Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:46 AM, ?Impact said:

I'm not sure what numbers you are using. From what I can tell you might be able to get 2-3 Gripen's, but not 5-8. On the operational side it would be better, with maybe 4 flight hours in the Gripen for the cost of a single flight hour in the F18 E/F.

 

Quoting cost per flight hours from Wikipedia is inaccurate, as the total is an average obtained through the entire fleet (size).......a USN Super Hornet is "cheaper" per hour then one within the RAAF, likewise, a RCAF Super Hornet would "cost more per hour" then both the USN and RAAF based on use having a smaller fleet.

 

This is one of the actual reasons why the F-35 is getting "cheaper" to operate (and purchase), the fleet size is expanding (likewise economies of scale on production, growing supply chain and more personal trained on the type)

[bush_cheney2004]

11 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

....This is one of the actual reasons why the F-35 is getting "cheaper" to operate (and purchase), the fleet size is expanding (likewise economies of scale on production, growing supply chain and more personal trained on the type)

 

Agreed, as I have long maintained that such CanAm fleet comparisons is not very accurate. 

Further to your point, LockMart just won another contract with lower per unit costs:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lockheed-f35-jet-pentagon-1.3965940

[Rue]

Again here's a comparison between the Gripen NG and Superhornet:

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2014/08/fighter-jet-fight-club-gripen-ng-vs.html

 

Here's a comparison between the Gripen and F35:

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2014/09/fighter-jet-fight-club-f-35-vs-gripen.html

 

I totally disagree with Derek's claim the F35 is not more expensive that the Gripen.

The Gripen is a 1/4 the cost of an F35.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I totally disagree with Derek's claim the F35 is not more expensive that the Gripen.

 

Your "blog" uses dated information and prices associated with the Gripen C/D...not the Gripen E......Norway rejected the Gripen E (NG) nearly a decade ago on cost grounds, both purchase and through life, as more costly then the F-35A. Same story with the Danes and the Super Hornet versus F-35A.

 

There are more F-35As flying today then there are Gripen Es....in several years, still prior to entering full rate production, there will be more F-35s flying then there will ever be built of The Gripen E

[Derek 2.0]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Further to your point, LockMart just won another contract with lower per unit costs:

 

I know, and now they are, despite not being in full production, in Super Hornet's price range.......the F-35 will only get cheaper as the Super Hornet gets more expensive now.

[?Impact]

On 2/3/2017 at 5:54 PM, segnosaur said:

Boeing (the company that builds the F18 Super Hornets that the Liberals want to purchase) has joined a coalition of U.S. companies who all favor the imposition of an import tax in the United States. (If applied to Canadian-made goods, it will end up hurting our exports, and ultimately our economy.)

Are you going to give up your little blue Viagra pill because Pfizer is part of that coalition?

[Rue]

23 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

I know, and now they are, despite not being in full production, in Super Hornet's price range.......the F-35 will only get cheaper as the Super Hornet gets more expensive now.

 

23 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Your "blog" uses dated information and prices associated with the Gripen C/D...not the Gripen E......Norway rejected the Gripen E (NG) nearly a decade ago on cost grounds, both purchase and through life, as more costly then the F-35A. Same story with the Danes and the Super Hornet versus F-35A.

 

There are more F-35As flying today then there are Gripen Es....in several years, still prior to entering full rate production, there will be more F-35s flying then there will ever be built of The Gripen E

I referred to the Gripen D because you did. The Gripen E is better than the Gripen D so if the Gripen D could already measure up to the F35 and Superhornet of course the more modern Gripen E would  as well and is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3605595/Saab-rolls-latest-generation-fighter-Gripen-E-travels-1-522-mph-improved-sensors-weaponry-range.html

Here is the Gripen E  compared to the SuperH, F35, Eurofighter. Rafale Derek.

http://gripen4canada.blogspot.ca/p/how-the.html

What I and many are saying is the F35 is the least sensical given its defects and uncontrolled expenses.

Why the hell would we not get a fighter jet like the Gripen  that can use all the left over weapons from the old F18's?

Why would we not use a fighter that is capable of being as good an intrerceptor as the other craft but can land on ice and only requires 5 men to maintain it and flies longer hours between maintenance flights? 

The only reason we have not purchased the Gripen is the extensive lobby network behind both the Hornet and F35 that has our politicians by the balls. Its the spin off industries in Canada and our existing Canadian business dependent on American aeronautics that dictates the choice and the choice is not based on the best jet but political reasons.

Here is an example how the people behind the F35 played politics to get Norway on-board with the F-35 v. the Gripen:

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2010/12/reports-says-us-officials-pressured-norwegians-on-f-35.html

A truly superior aircraft would not require the above behind the scenes manipulation.

Here are many of the unresolved issues with the F35:

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/pentagon-issues-scathing-report-on-the-f-35-1.392187

So why buy this sack of lemonade crap?

The answer is politics...it is because hands-down it creates the most jobs in the countries that will choose it:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2014/the-f35-contributes-to-the-global-economy.html

So let's not pretend its anything but a lemon. Its a lemon. Its full of fatal defects. I know pilots from the IAF and RAF. I know what people in the USMC say about it. Its got fatal blind spots. It won't allow a pilot to fly with his own eyes. It should end there. But its worse. Its no stealth fighter. To be a stealth fighter it can't carry anything on its wings. It also has to keep its weapon load at a certain weight to fly stealth. That means its capable of being stealth if it flies severely compromised to defend itself. What crap is that?

The F16V is as good an aircraft but it is not stealth.  Stealth my ass. Wih the F35 they tried to take the Warthog, F16, F18 , Harrier Jet and jam them all into a one size fits all multi-purpose craft so they would not have specialized aircraft anymore like the warthog.  The Harrier jet which was the favourite of the USMC is supposed to be replaced by it. The F35 is no short short take off and landing which is what the USMC  really needs. The STOL feature of the Harrier however sucked up sand making the Harrier useless in the deserts..

The Navy does not want it. Everyone agrees its no Raptor. Its supposed to replace the F16 and Israeli test pilots are saying the F16V is just as good. So? Is it even better than the SuperH or Gripen? Some say no and others say not enough to justify its build. Well who cares? Canada  has never needed a stealth fighter low altitude bomber.  We need a relatively fast  interceptor that can covr vast air spaces and be able to land on ice and be kept in the air cheaply.

We also need a cheaper fighter jet so we have more money to spend on our non existent navy. 

We badly need state of the art naval vessels. Please do not tell  me the money saved on Gripens would not enable us to spend on naval vessels more money than what would go into F35's. Please do not tell me our Gripen fleet could LARGER in numbers than the F35 fleet and still leave us more money eft over for naval vessels.

We won't do what makes sense because politicians feel the spin off job effect of F35's is far better than the Gripen.

That is short sighted. The Swedes agreed to build the Gripen in Canada. The money saved would go into other Canadian employment with the naval vessels.

Any alienation of the US not choosing its F35 could have been easily remedied by showing our increased role in NORAD and NATO with the Gripen and an expansion of our navy taking back a responsibility we dumped on the US for the entire continent.

We would easily make up for US business lost to the F35 in naval purchases and it is inexcusable we would not consider state of the art German naval vessels wich could also be built in Canada.

The only thing I will concede to Derek is spin off employment on the ground is highest with the F35.

I also think claiming there are more F35's than Gripen E's is a meaningless observation. The F35's in operation have not set the world on fire. They've ben plagued with problem after problem, the kind of problems that after all this time should not exist.

Its a lemon. When a product keeps screwing up with design defect after another, it hits the lemon classification.

The SuperH purchase made no sense. Its a short term solution creating a fleet of incompatible aircraft with both  the old or any new craft.

Trudeau panicked at US pressure thinking if he rejects the F35 the Pentagon screws Canadian business unless he counters with another Pentagon friendly manufacturer.

The F18 original purchased at the time had the luxury of being at its time a good aircraft tried and tested by the US Navy and offering maximum employment spin off on the ground. Some thought we should get the F16, but the F18 proved for us a good choice. Today the SuperH is not a bad craft, but its too expensive for what it is, a craft that buys us 5 years before its completely outmoded and an additional 30 operational years of obsolete expensive craft we can't afford to maintain.

Send that guy with the beard to see me so I can set him straight.

Regards, Matts Sundin, Borje Salming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Rue

[Army Guy]

Well it does not matter now, Liberals have released they are going ahead to purchases upto 18 Super hornets as an interim aircraft.....All this goes again'st everything DND has told them, that CF-18 are good until 2025, giving them lots of time to run competition, the extra costs of running two fleets of aircraft such as training, for pilots, maintenance crew, etc... Infact the liberals have even changed the amount of aircraft the Airforce Needed, on this one point i would agree with them, however the Cons gave them a dollar value and told them to stay within it.....that number was 65....

All this so the liberals can push this we need fighters off to the next government....so they do not have to purchase the F-35....so the rest of us are asking why, they have already lied about so many other things what is one more promise....made without all the info required at the time....and now it is going to cost Canadians bils so the liberals don't have egg on their face....these bils could have been used some place else within DND.....

Can't wait to see them touch the Ship building project.....or maybe they pass that on on to, i mean to get burned on 2 projects would look like they are no better than the cons....maybe it is time to give the NDP a shot...then again maybe not... 

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

All this goes again'st everything DND has told them, that CF-18 are good until 2025

That is not exactly true. Yes, DND has studied the issue and gave an opinion on what would be required to extend the life. Here is what they say on the ELE (Estimated Life Expectancy):

• An ELE of 2020-2025 represents a target beyond which significant structural investments will be required to maintain the fleet’s airworthiness.  As such, it represents an ELE extension for modest cost while still resulting in reasonably low to moderate technical and operational risk respectively.  Once the US Navy drawdown begins in earnest, and prior to final fleet retirement, sustainment will become more difficult and costly with less access to either Repair and Overhaul (R&O) facilities or the availability of spare parts for purchase.7  
• An ELE of 2025-2030 represents a technically feasible albeit risky stretch target. It would require the entire fleet to undergo the Control Point 3 (CP3) Life Extension Program (LEP) along with other significant structural refurbishment investments. This option is a high risk solution, from both a technical and operational perspective. Also, reduced R&O and spares sources increase sustainment challenges. From a cost perspective, there is increased uncertainty in projecting non-recurring engineering (NRE) as well as sustainment costs out that far since even small changes to current assumptions could cause significant impacts to cost projections. From an operational perspective, the fleet will be exposed to a more lethal threat environment. In addition, there will be decreased interoperability with newer aircraft flown by Canada’s allies.

Remember that the CF-18's already underwent a major overhaul (2006) to extend their use to 2020, and it involved changes to how the CF-18 was flown, and reductions in the planned yearly flying rate (YFR). They are crippling along as it is.

[Argus]

Come on. What's a few billion if it gets them out of the uncomfortable position of having the aircraft they rejected selected during an open competition? It's only taxpayer money anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

Boeing should be sure to include contract provision for a yuuuuge cancellation fee because we know what Canada is famous for when it comes to military procurements.

[Omni]

It's always nice to buy a product you already know works, especially the engine(S). 2 that is that don't blow up very often. 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

That is not exactly true. Yes, DND has studied the issue and gave an opinion on what would be required to extend the life. Here is what they say on the ELE (Estimated Life Expectancy):

• An ELE of 2020-2025 represents a target beyond which significant structural investments will be required to maintain the fleet’s airworthiness.  As such, it represents an ELE extension for modest cost while still resulting in reasonably low to moderate technical and operational risk respectively.  Once the US Navy drawdown begins in earnest, and prior to final fleet retirement, sustainment will become more difficult and costly with less access to either Repair and Overhaul (R&O) facilities or the availability of spare parts for purchase.7  
• An ELE of 2025-2030 represents a technically feasible albeit risky stretch target. It would require the entire fleet to undergo the Control Point 3 (CP3) Life Extension Program (LEP) along with other significant structural refurbishment investments. This option is a high risk solution, from both a technical and operational perspective. Also, reduced R&O and spares sources increase sustainment challenges. From a cost perspective, there is increased uncertainty in projecting non-recurring engineering (NRE) as well as sustainment costs out that far since even small changes to current assumptions could cause significant impacts to cost projections. From an operational perspective, the fleet will be exposed to a more lethal threat environment. In addition, there will be decreased interoperability with newer aircraft flown by Canada’s allies.

Remember that the CF-18's already underwent a major overhaul (2006) to extend their use to 2020, and it involved changes to how the CF-18 was flown, and reductions in the planned yearly flying rate (YFR). They are crippling along as it is.

This is old news.....Not only has DND studied it, it already had funding and approval to run a ELE projectpost phoned due to election now ongoing....under the liberal rule........and which is still ongoing When the Gen of the air force reports to the media that ALL CF-18's are capable of flying past 2025, his word is good....and if it is not then he needs to be replaced.....infact it was reported completed by the last CDS.....Now the current CDS is reporting the same CF 18 good until 2025........has reported this to not only to the media but to his puppet masters the liberals....they (the Liberals ) are aware of the status of each and every CF-18 that has had the 2006 upgrade and 2016 upgrade....a total of 77 aircraft are effected...

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/11/25/canadas-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says/

I can provide more sources if you like, but all you have to do is goggle it.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/25/canada-s-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says_n_13233178.html

Here is some more info, Liberals order a gag order to all personal involved in procurement project of F-35, as well as the new 18 super hornets.....why do we need a gag order if we are part of a clear transparent government ?  even the cons were up front about purchases.....Why is the liberal government acting against DND's recommendations ? Who in the liberal cabinet knows more about CF-18 than DND does.....and if they do why do we have Commander of the Airforce if the liberal cabinet knows more......

So what does the liberals know? well they know there is an immediate  requirement to purchase more planes....and yet this myth has been busted at so many levels it is not funny....they know the F-35 is crap? because they watch the news...

This is nothing more than the liberals pushing this purchase to the right.....so they don't have to deal with it.....That is leadership.....that is what we call Bullshit.....Thats another lie from our liberal government.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/28/liberals-changed-fighter-jet-requirement-says-air-force-commander_n_13288372.html

Edited February 6, 2017 by Army Guy

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

even the cons were up front about purchases....

Are you kidding? Failure to provide costs of the F 35 helped get Harper the dubious distinction of being the first ever PM to be found in contempt of parliament.

[Army Guy]

20 minutes ago, Omni said:

Are you kidding? Failure to provide costs of the F 35 helped get Harper the dubious distinction of being the first ever PM to be found in contempt of parliament.

Yes , bring up the old liberal throw back......the change in how we report purchases.....the same laws and policies that the liberals are refusing to follow, but i'm just ranting now.....have you heard of the liberals releasing any costing on this purchase.....NO....why is that ? the purchase has already been released.....and yet with no and i repeat no costing at all......the liberals are giving us the finger.....ordered a ban on all those involved in this purchase for a life time.....so no one talks out of order....or finds out WTF is going on.... And better yet they have Gen Vance doing the finger puppet dance.....sad really he is suppose to have DND interest in mind not the liberals......The PM has quoted hearing we have a capability shortfall from him the CDS......and yet the commander of the Airforce is reporting something else....Someone is full of shit.....and my guess is it is the liberals , and the CDS....

Edited February 6, 2017 by Army Guy

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes , bring up the old liberal throw back......the change in how we report purchases.....the same laws and policies that the liberals are refusing to follow, but i'm just ranting now.....have you heard of the liberals releasing any costing on this purchase.....NO....why is that ? the purchase has already been released.....and yet with no and i repeat no costing at all......the liberals are giving us the finger.....ordered a ban on all those involved for a life time.....so no one talks out of order....or finds out WTF is going on.... And better yet they have Gen Vance doing the finger puppet dance.....sad really he is suppose to have DND interest in mind not the liberals......The PM has quoted hearing we have a capability shortfall......and yet the commander of the Airforce is reporting something else....Someone is full of shit.....and my guess is it is the liberals , and the CDS....

It's hardly a Liberal throwback-whatever that means. It was Harper's refusing to provide a file which he has a legal requirement to do, hence the finding. Harper failed to act, other than hide, so there is a need for a stopgap plan until the open competition can occur for full replacement. 

[Army Guy]

28 minutes ago, Omni said:

It's hardly a Liberal throwback-whatever that means. It was Harper's refusing to provide a file which he has a legal requirement to do, hence the finding. Harper failed to act, other than hide, so there is a need for a stopgap plan until the open competition can occur for full replacement. 

IT is when the liberals are guilty of the same thing, where is the open competition to this purchase of 18 CF-18's, where is the costing of 0ut to 42 years , the same amount that was forced upon the Cons.....now where to be had......So you can cross that one off the list....the liberals are just as bad as the cons, if not worse, they lied to you and me....

Edited February 6, 2017 by Army Guy

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

IT is when the liberals are guilty of the same thing, where is the open competition to this purchase of 18 CF-18's, where is the costing of 0ut to 42 years , the same amount that was forced upon the Cons.....now where to be had......So you can cross that one off the list....the liberals are just as bad as the cons, if not worse, they lied to you and me....

No not really. The cons refused to open the file when formally asked. Whatever shape that file was in they had a legal requirement to provide it.

[Army Guy]

So your saying this is a legal purchase? and they have been transparent about it ? and they have followed the purchase policies to the letter ?

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So your saying this is a legal purchase? and they have been transparent about it ? and they have followed the purchase policies to the letter ?

I don't think there is anything illegal about a government buying equipment for its armed forces. Transparent? not sure but the PBO has it on their agenda. But so far nothing coming close to contempt.

[Rue]

At the time Harper chose the F35 he was going along at the time with a long list of nations and at the time he made his decision the price was thought to be lower than it is now because of all the countries on board. It was an impressive list of nations.. I would be interested if Harper was still in office whether he would stick with the F35. now. No one will know.

Bottom line - no one on Parliament hill right now has the balls to stand up to the consortium behind the F35 and out and out say, no t this time. They fear a huge law suit so let's not pretend the deal is dead. Its simply stalled. Its easy to talk about dumping it but no one has said that.Saying no to the F35 would mean a costly penalty and badly needed jobs promised on the ground would suddenly go poof.  Let's get real. Politicians make decisions based on what gets people hired in their ridings and gets them votes, not the merit of aircraft and therein lies the fiasco.This was never about the best jet it's always been what gets votes and what gets votes is jobs.and in that sense the F35 creates the most spin off, hands down so until a politician things the spin off can be replaced, they won't dump it.

I think the current regime has no friggin idea what to do. I think behind closed doors the Air Force won't fret if they pass on the F35 if they get the SuperH or even the F16V, F15 stealth Eagle, but they  don't want this decision to drag on. Politicians are sheep and since the Gripen was rejected by Norway, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland but chosen by Brazil, I just can't see Ottawa making a different decision than 2 NATO partners at this time.  If Britain, Australia or Israel says no to the F35 it will embolden Trudeau to say no. None of them have said no...for now.....

I also think Ottawa fears  Saab could not handle the size of the order Canada needs and would  screw it up like they did with the Swiss.  I just don't see short sighted Canadian politicians going with provisional contracts as a remedy like Brazil did when Brazil chose the Gripen. Nor do I see Canadian politicians getting in bed with the Swedes to set up a ground industry to build it in Canada and I believe the reason for that is because they already are in bed with Americam areonautics industry lobbyists and are loyal to them and why not? The F18 delivered. It did all the things the Yanks said it would. So some say stick with what you know and the SuperH is a safe low risk way to delay the decision.

So  I think the Liberals will use the SuperH purchase as the cover to delay the decision until after the next election. That will buy them 4 years to see if the F35 can fix all its friggin defects and get a clearer price. To be fair maybe going with a not bad but expensive SupeH and wait another 3-4 years to see what goes on with the F35 is a stop gap yes but it gives added time to see if the F35 might be improved (yep we can wait for Norweigans and Danish to crash a few) , plus get more info on how the Gripen is doing in Brazil and how the Eurofighter an Rafale are doing.

Interestingly Brazil chose the Gripen over the SuperHornet:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/19/brazil-picks-gripens-over-super-hornets.html

Lol  hey Trudeau loves China.  Maybe McCallum can get us a deal on the Chinese fighter.

 

 

 

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, ?Impact said:

That is not exactly true.

 

Yes it is true, the life extension for a 2025 ELE started in the Fall of 2014 by the Harper Government, allowing the GoC until ~2020-2021 to select a replacement.......there is zero reason this government couldn't have run a competition inside two years and selected a replacement (and taken the initial aircraft) inside this mandate. 

[Derek 2.0]

On 2/5/2017 at 1:55 PM, Rue said:

Here is the Gripen E  compared to the SuperH, F35, Eurofighter. Rafale Derek.

 

 

Said blog post was written several years (2013) before the Gripen E even took its first flight.......likewise, its quick to point to development delays of the F-35.......but not the Gripen E itself:

 

Quote

The first flight of the Gripen E fighter has been postponed from late this year until the second quarter of 2017. Saab said that the delay is caused by its deliberate decision to fully qualify an innovative avionics and software system before getting airborne. But the Swedish company said that the test aircraft designated 39-8 has now done engine runs, only nine weeks after power-on, compared with 10to 18 months in previous Saab developments. High-speed taxi tests are due soon.

 

Hello pot......this is kettle. The blog is written by someone with his own agenda (cheerleading?), lacking in any direct knowledge of modern aircraft. There are F-35s in USAF and USMC operational service......the Gripen E, an aircraft a generation behind, has yet to fly.

 

I will no longer respond to posts referencing the blog.

 

 

 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

I don't think there is anything illegal about a government buying equipment for its armed forces. Transparent? not sure but the PBO has it on their agenda. But so far nothing coming close to contempt.

No there is not, as long as it is done within the policies and laws already on paper. IS THAT BEING DONE ? All the liberal excuses for this purchase have been rebuked by DND already, our planes are good out to 2025, so there is no Capability gaps , according to the Air force general in charge....The Air force does not need 2 different types of aircraft, as it is to expensive to operate and maintain.not to mention excess costs in training, ground equipment, speciality tools etc....Once again the Airforce have told the liberal government they do NOT want Super hornets, nor do they want 2 different fleets, as funding is already tight enough, Yes the MDND has said they will be properly funded.....I laughed my ass off when i heard that.....That is exactly what they said before they shipped us over to Afghanistan, with green combats, LSVW, and open air jeeps, no arty, no helos, no tanks, no fighters,  properly funded....when has our military ever been properly funded...

Why would the liberals need to make everyone involved in this purchase sign disclosures, they can never speak of any projects involving the super hornets......That has got to ring some bells in the "Can't do anything wrong i'm a liberal " club.....And absolutely no transparency, ya thats what i wrote Transparency.....why would they need to keep all this under wraps as if it is a National security matter......why would they start forcing DND to change it's numbers required for home defense, NATO, NORAD.....those numbers have served us for this long.......but they don't serve the liberal agenda....because the General of the Airforce will not play ball....and tell the public the F-18's won't last until 2025, nor is 65 aircraft enough.....  

Tredeau has even mentioned that DND meaning the CDS has given the liberals the new numbers, and told him there is a capability gap......Now if that was true why is the Airforce general telling the media everything is fine......and the CDS barking to a different tune......a huge problem with his subordinates don't you think....Someone needs to be put on the same page.....and I'm thinking it is the CDS that all is not well inside his kingdom.......first his second in command is told to stand down, with out a word being said....and now his Airforce general not towing the party line......maybe another stand down is in order.....I mean really they don't really need the generals .....after all the government is running the show......they know best ....until something happens....then WTF......

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/we-have-obligations-liberal-government-on-defence-after-reports-of-super-hornet-purchase

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-says-f-35s-are-far-from-working-as-liberals-tories-spar-over-fighter-jet-strategies

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2016/11/23/will-money-super-hornets-come/

Edited February 7, 2017 by Army Guy

[Omni]

36 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

No there is not, as long as it is done within the policies and laws already on paper. IS THAT BEING DONE ? All the liberal excuses for this purchase have been rebuked by DND already, our planes are good out to 2025, so there is no Capability gaps , according to the Air force general in charge....The Air force does not need 2 different types of aircraft, as it is to expensive to operate and maintain.not to mention excess costs in training, ground equipment, speciality tools etc....Once again the Airforce have told the liberal government they do NOT want Super hornets, nor do they want 2 different fleets, as funding is already tight enough, Yes the MDND has said they will be properly funded.....I laughed my ass off when i heard that.....That is exactly what they said before they shipped us over to Afghanistan, with green combats, LSVW, and open air jeeps, no arty, no helos, no tanks, no fighters,  properly funded....when has our military ever been properly funded...

Why would the liberals need to make everyone involved in this purchase sign disclosures, they can never speak of any projects involving the super hornets......That has got to ring some bells in the "Can't do anything wrong i'm a liberal " club.....And absolutely no transparency, ya thats what i wrote Transparency.....why would they need to keep all this under wraps as if it is a National security matter......why would they start forcing DND to change it's numbers required for home defense, NATO, NORAD.....those numbers have served us for this long.......but they don't serve the liberal agenda....because the General of the Airforce will not play ball....and tell the public the F-18's won't last until 2025, nor is 65 aircraft enough.....  

Tredeau has even mentioned that DND meaning the CDS has given the liberals the new numbers, and told him there is a capability gap......Now if that was true why is the Airforce general telling the media everything is fine......and the CDS barking to a different tune......a huge problem with his subordinates don't you think....Someone needs to be put on the same page.....and I'm thinking it is the CDS that all is not well inside his kingdom.......first his second in command is told to stand down, with out a word being said....and now his Airforce general not towing the party line......maybe another stand down is in order.....I mean really they don't really need the generals .....after all the government is running the show......they know best ....until something happens....then WTF......

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/we-have-obligations-liberal-government-on-defence-after-reports-of-super-hornet-purchase

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-says-f-35s-are-far-from-working-as-liberals-tories-spar-over-fighter-jet-strategies

Ah let's wait until we see what an open competition reveals. I suspect the F 35 is a lot of money for a SE air frame that isn't really stealthy.