Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 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.Then they'll obviously be life extended again. There are recent statements that the planes will be used until at least 2040, blatant dishonesty aside Edited June 7, 2016 by Smallc Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 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. Agreed...the circus act continues....continued comparisons to United States Navy and other U.S. aircraft development, procurement(s), and service life extensions is not relevant to a nation with a broken military acquisition process. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 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. So the liberals and you are discounting the other upgrade program extending life to 2025....Because of problems with tending..... As you have said before Can't the liberals you know fix that....It has been on the books for years...fixing the procurement issues..... 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.
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 The proposed upgrade program that you keep linking to only seeks to upgrade 65 CF-18s, with retirements happening between ~2023 and 2026. actually the 77 CF-18 hornets are still good until 2020...the upgrades bring the remainder to 2025, just 5 years...with hopefully new aircraft arriving between 2020 and 2025....so what is the big panic again... 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 So the liberals and you are discounting the other upgrade program extending life to 2025....Because of problems with tending..... As you have said before Can't the liberals you know fix that....It has been on the books for years...fixing the procurement issues..... I don't know if they can fix it. No one has been able to so far. Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 actually the 77 CF-18 hornets are still good until 2020...the upgrades bring the remainder to 2025, just 5 years...with hopefully new aircraft arriving between 2020 and 2025....so what is the big panic again... The availability rate of the aircraft will continue to decline. Quote
?Impact Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 All this arguing over fighter aircraft. When was the last time Canada actually used a fighter aircraft in combat? Are not the bulk (100%?) of our combat missions bombing and recognizance? What is the appropriate aircraft for those missions? Should we not be looking at UAVs which are a thousand times better for those purposes? Quote
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 So you don't have faith in the liberals addressing the replacement of the F-18 project in time, and there will not be any replacements forth coming to off set the reduction of availability of the F-18.... The introduction of a second platform as an interim aircraft in a element that is already cash strapped is a stop gap measure at best, one that will only add bils to the new replacement, but also increase operational costs....does that make sense.... But the more I think about it, this is all just a backdoor measure to keep the liberal promises by not purchasing the F-35....instead it will purchase a few super hornets and call it a day, the funding put aside for the f-35 will be diverted to the ship building program, another win for the liberals.....because that is what important here a check mark in the win column not what is in the best interest of our nation or its military. 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 All this arguing over fighter aircraft. When was the last time Canada actually used a fighter aircraft in combat? Are not the bulk (100%?) of our combat missions bombing and recognizance? What is the appropriate aircraft for those missions? Should we not be looking at UAVs which are a thousand times better for those purposes? No, in fact the bulk of our missions are NORAD intercepts. Any platform will be an improvement. Quote
?Impact Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 No, in fact the bulk of our missions are NORAD intercepts. Do you have any statistics for that? I did say 'combat' for a reason, but it would be interesting to see how these planes are actually used. I expect far and away, training is the primary mission. I would be surprised if it is any less than 95% of the missions, probably a lot more. I believe the CF-18's were used in Iraq (first gulf war), Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq & Syria (ISIS) as combat missions. I don't know what peacekeeping missions they have been involved in. NORAD intercepts I am aware of a handful of Russian incursions in the far north, and one Sunwing flight where the pilot didn't change radio frequency and went 'silent'. Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 The NORAD mission, including training, has 3/4 of our combat aircraft dedicated to it. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 The NORAD mission, including training, has 3/4 of our combat aircraft dedicated to it. Such as they are. We have half as many as we used to have. Our last purchase was for what, something like 130 fighters, and now we want to be 69? Even if Trump doesn't win I bet his theme that the US is being suckered within NATO by freeloaders like Canada will find traction among others. 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
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Such as they are. We have half as many as we used to have. Our last purchase was for what, something like 130 fighters, and now we want to be 69? Even if Trump doesn't win I bet his theme that the US is being suckered within NATO by freeloaders like Canada will find traction among others. Canada hasn't pulled its weight in defense spending for NATO or NORAD for a very long time. The U.S. is use to it and just compensates accordingly. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 All this money spent and still the F-35 needs to be proven as a viable option. Apparently Canada still needs to pay into the process to continue to qualify to purchase the problematic aircraft. Quote
?Impact Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Our last purchase was for what, something like 130 fighters, and now we want to be 69? We wanted 600 CF-105s but got 200 CF-104s. 25 years later we got 138 CF-18s we are now 30 years later and looking at (maybe) 65 [C]F-35s Each of those iterations is at least an order of magnitude (decimal) larger in cost. At that rate in 2040 we will be looking at acquiring 17 CF-93s at a total cost near a trillion dollars. Quote
waldo Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Yes, I linked earlier to an article quoting him quite clearly. no - you repeatedly misrepresented the state of the CF-18 lifespan... current lifespan. You gave the false impression, repeatedly, that 2025 was already the limit year. Of course, that is not the case; that would require the (next) modernization to begin by 2021. If it were to proceed, I understand the cost estimate @ 1/2 billion dollars... we could add that to the prior $2 billion that needed to be spent to upgrade the CF-18 previously - that would be ~$2.5 billion because the F-35 kept being delayed... continues to be delayed. you also threw a lil' reference to me about Alan Williams being my previous go-to guy. Yes, he was... on a factual item level that takes us all the way back to the JSF program inception. I believe I've only ever mentioned him in a single context; that being, to reinforce that Canada joining the JSF program did not include any commitment that Canada had to actually purchase the F-35. That was a factual item/aspect associated with WIlliam... you're certainly free to repeat, many times over now, his personal opinion on anything else... fact vs. opinion, yes? . Quote
waldo Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 That would depend on the definition of upgrade would it not...and hear I thought upgrade meant taking an existing airframe and improving upon it. Can you use CF-18 and upgrade them to super hornets....I don't think so, and why did the us navy retire it's older F-18's instead of upgrading them to Super hornets, just a question to ponder ? The super Hornet is a totally different aircraft, that happens to share a common name....that's it...which would require at least a competition to find the right aircraft for the job and be subjected to the same rules and regulations. the 'upgrade path' reference, Hornet to Super Hornet, is generally attached to operations/maintenance advantages... simply by being with the same manufacturer. Of course the Hornet is not the Super Hornet, which is not the Growler... which is not the Advanced Super Hornet. The only direct 'functional' related comparative association I've read about is one that suggests some degree of avionics is still shared between the Hornet and the Super Hornet. . Quote
waldo 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? 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? 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. Clumsy. Stupid. Expensive. And it will backfire on him. again, given technology advances... given where drone capability will be in 20+ years, it no longer makes sense to presume... to depend upon... any aircraft choice lasting 30-40 years. And, should the Super Hornet be chosen it most likely would be the 'Advanced Super Hornet' - from an earlier waldo post: per, 'Mike Gibbons - vice president of F/A-18 & EA-18 Programs for Boeing Military Aircraft: "A complete Super Hornet [F/A-18E/F], with engine and electronic warfare gear, currently costs about $51 million... a fully equipped Growler [EA-18G] costs about $60 million)"... he's also offered comment that the "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade, would add ~10% additional costs to that of the existing Super Hornet costs. A googly with 'Mike Gibbons, Super Hornet costs' will bring forward many article references stating these/like figures... one of those being a CBC article from early 2013. The Boeing rep is quoted as stating the current price for a Super Hornet is ~$51 million... with the Advanced Super Hornet 10% above that. . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Posted June 7, 2016 Unless of course we're unable to select a new aircraft. The system appears extremely broken. This Government has more than this mandate to fix it........inversely, the Harper Government ran a pseudo competition, obtaining comparative costs for alternatives, compared to the F-35. Why has this Government refused to release the findings? Surely if it found the way forward were the Super Hornet, the Liberals would have released it and used it as social license to justify a purchase.........yet it didn't.......could it be, like the recent Danish competition, it found that the full life costing of operating the Super Hornet was more than the F-35? Not strange to imagine, what with the largest user starting to retire their fleet in just over a decade, fostering a smaller user to go it alone with the costs of supply chains and upgrades.....to say nothing of the added costs associated with an aircraft with a lifespan of ~6600 hours (Super Hornet) versus that with an aircraft with a lifespan of ~9000 hours (F-35). Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2016 Report Posted June 8, 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? Did you mention the US Navy purchase of Super Hornets as a mere irrelevance, or to look foolish in this context. there's a MLW member here who regularly in the past has chimed in to keep reminding of the Hornet origination... always intended as some kind of bizarro slight towards Canada purchasing a "U.S. Navy carrier based" plane. Of course, in that regard, Canada is in the company of 15 non-carrier nations that either bought or kicked the tires in reviewing the Hornet/Super Hornet... along with the U.S. Navy that has also chosen to fly the Hornet/Super Hornet from land bases in the past. . Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2016 Report Posted June 8, 2016 This Government has more than this mandate to fix it........inversely, the Harper Government ran a pseudo competition, obtaining comparative costs for alternatives, compared to the F-35. Why has this Government refused to release the findings? And following that mini competition, they did what? That's what I thought. Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2016 Report Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) ...like the recent Danish competition, it found that the full life costing of operating the Super Hornet was more than the F-35? given you prowl some of the same blogs I do, I'm quite certain you're well aware of the significant controversy surrounding that Danish costing. In my quick scan of the previous 3 pages I did catch you trumpeting this sale at least once... and now here again. From what you understand... read... are you willing to state that comparative costing was done, as you interpret, fairly? on edit: I could link to Boeing's own raised concerns as directed to the Danish Parliament... but hey, I like the 'BestFighter4Canada' guys writing: Slanted F-35 Selection Report Is Another Danish Tragedy... and again, this is strictly costing since no functional comparison can be made between an actual working Super Hornet and the F-35 paper tiger! . Edited June 8, 2016 by waldo Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 8, 2016 Report Posted June 8, 2016 Then they'll obviously be life extended again. There are recent statements that the planes will be used until at least 2040, blatant dishonesty aside Some will, some won't, that's dependent on each airframe.....the USN is already sending Super Hornets obtained in the late 90s to the desert....so your suggesting that they will be still operating into the 2040s is unrealistic............even if Boeing is somehow magically able to double the Super Hornets life to ~12-13000 hours, aircraft that have entered service ~15 years (or newer) ago already at ~6600 hours, based on the same use, will only be fit for service into the early 2030s.......even cutting usage by 1/3rd, as the USN has done for the Super Hornet fleet, that maybe takes it to the mid 2030s. Aircraft used closer to the 2040s will clearly be recently obtained Growlers and the currently newest Super Hornets within the fleet, which but reflects a small fraction of the overall fleet..........hence your claim that they will be serving in USN service for the next 25+ years is outlandish and devoid of reality. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 8, 2016 Report Posted June 8, 2016 The availability rate of the aircraft will continue to decline. Source? The head of the RCAF has said there is no problem operating the fleet out to 2025..........you know something he doesn't? Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2016 Report Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Source? The head of the RCAF has said there is no problem operating the fleet out to 2025..........you know something he doesn't? cite that... you've been asked once already. You do realize that requires the next modernization to begin by 2021, right? . Edited June 8, 2016 by waldo 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.