Derek 2.0 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 what's the 'Canada need/role' to align with your F-15 promotion? . Not so much a promotion, but a thought exercise........For Canada, absent the F-22, the latest block of F-15 is the most suited of currently serving fighters to perform NORAD in terms of capability, range, speed etc etc.....its engineered (and is surpassing its expected life) to last far longer then the Super Hornet.....it can perform any role our current Hornets or a Super Hornet can far better.....the proposed "Silent Eagle" would feature "Stealthish" capabilities.........for those that operate multi-type fleets and plan to operate the F-35, there are several partners that will be operating a combination of F-35s and F-15s (United States, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Singapore) so there could synergies in a combined logistics network between allies........etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Yes Canadians take forever to make up their mind. Americans on the other hand order 3000, and then cut it back to 150 at a later date. ...and yet, the Americans have thousands of aircraft in service...around the world. Canada struggles to not only keep less than 100 CF-188's airworthy, but even decide when/what will replace them. Canada's first lot of C-17 (CC-177) Globemaster IIIs came out of the USAF production schedule because Canada was in a jam and couldn't even get its DART emergency team to Indonesia in a timely manner, let alone airlift gear to Afghanistan (and back). Renting airlift from Russia or Ukraine was getting old and expensive. Maybe Boeing should give Canada's DND free calendars each year. Edited June 14, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Exactly, even forgoing the proposed Silent Eagle, for an interim purchase, the latest blocks as purchased by South Korea, Singapore or Israel wouldn't be that much more.......... Link forthcoming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) The original base design F/A-18A was already a low cost lighweight, low hours platform. How many combat losses? Edited June 14, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Agreed...and I think we have been consistent on such matters all along instead of just F-35 "cheerleaders". The F-15 is arguably the best demonstrated air superiority platform of the past 40 years, with zero air combat losses. The Super Hornet was a low cost, risk avoiding strategy for the U.S. Navy after it was embarrassed by the A-12 program. The original base design F/A-18A was already a low cost lighweight, low hours platform. Exactly, and will still benefit from decades more support due to its planned out of service date with the USAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Maybe Boeing should give Canada's DND free calendars each year. Maybe the US should give Canada tens of billions in aid to buy your jets and prop up your military industrial complex, like you do for Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) A very good point, the current F-15C fleet is operating far past its intended service life That service life wouldn't have been 4000 hours, would it have? Rather short, wouldn't you say? I mean, we could keep our hornets flying to 16000 hours too, if we wanted to implement the modification and testing required. Edited June 14, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Exactly, and will still benefit from decades more support due to its planned out of service date with the USAF. A planned date that is approximately in line with that of the - Super Hornet, set to fly post 2040, as state by the US Navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 uhhh, no - but that's not the point in terms of the original question... and your subsequent answer. You suggested the Danes evaluated "Block 3F... or better" - or better! Now, that's still "on paper" right? But if completion of 'development/testing for Block 3F as July 2017... isn't even realistic... how could the Danes be using it as a part of their evaluation of the F-35 in the just completed competition? . As you said......."on paper"......just as Boeing's projections on Super Hornet service life hours are "on paper" or any proposed "Advanced Super Hornet" is "on paper".......so it returns to one of the key points of the whole program......risk mitigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) As you said......."on paper"......just as Boeing's projections on Super Hornet service life hours are "on paper" That's funny - that's the same place that the 16,000 flying hour F-15s are. Right beside the 32,000 hour Strike Eagles. Edited June 14, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Maybe the US should give Canada tens of billions in aid to buy your jets and prop up your military industrial complex, like you do for Israel. Really...that's where you want to go ? No wonder Canada can't figure this out, but desperately wants to keep fat juicy U.S. defense contract jobs. At least Israel is not afraid to enthusiastically use tactical aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 A planned date that is approximately in line with that of the - Super Hornet, set to fly post 2040, as state by the US Navy. Canadian policy...sponsored by the United States Navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Really...that's where you want to go ? I'm sure some do.......valid opinion, just as much as the one longing for Sopwith Camels is........realistic? Nah At least Israel is not afraid to enthusiastically use tactical aircraft Clearly, not using them was far more fearful a prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 I'm sure some do.......valid opinion, just as much as the one longing for Sopwith Camels is........realistic? Nah It would be off topic to press the matter, but Canada already enjoys far more (expensive) benefits from its alliance with the United States...for longer than Israel has existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Canadian policy...sponsored by the United States Navy. U.S. policy... dictated by Israel! Why Only Israel Can Customize America’s F-35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 As you said......."on paper"......just as Boeing's projections on Super Hornet service life hours are "on paper" or any proposed "Advanced Super Hornet" is "on paper".......so it returns to one of the key points of the whole program......risk mitigation. whoa! The focus was on the Danes review of the F-35... and somehow you shifted to "service life". Let's recap: for their competition you suggested the Danes would have used the "F-35 Block 3F... or better!". Somehow you chose to ignore my pointed emphasis on the quoted statement that "completion of Block 3F development/testing by July 2017 is not realistic"... and you wouldn't bite when I asked you who said that! Now, of course, we know the evaluations within these competitions have been based on "specifications not yet realized/proven"... "on paper"! Argus... are you hearing this? but yes, as you say, "one of the key points of the whole (F-35) program..... "risk mitigation". Now, the significantly reduced numbers of committed purchases for partner nations (down considerably from initial commitments) is a direct reflection on "risk mitigation" - yes? That, and the significant cost of the F-35 and the long history of delay upon delay... there's that too in dropping those commitment numbers which, of course, means nothing in terms of what actual (eventual) purchase numbers transpire. so, in the case of the Danes, a part of their risk mitigation saw them reducing their commitment numbers from 48, to 30 to the eventual purchase of 27... to start in 2021 and complete in 2027. And pushing the start out to 2021 is also a part of that risk mitigation you highlight... since 2021 is ~2 years after the much promised 2019 full-rate production. But who other than LockMart marketing/sales believes that date... or do think they really believe it themselves? but on the overall risk mitigation: how much of joining and staying in the program is an attachment to risk mitigation? ... hopefully believing that LockMart (and the funding/driver resources of the U.S. military) will "just make it happen". Why, just look at the F-22 to realize just what can be done when the might of LockMart/U.S. military bear down to produce ... oh, right... sorry, carry on... risk mitigating! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) So why is Boeing pushing the Super Hornet, and not the latest Eagle? Because they'd have to justify the selection with a competition. They don't want to hold a competition - despite promising to do so -- because the F-35 would probably win. They can pretend the Super Hr is just a more modern version of the existing Hornets, and an 'interim' measure (until hell freezes over). Honesty is not something any Liberal government has ever had any familiarity with. Edited June 14, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) F-15 was eliminated due to it's high purchase price. Right. Expensive planes like that can only be afforded by top tier nations like Japan and Israel. Poor little third world Canada has to stick to kicking the tires on second rate aircraft. Edited June 14, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 "So why is Boeing pushing the Super Hornet, and not the latest Eagle?" They can pretend the Super Hr is just a more modern version of the existing Hornets, and an 'interim' measure (until hell freezes over). what's to pretend about? How does 'gap-filling interim' have any relevance to Boeing itself? Did you actually read the question you're replying to? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Poor little third world Canada has to stick to kicking the tires on second rate aircraft. since you're focused on expense with your post; given you've repeatedly flogged that most recent Denmark sale, will you finally answer my repeat request asking you to comment on the Canadian price equivalent Denmark paid for each of those F-35s? You know, that ~$145 million per plane? How does that price fit within your self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative self"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 What gap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 What gap? The gap that will exist post 2021 when the Hornet upgrade isn't finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Yes the Gap....the liberals are proposing that, Instead of spending up to 500 Mil on upgrading our existing CF-18 which will bring there life span to 2025 so there won't be a gap.........Now they are will to spend countless bils on a interim aircraft...No mention as to where all this bils are coming from, nor how many they are looking to buy... But is politically motivated, to keep several promises....Not to buy F-35's, To purchase a cheaper aircraft,so it can find savings to fund the navys ship building program, But it also fills that statement of a leaner military.... And doing it with a sole source buy, that they chastised the Cons for attempting.....It has very little to do with what is best for our forces, but rather what is better for the liberals.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 since you're focused on expense with your post; given you've repeatedly flogged that most recent Denmark sale, will you finally answer my repeat request asking you to comment on the Canadian price equivalent Denmark paid for each of those F-35s? You know, that ~$145 million per plane? How does that price fit within your self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative self"? My fiscal conservative self says that there are certain things you don't have a lot of choice about paying. When it comes to military equipment, since we aren't willing to put out for a sizeable military we should at least provide what we have with the best gear around. The F-35 is the best, as far as every one of our allies seems to be concerned, so we should buy that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 The F-35 is the best, as far as every one of our allies seems to be concerned, So forgo any evaluation and just let others dictate what we buy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.