Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Army Guy]

We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.

We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/f-35/

Seems pretty clear. Canada won't buy the same airplane as our allies, but will search for one much, much cheaper. Apparently there are many options available.

That's is as clear as it gets.....But hey there are still people out there that think a small purchase of Super hornets is a good thing until the problems with the F-35 get sorted out....The liberal plans is no better than the Cons plan....bend over Canada where getting it again.....

[Derek 2.0]

Few like to admit it, but the retooled (losing) YF-17 was the low cost component to a hi-low mix of U.S. fighter/strike aircraft. Far more capable but very expensive F-15s and F-14s were to be complemented by LWF (lightweight fighters), just like Northop's F-5 Tiger/Freedom Fighter family of aircraft before that. The smaller, cheaper aircraft had FMS sales in mind as part of the program.

IOW, the original F/A-18 was the bargain buy....the Ford Escort/Focus of its day. No surprise that the later Super Hornets (different aircraft) had larger dimensions and capacities to make up for lost front line capabilities and other aircraft that were canceled/retired. The bargain aircraft is the one that Canada bought long ago.

Without a doubt, likewise the F-16.......and one needs look no further then the evolution of both types to see how well the "lightweight fighter" concept panned out........the F-16 grew a humpback and the Super Hornet became a sluggish beast.

[Derek 2.0]

which is hardly a representative comparison. If nothing else, the JSF program has impacted upon potential sales for all other manufacturers...

Not quite......the Super Hornet has been marketed for over twenty years, over five of which before Lockheed even won the competition.........in the interim, there have been plenty of aircraft procurement programs (that weren't offered the F-35) across the globe, most of which have all passed on the Super Hornet or didn't include it.........In the case of the Malaysian air force, operators of the legacy Hornet like us, they passed on the Super Hornet in favor of Russian Sukhoi fighters......a rare distinction, a Western aircraft losing to a Russian aircraft.

It has poor sales because those seeking a cheap capable fighter go F-16 (Russian or even Chinese), or more capable European types or the legacy F-15.........or like most Western first World nations, with the Finns and Belgium expected to join, are purchasing the F-35.

That, coupled with military budget cutbacks, recessionary impacts, re-prioritization within some countries, natural ties/allegiance to prior same manufacturer purchases, etc.. There's are reasons the head of the F-35's volume-sales pitch 'road show' didn't land those big fish... what are they?

Despite reductions in projected numbers (due to many of the differing causes as highlighted by you above) no nation has yet elected to reduce F-35 numbers in favor of another type, including the Super Hornet.

[Derek 2.0]

That's like saying that the US Navy will be completely useless for the next 20 years.

No, its a realization that, absent force multipliers (including the F-35), the USN has faced a capability gap since the retirement of the Tomcat, and will continue to until the introduction of both the F-35 and the 6th generation Super Hornet replacement.

[waldo]

I'd like to be privy to those meetings/discussion... stating that openly. Do you have transcripts?

We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.

We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/f-35/

Seems pretty clear. Canada won't buy the same airplane as our allies, but will search for one much, much cheaper. Apparently there are many options available.

whaaa! That's an odd reply of yours to the post of mine you're quoting. This was your actual post that I replied to asking for a transcript... your original post where you state, "All the meetings with Boeing and Trudeau stating openly that we wouldn't buy the F-35 has nothing to do with the discussion, huh?"

now that we've confirmed that you can't support your statement concerning Trudeau/Boeing meetings... let's also bring you current in regards that campaign reference you're trotting forward with to deflect from your inability to support your actual statement. Given litigious rumblings over the possibility LockMart might be excluded from an open competition, both Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Procurement Minister Judy Foote publicly and pointedly refused to exclude LockMart from the competition. How embarrassing for you, yes? Geezaz, there was such a flap over this by Rona Conservatives and acolytes... something about Trudeau breaking an election promise!

.

[waldo]

You called me a partisan hack the other day. Forgotten already? I'm simply pointing out that the definition of a partison hack doesn't fit me... but you on the other hand, have never criticized the Liberals, and defend everything they do, no matter what.

now I recognize your pattern of trying to get yet another thread shut down; fwiw, my comment that you're whining about was in reply to your initial insult --- carry on!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Despite reductions in projected numbers (due to many of the differing causes as highlighted by you above) no nation has yet elected to reduce F-35 numbers in favor of another type, including the Super Hornet.

Per your earlier post, note that the actual choices of other nations for the F-35 means nothing compared to the imaginary choice of Super Hornets by those same nations.

Edited June 14, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Canada's role in NATO was as the USA's shield against Tu-95s and Mya-4s with free fall H-Bombs. This is not the mission these days.

Odd, even in times of little tension, the majority of our operational Hornets are assigned to NORAD........and for good reason, as those pesky Russians have returned to the Arctic, with a bomber that can't easily be intercepted (after just dispelling the myth that they can no longer operate on a strategic scale) and are developing its eventual (stealth) replacement.

What Canada needs for this part of the 21st century is helicopters and dedicated ground attack machines that will support our troops in low-level bush wars.

Oh, you were serious? No, Canada in the advent of needing to support our troops in a bush war will continue to make use of the now proven method of modern aircraft combined with smart munitions.

I suggested the Super Tucano...as that's its role...but was poo-poohed by the typical can't do attitude Canadians have.

Of course you are poo-poohed.......you're suggesting a one dimensional, niche force that would have offered little to the missions Canada has undertaken for the last 30 years, or what we will undertake for the next 30.

Simply put, modern fighters paired with modern munitions can perform everything we need (or would need) of them, including CAS/COIN.........your COIN force would offer nothing towards NORAD or NATO assurance in Eastern Europe.....both missions that the majority of our force is actually involved in.

[waldo]

oh pleeese... trotting out the Camel, the Super Tucano... in yet another thread!!! And most of that unrelated stuff over the last 3 or 4 pages that has little if anything to do with the F-35 - there's been a recent, "stop thread drift" notification.

.

[Derek 2.0]

oh pleeese... trotting out the Camel, the Super Tucano... in yet another thread!!! And most of that unrelated stuff over the last 3 or 4 pages that has little if anything to do with the F-35 - there's been a recent, "stop thread drift" notification.

.

Was it? Though I agree it is getting into the weeds (pun intended) to suggest Canada forgo its present and future requirements for which our Hornets and their replacements will be required to meet, instead, opting for a force befitting of a 1960s Latin Banana Republic.........I suppose its as valid an argument/opinion as those that might suggest Canada has no need of a fighter force.....

[waldo]

Despite reductions in projected numbers (due to many of the differing causes as highlighted by you above) no nation has yet elected to reduce F-35 numbers in favor of another type, including the Super Hornet.

Per your earlier post, note that the actual choices of other nations for the F-35 means nothing compared to the imaginary choice of Super Hornets by those same nations.

now I am encouraged that you're recognizing number reductions... and acknowledging them; however, that's only a part of what I spoke to. Please encourage me even more by acknowledging the most significant drop in those initial F-35 commitment numbers - sure you can!

as for the rest of your statements... the imaginary suggestion is spot on in regards to LockMart projection numbers. If you're going to press the point again, just come forward and present the firm/absolute numbers that the respective U.S. military branches will be purchasing. Of course you can't; anymore than you can present firm/absolute numbers for foreign nation sales. And that's the crux of one of the points I'm speaking to of late... trying to press you to acknowledge that no LockMart numbers projection means anything at this point given the state of flux over available funding. I'll ask you once again, why didn't Bogdan land any 'big fish' on his traveling road show to secure volume sales - is there a problem? Stay tuned for the beginning of the next wave of U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee meetings - starting next week. Care to speak confidently on the monies available for F-35s... notwithstanding what prioritization the respective branches of the U.S. military have had to wrestle with. C'mon take a stab!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like the F-35 win in Denmark was not a big surprise, but the runaway enthusiasm for the "jet" is.

It wasn't even close....

“I don’t think Eurofighter had a chance in this market. It was Super Hornet versus F-35, and Russia’s aggressive posture in the region proved to be Lockheed Martin’s best friend,” Aboulafia told me. F-35’s stealth, sensors, and other advanced combat features look very attractive against Russian “anti-access/area denial” systems designed to detect and destroy conventional fighters. “As for Eurofighter,” he said “it has the costs of an F-35 without the modern features.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/f-35-wins-denmark-competition-trounces-super-hornet-eurofighter/

Edited June 14, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Per your earlier post, note that the actual choices of other nations for the F-35 means nothing compared to the imaginary choice of Super Hornets by those same nations.

Well that's just it.......if one wanted to pondering something, consider this:

Why is Boeing hawking the Super Hornet to Canada and not the latest incarnation of the F-15?

I mean, despite its age, the F-15E will still be serving post 2040 with the USAF (possibly even some F-15Cs with Guard units), to say nothing of the latest versions still in production being bought by Allies that will operate it alongside their planned F-35 purchases for decades ahead.......on paper, something like their proposed Silent Eagle would seem far more fitting for Canada (absent the F-35 or apart a mixed Silent Eagle/F-35 fleet) to meet its NORAD requirements..........already, the majority of the F-15 fleets in the USAF/Japan/Israel are approaching 20000 hours of service life, minus a major SLEP........If the Strike Eagles serve out to the 2040s, they will at or around 25-30k hours........

Canada could operate an "interim fleet" of Eagles for 40+ years standing on our heads

So why is Boeing pushing the Super Hornet, and not the latest Eagle?

[Smallc]

Interesting that you bring up 2040. I wonder which other fighter will be still operating at that time, per the US Navy?

[waldo]

Looks like the F-35 win in Denmark was not a big surprise, but the runaway enthusiasm for the "jet" is.

It wasn't even close....

that's some fine Copy/Paste there... from a site notorious for it's absence of critical F-35 review/commentary. In any case you burst my bubble as I has seen the "detailed" review summation a few days ago - don't hesitate to speak to how those "Generals" a certain MLW member here so touts, managed to position the F-35 first in "military aspects", particularly survivability and mission effectiveness. Spoiler alert: it's a fine plane on paper... as you say, "it wasn't even close! The first plane delivery when? 2021 you say... wow, that's not even close!

[bush_cheney2004]

So why is Boeing pushing the Super Hornet, and not the latest Eagle?

Loss of the South Korean deal (60 units) probably makes the production costs too high for such a low rate going to other potential customers (e.g. Israel). At some point the bean counters have to make Boeing walk away. Besides, the F-35 has that new stealth smell.

[?Impact]

Why is Boeing hawking the Super Hornet to Canada and not the latest incarnation of the F-15?

The F-15 is an air superiority vehicle, the Super Hornet like the F-35 is a ground attack aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

I'll ask you once again, why didn't Bogdan land any 'big fish' on his traveling road show to secure volume sales - is there a problem? Stay tuned for the beginning of the next wave of U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee meetings - starting next week. Care to speak confidently on the monies available for F-35s... notwithstanding what prioritization the respective branches of the U.S. military have had to wrestle with. C'mon take a stab!

.

Again, I'll revert back to the intention and practice done by most nations.......like Canada, the partners seek to purchase during full rate production, hence it should be no surprise that very little is being bought in the low rate production phase of the program. Second, many of the buyers don't cast for the big fish, but smaller fishes of equal weight......i.e, they purchase their requirements with gradual purchases instead of one large block buy in order.

With regards to Appropriations, in an election year, not a clue......I'd still expect the planned 65 (IIRC?) F-35s and maybe the additional handful of currently unfunded F-35s for the USN and USMC......I wouldn't expect any further outlay to purchase much more than that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting that you bring up 2040. I wonder which other fighter will be still operating at that time, per the US Navy?

So we're back to the U.S. Navy determining military procurements for Canada ? Remarkable....

[Derek 2.0]

Loss of the South Korean deal (60 units) probably makes the production costs too high for such a low rate going to other potential customers (e.g. Israel). At some point the bean counters have to make Boeing walk away. Besides, the F-35 has that new stealth smell.

Oh I agree, I think (as does the RCAF) a single fleet is the way forward, but from Boeing's perspective, the Super Hornet isn't even in the same league as the Eagle...on paper, the Eagle should be far more marketable to Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

The F-15 is an air superiority vehicle, the Super Hornet like the F-35 is a ground attack aircraft.

Ergo, the F-15 aligns better with Canada's ruling party rhetoric. Why would it buy more "bomb trucks" ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh I agree, I think (as does the RCAF) a single fleet is the way forward, but from Boeing's perspective, the Super Hornet isn't even in the same league as the Eagle...on paper, the Eagle should be far more marketable to Canada.

Roger that, but logic was the first thing to be jettisoned in this procurement process. That's what makes it so entertaining...it makes no sense at all...and changes with each government.

[Derek 2.0]

The F-15 is an air superiority vehicle, the Super Hornet like the F-35 is a ground attack aircraft.

The F-15E Strike Eagle performed more CAS missions and dropped more munitions during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then all other aircraft, absent the A-10 and B-52........but thanks for coming out.

[Derek 2.0]

Roger that, but logic was the first thing to be jettisoned in this procurement process. That's what makes it so entertaining...it makes no sense at all...and changes with each government.

From the Government's side so it would seem..........but, coming from Boeing's vantage point, it makes little sense........why would they offer Canada a less capable aircraft?

[?Impact]

Ergo, the F-15 aligns better with Canada's ruling party rhetoric. Why would it buy more "bomb trucks" ?

Valid point, which gets back to what are the requirements and not who has the shiny toy. It is not up to the manufacturer to set the requirements, it is up to DND. I was just pointing out the |Boeing response to the F-35 would best be the SuperHornet.

The F-15E Strike Eagle performed more CAS missions and dropped more munitions during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then all other aircraft, absent the A-10 and B-52........but thanks for coming out.

Is that because of best match, or availability of aircraft in theater?