is not NEW. How much would you pay to use a 15 year old cell phone fresh out of the box - with upgraded software?

Edited June 12, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Canada has a great history of single source off the shelf procurement - witness the C-130j and C-17 (and to a lesser extent, the CH-47 - we made some changes that caused delays).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons-for-june-2016/article30204945/

[Argus]

To be fair, the F-35 is also a 20 year old design. Both airplanes evolve every day.

No. The F-35 design work might have started 20 years ago, and THAT has evolved continuously, to be sure.

The F-18 super hornet actually first FLEW 20 years ago. The design was developed in the 1980s

[Argus]

In my online meanderings, I can't help noticing that Canadian opposition to the F-35 is across the political spectrum now, way beyond card carrying Liberals. It looks like a dubious purchase at this stage. Come back to us when you have the glitches sorted seems to be the general message.

Opposition to the F-35 is from the Left side of the political spectrum, from people who don't like the military, don't think we should have one, and want to spend that money on more welfare instead. Witness this topic, where all the lefties hate the F-35 but no conservative (the people who support a reasonably strong military) does.

[Argus]

When you have something concrete and not made up, let me know.

And when you find a western country that's choosing the old hornet over the F-35 you let me know, okay?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Opposition to the F-35 is from the Left side of the political spectrum, from people who don't like the military, don't think we should have one, and want to spend that money on more welfare instead. Witness this topic, where all the lefties hate the F-35 but no conservative (the people who support a reasonably strong military) does.

That may be true here but take a gander at other websites and you will see clearly rightwing characters blasting this plane as a jack of all trades that is not worth the money.

[Argus]

That may be true here but take a gander at other websites and you will see clearly rightwing characters blasting this plane as a jack of all trades that is not worth the money.

Then they're ignorant. My support of the F35 isn't based on reading the meanderings of bloggers but common sense. Twenty year old technology is outdated, which is damned obvious. And no western country has looked at the available fighters and chosen the F-18. Not one.

So the opponents who so confidently say the F-35 is crap and not nearly as good as the F-18 like to use all sorts of blogger comments but they gloss over why every single western country has looked at the F-18 and moved on to a better product.

[Derek 2.0]

Funny how that works, huh ? Harper was held to an entirely different standard (like the entire life cycle costs for ships and "jets"), but so far nothing out of the Trudeau Dream Team. What's the big frinkin' secret ?

Is this "file" so politically supercharged....they are scared of it ?

Sauce for the goose and all that......ironic really, we've had years of threads on the F-35, with zillions of posts arguing against Harper's intent to "sole source" the F-35......when Harper did it, he was up there with Satan and Hitler.........if Trudeau does it, its "getting things done"

[waldo]

Sauce for the goose and all that......ironic really, we've had years of threads on the F-35, with zillions of posts arguing against Harper's intent to "sole source" the F-35......when Harper did it, he was up there with Satan and Hitler.........if Trudeau does it, its "getting things done"

weren't you the guy who forever said nothing would occur during the first term... probably not even the second term either (oh, sorry... getting ahead here)! Given all those posts of yours that followed this theme, what are you so worried about now?

why won't you accept that any possible purchase of 'some number of Super Hornets' would be an interim 'gap-filling' measure... one presumably intent to allow those 'early adopters' of the F-35 to showcase their resulting review/analysis of an unproven product, with an unknown cost. Why are you just so adamant to have Canada adopt an unproven F-35 plane - why? What's your hurry; what's your rush?

.

[waldo]

One of the F/A-18E/F SLAP goals is to define the necessary inspections and modifications required to achieve 9,000 flight hours.

The F/A-18A-D SLAP showed that the airframe can fly to 10,000 hours with a combination of modifications and inspections to maintain airworthiness.

As I said, basic math.

are you sure you read your own cite? What was it you were trying to state in doing so?

.

[Smallc]

And when you find a western country that's choosing the old hornet over the F-35 you let me know, okay?

If you keep calling it the old hornet, you might convince someone - maybe.

[Derek 2.0]

weren't you the guy who forever said nothing would occur during the first term... probably not even the second term either (oh, sorry... getting ahead here)! Given all those posts of yours that followed this theme, what are you so worried about now?

.

Without a doubt, and I'm shocked at the departure of their promised "open & transparent" process..........with that said, I'll await this Government's awarding of a contract.

why won't you accept that any possible purchase of 'some number of Super Hornets' would be an interim 'gap-filling' measure... one presumably intent to allow those 'early adopters' of the F-35 to showcase their resulting review/analysis of an unproven product, with an unknown cost. Why are you just so adamant to have Canada adopt an unproven F-35 plane - why? What's your hurry; what's your rush?

Simple, an interim purchase isn't needed and will cost billions, versus upgrading our current fleet that will cost hundreds of millions, well running a "open & transparent" competition for replacements........as noted by Alan Williams, from what is known, this proposed Trudeau purchase is bad for the military, bad for Canadian industry and bad for the Canadian taxpayer.

Simply put, if not for the leak to National Post, this purchase was the exact opposite of a "open and transparent" process.......

[waldo]

What are Canada's requirements? It's still a big secret/unknown, right?

thought for sure your unusual interest in Canada's replacement undertaking would have made you aware of the 'Defence Policy Review'. There is actually a public consultation facet to that... you should look into it; I'm sure someone with a claimed (albeit dated) USN background would have much to offer in terms of helping shape a new defence policy for Canada.

.

[Derek 2.0]

are you sure you read your own cite? What was it you were trying to state in doing so?

.

Yes, and the implication is clear, Boeing is unable to provide a concrete number associated with the service hour life of its own product.......what is clear, the current USN Super Hornet fleet average service life is at or approaching 6000 hours, and they have reduced usage fleet wide, are undergoing a life extension program, sending some aircraft to the boneyard and attempting to purchase attrition replacements................to me, that does not indicate an aircraft with ~9500 hours of service life.

[waldo]

Simply put, if not for the leak to National Post, this purchase was the exact opposite of a "open and transparent" process.......

there's always a point intentions are firmed up and brought forward to the public... by any government. Referring to some presumed 'leak' as being the "opposite" is just your inherent political opportunism - nothing more; nothing less!

.

[Smallc]

Boeing didn't claim that the aircraft had from the factory 9500 hour life in USN service.

[waldo]

Yes, and the implication is clear, Boeing is unable to provide a concrete number associated with the service hour life of its own product.......what is clear, the current USN Super Hornet fleet average service life is at or approaching 6000 hours, and they have reduced usage fleet wide, are undergoing a life extension program, sending some aircraft to the boneyard and attempting to purchase attrition replacements................to me, that does not indicate an aircraft with ~9500 hours of service life.

I'm reading a MLW member asking you repeatedly for cites to that end... the cite you provided, to me, simply stated the upward bound service life could be... 10K hours. I won't bother asking you for another cite... you have enough outstanding already.

.

Edited June 12, 2016 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

Boeing didn't claim that the aircraft had from the factory 9500 hour life in USN service.

They didn't claim that for any service.....absent a SLEP.

[waldo]

Apples to oranges....the F-35 has a longer service life by design.

on paper, you're saying?

.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm reading a MLW member asking you repeatedly for cites to that end... the cite you provided, to me, simply stated the upward bound service life could be... 10K hours. I won't bother asking you for another cite... you have enough outstanding already.

.

And that.........is my point and the contention with the member that claims aerodynamics and g-loading don't effect aircraft that operate from land bases..........Super Hornets for the USN might achieve 9000-10000 hours with an extensive SLEP, yet he claims, (cite outstanding) that Super Hornets for the Danes would have achieved that sans a SLEP.