Army Guy Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Only if the entire fleet receives the upgrades (and he didn't say the entire fleet would be good until then - we're already going from 80 to 65). That contract has not been awarded yet and it's not clear how much economic sense it makes. Not sure where you got your numbers, mine show 77 operational CF-18 as of today. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Yet in your mind it does make sense to purchase an aircraft new to DND, one that will require training air and ground crews on a second, then a third brand whenever the govt gathers the balls to simply buy the next generation? I expect this purchase would end talk of buying a next generation aircraft for a very long time - probably in the 25 year range. Why exactly are we buying an aircraft that is nearly at the end of its service life, to replace an aircraft also at the end of is service life? The USN will by flying the Super Hornet until at least 2040 - possibly longer. You won't say it, so I will: to get Trudeau out of the embarassment he personally created by a foolish, uninformed promise during the election. By buying SuperHornets, he can put off the decision to buy f-35s until a few weeks after the 2019 election. You can be certain that the election campaign of 2019 will have far fewer than 200+ promises. It should also feature fewer voters believing the whoppers he does make. I've always been of the opinion that it was wrong to single out the F-35. Trudeau was wrong. This is a convenient way to sidestep any problem with that. Clumsy. Stupid. Expensive. And it will backfire on him. I actually doubt anyone will care. Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Below is a DND statement defining the life extension programs.... forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-cf18-estimated-life-expectancy.page Below is media reports detailing the approval of the ELE program taking the current fleet to 2025..... http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/cf-18-aircraft-extension-to-2025-will-mean-extra-maintenance-costs-for-rcaf Another source in case you did not like the other one. www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extending-cf-18-lifespan-to-cost-about-400-million-report-1.2869532 The project is not expected to be tendered for at least two years. Knowing how well DND does with tendering projects, I'm skeptical it will be done by the 2021 requirement window. Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Not sure where you got your numbers, mine show 77 operational CF-18 as of today. The proposed upgrade program that you keep linking to only seeks to upgrade 65 CF-18s, with retirements happening between ~2023 and 2026. Quote
overthere Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 I expect this purchase would end talk of buying a next generation aircraft for a very long time - probably in the 25 year range. So you approve a sole source contract to buy this aircraft, not as a stopgap while dithering on an actual F18 replacement but as the only aircraft for generations? Ahhh the rampant hypocrisy..... The USN will by flying the Super Hornet until at least 2040 - possibly longer. We barely have a navy, they will have no ships in short order and will never have aircraft in any case. Your point is... what? The US military has several fighter aircraft in use and is not shy about buying and developing more. We can afford one. Or maybe it is two now. Three actually. Wait, WTF are we doing? You want us to buy an old aircraft in bulk now that is enaring the end of its life? Isn't that what we have now? Oh, and about that sole source decision by Trudeau........... Very transparent and probably diverse too. I've always been of the opinion that it was wrong to single out the F-35. Trudeau was wrong. This is a convenient way to sidestep any problem with that. Convenient. Sidestep. Political. You admire a man who does not correct an error by doing something right, he sidesteps it by compounding that error and making a political statement rather than a national defence judgement and doing the very thing he promised not to do: sole source a very important national defence acquisition. I admire a man, or more accurately a leader, that makes the hard decision for the right reason, then takes the heat no matter what. That man is not Trudeau, not on this file. You can be sure that our allies, all of them, are now wondering.... what is wrong with this guy? Has he no spine at all? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 So you approve a sole source contract to buy this aircraft, not as a stopgap while dithering on an actual F18 replacement but as the only aircraft for generations? Ahhh the rampant hypocrisy..... I haven't seen any deal, so I can't approve or disapprove. It's simply easy to figure out why. It's also laughable to talk about dithering, when it is in fact the Harper government that punted this file. We barely have a navy, they will have no ships in short order and will never have aircraft in any case. Nonsensical rambling aside, we have ships under construction, completing life extensions, and in design. It's not the same situation. Your point is... what? My point is that the aircraft is 25 years from the end of its service. You admire a man who does not correct an error by doing something right, he sidesteps it by compounding that error and making a political statement rather than a national defence judgement and doing the very thing he promised not to do: sole source a very important national defence acquisition. You're rambling again. I admire a man, or more accurately a leader, that makes the hard decision for the right reason, then takes the heat no matter what. That man is not Trudeau, not on this file. Or any file, as far as you're concerned. We already know. You can be sure that our allies, all of them, are now wondering.... what is wrong with this guy? Has he no spine at all? I can be sure that you're making things up. Quote
Topaz Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the military have to find parts for the F-18 from museums because they were having problems finding parts? Quote
overthere Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Nonsensical rambling aside, we have ships under construction, completing life extensions, and in design. It's not the same situation. Yes, that was my point. You raised the Super Hornets as part of the US Navy. Why? WE have no carriers and no naval fixed wing fighter capacity. Never will, unless Trudeau follows the Chretien model of buying superior surplus naval equipment from the UK.. Do you see a broken carrier purchase on the horizon? Did you mention the US Navy purchase of Super Hornets as a mere irrelevance, or to look foolish in this context. My point is that the aircraft is 25 years from the end of its service. Stop dodging. If the Super Hornets are a stopgap to 2025, why bother at all when it is confirmed that the F18s are good until then, and there is certainly time to assess all aircraft instead of undergoing the idiocy of having two aircraft to support. Or if the Super Hornet is a long term solution, why does it need to be sole sourced? I get you don't want to answer, and why. Embarassing, innit? You're rambling again. I get that it is humiliating to see your boy not just making the wrong decision, but making one he does not have to make except to avoid a minor embarassment of not filling one of 200+ election promises. Leaders make hard decisions. Your boy ain't that until he does the right thing here. Then you'll get to puff up and crow about his maturity, but not before. It may be soon, he will have to backtrack. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the military have to find parts for the F-18 from museums because they were having problems finding parts? I believe that was the olde C-130s Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Yes, that was my point. You raised the Super Hornets as part of the US Navy. Why? WE have no carriers and no naval fixed wing fighter capacity. Never will, unless Trudeau follows the Chretien model of buying superior surplus naval equipment from the UK.. Do you see a broken carrier purchase on the horizon? Do you think they saw a future carrier purchase when we bought the original F-18? Do you think the Australians planned to use theirs on carriers? Do you see the logical fallacy you just created? Did you mention the US Navy purchase of Super Hornets as a mere irrelevance, or to look foolish in this context. Stop dodging. If the Super Hornets are a stopgap to 2025, why bother at all when it is confirmed that the F18s are good until then, and there is certainly time to assess all aircraft instead of undergoing the idiocy of having two aircraft to support. Or if the Super Hornet is a long term solution, why does it need to be sole sourced? I mentioned the USN as it disproves your point about an aircraft at the end of its life. Further, I would expect any stopgap purchase to be used well past 2030. I get you don't want to answer, and why. Embarassing, innit? I get that it is humiliating to see your boy not just making the wrong decision, but making one he does not have to make except to avoid a minor embarassment of not filling one of 200+ election promises. Leaders make hard decisions. Your boy ain't that until he does the right thing here. Then you'll get to puff up and crow about his maturity, but not before. It may be soon, he will have to backtrack. It must be hard to see everything through a purely partisan lense. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Do you have the statement? Yes, I linked earlier to an article quoting him quite clearly. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Only if the entire fleet receives the upgrades (and he didn't say the entire fleet would be good until then - we're already going from 80 to 65). That contract has not been awarded yet and it's not clear how much economic sense it makes. The reduction in numbers is due to no longer requiring the Hornet conversion squadron once we begin transitioning into a new aircraft. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 The Super Hornet production factory will actually now stay open well into the next decade, per the Boring SLAP announcement. The St Louis plant will remain open, conducting the upgrades to the USN Super Hornet fleet....the production line for the Hornet and Eagle will be closed. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 BTW, the government has missed its payment to the F-35 program membership office. And is quoted as saying they will still meet their financial commitment......per the spokesperson for the MND. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 I actually doubt anyone will care. Only those who care about Canada having a capable military force. Certainly Liberal cheerleaders will not care at all. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 I expect this purchase would end talk of buying a next generation aircraft for a very long time - probably in the 25 year range. The USN will by flying the Super Hornet until at least 2040 - possibly longer. No they won't, as already cited numerous times to you, the majority of the fleet has already reached its designed end of airframe hours, forcing the USN to reduce Super Hornet flight hours by nearly 1/3rd, well speeding their next generation tanker, to further reduce the Super Hornet workload.......and working with Boeing to extend the aircraft's life. Unlike most aircraft, including the F-35, the Super Hornet was only engineered with ~2/3rds the lifespan as most other combat types, and is why the Danes rejected the Super Hornet over the F-35, citing additional costs of a life extension and larger attrition purchase. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 It must be hard to see everything through a purely partisan lense. Pot meet kettle... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 The reduction in numbers is due to no longer requiring the Hornet conversion squadron once we begin transitioning into a new aircraft. We haven't begun transitioning to a new aircraft Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Pot meet kettle... I criticized Trudeau in the post he was responding to - he's wrong on the F-35. Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 No they won't, as already cited numerous times to you, the majority of the fleet has already reached its designed end of airframe hours, forcing the USN to reduce Super Hornet flight hours by nearly 1/3rd, well speeding their next generation tanker, to further reduce the Super Hornet workload.......and working with Boeing to extend the aircraft's life. And operating them out to 2040, as cited multiple times. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 I get that it is humiliating to see your boy not just making the wrong decision, but making one he does not have to make except to avoid a minor embarassment of not filling one of 200+ election promises. Leaders make hard decisions. Your boy ain't that until he does the right thing here. Then you'll get to puff up and crow about his maturity, but not before. It may be soon, he will have to backtrack. A decision that is panned by Alan Williams, the former Liberal ADM Material minister (that procured items for DND), calling this move horrific, and aside opening the GoC to legal and trade actions by other aircraft builders and countries, is a bad deal for the military, a bad deal for Canadian industry and a bad deal for Canadian taxpayers......... Even the spokesperson for the MND has stated the Government isn't (now?) going to sole source the Super Hornet...........as such, its clear that smallc is talking out of his arse and defended something this government (isn't now?) going to do. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 We haven't begun transitioning to a new aircraft I know, and we won't until a replacement is selected.........ergo, there is no need to upgrade aircraft used to transition into our legacy hornets at such a time as we select new aircraft Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 I criticized Trudeau in the post he was responding to - he's wrong on the F-35. No, you just said he was wrong to single it out, but you've been against the F-35 for some time now anyway. The fact is this is a facade, buying second rate aircraft to put fighter purchases off beyond the lifespan of the Trudeau administration, much like Chretien bought crappy second and third rate helicopters so he didn't have to buy the EH-101. Throwing away billions to cover their ineptitude is a routine business for Liberals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 And operating them out to 2040, as cited multiple times. Ahh no....aircraft that have reached their end of life hours within ~15 years of service now, will not be operating for another ~25+ years, regardless of the life extension program........so unless the USN replaces their entire Super Hornet fleet with Super Hornets, no, they won't. Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 I know, and we won't until a replacement is selected.........ergo, there is no need to upgrade aircraft used to transition into our legacy hornets at such a time as we select new aircraft Unless of course we're unable to select a new aircraft. The system appears extremely broken. Quote
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.