Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

So forgo any evaluation and just let others dictate what we buy?

No, just the United States Navy....based on posts above.

[Smallc]

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...

That's assuming we can get the upgrades done in 5 years - it's been 18 months, and we're at what stage?

[Argus]

So forgo any evaluation and just let others dictate what we buy?

There has BEEN no evaluation. The Liberals promised an open and transparent competition - until it looked to them like the F-35 would win.

[Smallc]

There has BEEN no evaluation.

And there wasn't ever going to be one before that promise.

[Derek 2.0]

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?

I know who it is (M. Gilmore), we went over the very quote (earlier this year?)

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.

You spoke to said causes several pages back, namely, dwindling budgets..........as noted though, none of said nations forced into budget cuts have opted to replace the reduced numbers of planned F-35s with another type.

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?

I don't know that the Danish reduction is a reflection of the F-35 itself......several years ago they took an axe to their defense budget, and now only operate ~30 F-16s.....likewise, as to 2021, here too, is a reflection that the Danes bought their F-16s in several lots, including the later 80s and even into the 90s...........so its reasonable to assume that 27 F-35s will be able to do the work of 30 F-16s.

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!

You answered your own question.......the entire purpose of the program was risk mitigation, not only among US services, but the partner nations.......you can poo-pooh the F-22 program (Boeing was Lockheed's partner by the way), and there is certainly just cause, but that is simply proving my point.....as the F-22 was a high risk program with leaps and bounds of new technology.......likewise, look no further than the Eurofighter and Rafale, two programs that demonstrated quite clearly the complexities involved in developing fighter aircraft....unlike the F-35 that is years delayed, the two European aircraft were decades delayed in delivering a finished product......

So despite the delays in the F-35, nations are staying with and joining the program because of (shared) risk mitigation among a whole host of nations.

[bush_cheney2004]

And there wasn't ever going to be one before that promise.

Hey...will any of these candidate aircraft ever actually fly in a competitive trials for Canada, or is this just a paper exercise ?

Would anybody show up to do it ?

[overthere]

If you were an ally of Canada, would you feel a) more or b )less comforted by the current gong show in Ottawa regarding aircraft non- procurement?

Do try not to mention Harper in your answer.

Edited June 15, 2016 by overthere

[Smallc]

How can you mention the current gong show without Harper, when it's his political opportunism that led to this?

[overthere]

How can you mention the current gong show without Harper, when it's his political opportunism that led to this?

You just cannot help yourself.

Harper forced Trudeau to choose between breaking two Trudeau campaign promises? Magick. Pure Magick.

a or b?

[poochy]

How can you mention the current gong show without Harper, when it's his political opportunism that led to this?

You must be able to see your own tonsils by now

[dre]

If you were an ally of Canada, would you feel a) more or b )less comforted by the current gong show in Ottawa regarding aircraft non- procurement?

Do try not to mention Harper in your answer.

I really doubt our allies care much either way. This stuff is all fun politics for domestic partisan hacks, but that's about it.

[Argus]

How can you mention the current gong show without Harper, when it's his political opportunism that led to this?

Really? Care to explain that? It seems to me that all he did was continue to have Canada signed up with this F-35 program - the one begun by the Liberals. The military told him this was the plane they wanted, the only one which would allow us to fly with our allies and go up against new aircraft technology emerging from other countries. So what exactly did he do other than shrug and say okay?

Meanwhile, your guys, who started us on this project, reversed course as soon as they were in opposition, for crass political reasons, demanding an 'open and transparent competition'. Now they're in power and refusing to hold one. Why? The only reason I can think of is because any open and transparent competition would show the F-35 is the plane to buy and that would embarrass them.

[overthere]

I really doubt our allies care much either way. This stuff is all fun politics for domestic partisan hacks, but that's about it.

You are absolutely and totally wrong. They care, because whatever we do not do- they have to pick up the load.

[overthere]

Really? Care to explain that? It seems to me that all he did was continue to have Canada signed up with this F-35 program - the one begun by the Liberals. The military told him this was the plane they wanted, the only one which would allow us to fly with our allies and go up against new aircraft technology emerging from other countries. So what exactly did he do other than shrug and say okay?

Meanwhile, your guys, who started us on this project, reversed course as soon as they were in opposition, for crass political reasons, demanding an 'open and transparent competition'. Now they're in power and refusing to hold one. Why? The only reason I can think of is because any open and transparent competition would show the F-35 is the plane to buy and that would embarrass them.

Trudeau made two, or perhaps 3 promises. One is that he would have a fair and open competition to replace the ageing fleet of F 18s. Second, no replacement would be sole sourced. The other was that Canada would not buy the F35. He is now in the position of breaking one OR MORE of those promises, since how can you possibly not include the F35 in any 'fair and open ' assessment?

Well, you can do it by pretending that the viable life of the current F18s cannot be extended to 2025 for a reasonable cost. Then you can pretend that acquiring a second fleet- of Super Hornets- is somehow not a sole source because it is 'interim'. He does not wish to explain how or why an interim is required at all. Of course, the reason is that Canada will get sued and lose a multi billion dollar lawsuit from Lockheed if Canada breaks one of the promises and just awards the longterm replacement Super Hornets from Boeing without assessment of alternatives. By pretending that the Super Hornets are 'interim' he hopes to avoid the lawsuit. Good luck with that. Oh and if they don't choose the Super Hornets as the longterm replacements, they'll have three sets of infrastructure and training costs: F18, Super Hornet, and the undertermined replacemnt for both in a few years.

Trudeau is between a rock and a hard place, all of his own making.

A better man would simply spend $400 million to extend the life of the F18 to 2025, then go to competition. Instead, we enter into a longterm Festivus of Stupidity in homage to his massive pride/hubris.

oh wait, BUT HARPER!

[dre]

You are absolutely and totally wrong. They care, because whatever we do not do- they have to pick up the load.

No they don't. The "load" is mostly elective and its comprise in large part of pointless and ill conceived adventures in nation-building, and being the blundering keystone cops of world policing and failed adventures in global socialism.

The less time, money, and blood we waste on it the better.

[overthere]

Its an alliance. Shared security. All have a role, and ours apparently is to advise people that don't want or need advice.

You might not have noticed there has not been a global war for a few years now.

Must be a coincidence and nothing to do with us or our neighbours, no way.

The "load" is mostly elective and its comprise in large part of pointless and ill conceived adventures in nation-building, and being the blundering keystone cops of world policing and failed adventures in global socialism.

ah I see. You have gotten the UN mixed up with NATO/NORAD.

[waldo]

oh wait, BUT HARPER!

do the math! Spend the estimated ~1/2 billion to get the CF-18s to 2025... now, with YOUR total reliance on an unproven product, start the timeline as to when Canada needs to sign a contract for the F-35, pay monies, get lined up in "the presumptive assembly queue (against all that expected crushing RUSH of foreign nations and respective U.S. military branches" and have the beginnings of 65 F-35s delivered. When's the start and finish of that "production" F-35 Canadian delivery, particularly in relation to 2025? Do the math... and provide the timeline - yes? (Notwithstanding, that will be $2.5 billion needing to have been spent to keep the CF-18s flying... because of the ongoing saga/delay that is the F-35).

do the math... and provide the timeline - yes?

.

[?Impact]

A better man would simply spend $400 million to extend the life of the F18 to 2025, then go to competition.

Where did you get that $400 million figure from? The "better man" who "pressed reset" and then completely failed to do anything?

[overthere]

Where did you get that $400 million figure from? The "better man" who "pressed reset" and then completely failed to do anything?

I got it from Waldo in post 1617.

Spend the estimated ~1/2 billion to get the CF-18s to 2025... now, with YOUR total reliance on an unproven product, start the timeline as to when Canada needs to sign a contract for the F-35, pay monies, get lined up in "the presumptive assembly queue (against all that expected crushing RUSH of foreign nations and respective U.S. military branches" and have the beginnings of 65 F-35s delivered. When's the start and finish of that "production" F-35 Canadian delivery, particularly in relation to 2025? Do the math... and provide the timeline - yes? (Notwithstanding, that will be $2.5 billion needing to have been spent to keep the CF-18s flying... because of the ongoing saga/delay that is the F-35).

The F18s are an unproven product? I did not know that.

Look Waldo, I get it that the wholesale idiocy of buying Super Hornets via sole source to avoid breaking a political mistake with a far worse one is embarrassing, but you don't have to personally compound His blunders with your own.

Oh and the 'delay' is not with production of the F18, the delay is with Trudeau now, who refuses to contemplate an assessment of the available aircraft. Like He promised He would. . Delays past 2025 for deliveries is entirely your invention, and entirely hypothetical since no competitive or transparent(remember those words Waldo?) procurement has or will take place. You are talking about outcomes- of a process that has been flushed for the most partisan, shameful and spineless reasons imaginable.. Nice try though!

[Army Guy]

No they don't. The "load" is mostly elective and its comprise in large part of pointless and ill conceived adventures in nation-building, and being the blundering keystone cops of world policing and failed adventures in global socialism.

The less time, money, and blood we waste on it the better.

The load as you call it, is clearly spelled out in the defensive agreements we have signed on to, you know Norad, or NATO. We as a nation have promised to keep those commitments, they can be modified at any time but that has not been done...

[waldo]

I got it from Waldo in post 1617.

The F18s are an unproven product? I did not know that.

Look Waldo, I get it that the wholesale idiocy of buying Super Hornets via sole source to avoid breaking a political mistake with a far worse one is embarrassing, but you don't have to personally compound His blunders with your own.

Oh and the 'delay' is not with production of the F18, the delay is with Trudeau now, who refuses to contemplate an assessment of the available aircraft. Like He promised He would. . Delays past 2025 for deliveries is entirely your invention, and entirely hypothetical since no competitive or transparent(remember those words Waldo?) procurement has or will take place. You are talking about outcomes- of a process that has been flushed for the most partisan, shameful and spineless reasons imaginable.. Nice try though!

ok - again, only because I'm online and following the thread I see your quote of something I said... but again, WdaF! Why do you insist in purposely removing the names of members form quotes? Again, that doesn't allow the person you're quoting to leverage the notification feature of the board to be alerted to the fact you're actually quoting them. Now, of course, you clearly like it that way... as I've only stumbled upon statements of mine you've quoted in the past... weeks later as I wind on through a thread! Again... stop it!

in your referenced post 1617, I speak to the cost as ~1/2 billion. The $400 million figure, oft produced, is an estimate for the cost of modifications to keep the F-18s flying until 2025. I've read that referred to as a 'low-ball estimate'... with suggestion it will be closer to (and likely above) 1/2 billion.

no - the unproven product is the F-35... what you're relying upon being there!

if you want to talk about "wholesale idiocy", "embarrassment", "blunders"... and your absolute insistence in not accepting the potential Super Hornet purchase as a "gap-filling interim" measure... then simply do the math for me... and produce the timeline. In all your emboldenment, this should be quite easy for you - yes? Here, let me put it forward again - I'm sure you didn't intend to ignore it! Here, try again:

do the math! Spend the estimated ~1/2 billion to get the CF-18s to 2025... now, with YOUR total reliance on an unproven {F-35} product, start the timeline as to when Canada needs to sign a contract for the F-35, pay monies, get lined up in "the presumptive assembly queue (against all that expected crushing RUSH of foreign nations and respective U.S. military branches" and have the beginnings of 65 F-35s delivered. When's the start and finish of that "production" F-35 Canadian delivery, particularly in relation to 2025? Do the math... and provide the timeline - yes? (Notwithstanding, that will be $2.5 billion needing to have been spent to keep the CF-18s flying... because of the ongoing saga/delay that is the F-35).

do the math... and provide the timeline - yes?

.

Edited June 15, 2016 by waldo

[dre]

The load as you call it, is clearly spelled out in the defensive agreements we have signed on to, you know Norad, or NATO. We as a nation have promised to keep those commitments, they can be modified at any time but that has not been done...

Almost no Nato countries have kept those commitments. Only 5 of 28 Nato nations spend the 2% of GDP.

[?Impact]

The load as you call it, is clearly spelled out in the defensive agreements we have signed on to, you know Norad, or NATO. We as a nation have promised to keep those commitments, they can be modified at any time but that has not been done...

Do those agreements specify that we must have F-35's? In general terms I believe the NORAD agreement is about defence of North American airspace, and NATO commitments seem to boil down to spending these days (we used to talk about NATO commitment in relation to our forces deployed in Europe).

[dre]

Do those agreements specify that we must have F-35's? In general terms I believe the NORAD agreement is about defence of North American airspace, and NATO commitments seem to boil down to spending these days (we used to talk about NATO commitment in relation to our forces deployed in Europe).

No and the current agreement calls for military spending of 2% of GDP by 2025, and that 20% of that budget should be spent on equipment.

And these are basically just non-binding, unenforced guidelines. NATO isnt going to kick anyone out for spending less than that 2% because if it did it would have to kick out 23 of its 28 members.

[Smallc]

Really? Care to explain that?

We're going to buy the F-35

Oh wait, it's not politically expedient, so we'll commission a report and never release the report and then do nothing on the file and punt it to someone else.