Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Smallc]

cite that... you've been asked once already. You do realize that requires the next modernization to begin by 2021, right?

.

And while that modernization is going on, there will definitely be a problem with availability.

[Smallc]

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.

As late as last year, the head of the navy said that the Super Hornet will be the bulk of their force until 2035.

Nice to see you finally backtrack though.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

I never gave any false impressions, said upgrade has been spoken to countless times in various F-35 threads for several years........the modernization would begin in the next several years, once the USN/USMC legacy fleet is completed its same upgrades.........2021 is the deadline to have selected a replacement and giving ~4 years to complete the transition.

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?

Sauce for the goose Waldo, you've decried the Harper Government's sole source planned purchase of the F-35 for years, using countless articles containing Alan Williams quotes.

But all is moot, as the MND's spokeswomen has gone on record stating they have no intention of sole sourcing the Super Hornets......

[waldo]

And while that modernization is going on, there will definitely be a problem with availability.

they'll need to fill that gap!

[Derek 2.0]

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.

.

It is tiresome, as there are currently more land based operators of Hornets and Super Hornets then those that use them from carriers......and the Hornet itself was derived from the YF-17, which lost to the F-16 in becoming one of the largest sellers of land based tactical aircraft.........surpassed of course by the F-4 Phantom, a carrier based aircraft for the USN, then adopted by countless air forces, including being the mainstay of the USAF into the early 1980s.........

[Derek 2.0]

cite that... you've been asked once already. You do realize that requires the next modernization to begin by 2021, right?

.

I did already.

[Topaz]

|I found an interview with a Canadian pilot and he's for the Hornet and not the F-35 and his reasons why.

[Derek 2.0]

As late as last year, the head of the navy said that the Super Hornet will be the bulk of their force until 2035.

Nice to see you finally backtrack though.

Where did I backtrack? I've been citing the mid 2030s for the fleets retirement, in countless threads, for years............the backtrack is you, that has suggested the fleet will operate into the 2040s.........the fleet will be beer cans in the 2040s

[waldo]

I never gave any false impressions, said upgrade has been spoken to countless times in various F-35 threads for several years........the modernization would begin in the next several years, once the USN/USMC legacy fleet is completed its same upgrades.........2021 is the deadline to have selected a replacement and giving ~4 years to complete the transition.

huh! What are you on about! You absolutely stated, in no futures context, that 2025 was the current life-span year. It's not... unless the next ~1/2 billion upgrade is set in motion, to begin no later than 2021. That has not been finalized yet.

.

Sauce for the goose Waldo, you've decried the Harper Government's sole source planned purchase of the F-35 for years, using countless articles containing Alan Williams quotes.

But all is moot, as the MND's spokeswomen has gone on record stating they have no intention of sole sourcing the Super Hornets......

no - what I've repeatedly said is the fix was in... there was no effective competition since no requirements initially existed... some other country made the decision for Canada! It was only long after-the-fact, when it became too embarrassing to continue to ignore DND finally worked to put forward a requirements statement... one that magically aligned with the F-35! Imagine that.

you've stated your last sentence twice now (perhaps more) - just so we're all on the same wavelength and reference, please cite that "going on record" statement. I appreciate you are reluctant to often provide sources to your unsubstantiated comments; however, in this case, I think it prudent that you provide the reference - yes?

.

.

[waldo]

I did already.

in your standard avoidance mode... you drop a reference (one you claim supports your statement), yet you never manage to actually quote from it - go figure! It's always you dropping "go fetch' links!

.

[Derek 2.0]

And while that modernization is going on, there will definitely be a problem with availability.

Source? I know you're full of it, fore if you did actually know availability rates of the current Hornet fleet, and disclosed it, you'd be facing federal prison time...........

None the less, as cited, why is the Trudeau government walking back the reports of a sole sourced Super Hornet purchase (if its such a good idea), likewise, why is the head of the RCAF not the least concerned with operating the fleet to 2025?

[Derek 2.0]

huh! What are you on about! You absolutely stated, in no futures context, that 2025 was the current life-span year. It's not... unless the next ~1/2 billion upgrade is set in motion, to begin no later than 2021. That has not been finalized yet.

.

Per the head of the RCAF........feel free to review the countless other F-35 threads, namely those in which we both discussed this very out of service date and the center barrel upgrade of our current Hornets.........you must be going senile, we went into great detail over the entire upgrade process, including costs and timelines.

no - what I've repeatedly said is the fix was in... there was no effective competition since no requirements initially existed... some other country made the decision for Canada! It was only long after-the-fact, when it became too embarrassing to continue to ignore DND finally worked to put forward a requirements statement... one that magically aligned with the F-35! Imagine that.

And thats still the case with the F-35..........thats not the case with the Super Hornet, as there are numerous aircraft that can perform at a similar level or better and in the case of the F-16, cheaper.

you've stated your last sentence twice now (perhaps more) - just so we're all on the same wavelength and reference, please cite that "going on record" statement. I appreciate you are reluctant to often provide sources to your unsubstantiated comments; however, in this case, I think it prudent that you provide the reference - yes?

I provided said source early this morning, quoting the article from the CBC.

[waldo]

I'm done with you... for now! You never/rarely provide actual quotes from your reference links... if you actually bother to provide a reference link. You made statements, drop reference links, and presume others will, "go fetch" to try and find somewhere in the reference that aligns with your statement. You now have multiple outstanding asks to support separate statements you're making... you simply say, words to the effect, "already provided"! Ya, right.

.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm done with you... for now! You never/rarely provide actual quotes from your reference links... if you actually bother to provide a reference link. You made statements, drop reference links, and presume others will, "go fetch" to try and find somewhere in the reference that aligns with your statement. You now have multiple outstanding asks to support separate statements you're making... you simply say, words to the effect, "already provided"! Ya, right.

.

What are you talking about? I provided said link this morning, including both quotes from Alan William (as did the National Post article) and the MND's spokeswomen's release, speaking for the Minister well he was traveling....with regards the Liberals NSF payment to Lockheed:

But Jordan Owens cautioned not to read too much into the oversight and that Canada is still on the hook for the cash.

"We will honour our financial commitments," she said, responding for the minister who was in transit from a defence conference in Singapore.

It's unclear when the instalment will be made and whether there are any penalties associated with a late payment.

As to the Super Hornet sole source purchase:

Owens denied cabinet has discussed a sole-source deal.

As to our legacy Hornets:

Indeed, a year before being defeated, the Harper government ordered a further life-extension to the fighters — worth hundreds of millions of dollars — so they could stay airborne until 2025.

So an already ordered upgrade.......as I said, we went into full detail circa 2014 in the then current F-35 thread.......

What has left me wondering, with the Liberal's "reprofiling" of defense funds several months ago, did said "not a cut", cut funds to our Hornets center barrel upgrade.........in effect.........the Liberals are in a crisis of their own making?

[Derek 2.0]

And following that mini competition, they did what? That's what I thought.

Ordered the center barrel upgrade for our Hornets.......buying time for the next Government, which they hoped would be them (evident by the rumors circulated by Andrew Coyne iirc, pertaining to a (then) planned initial purchase of the 4-6 F-35A early next year), none the less, putting the decision and ordering inside this present mandate, if not the one following..........at such time, the F-35A will be in full rate production, at which time, it was planned that we would then purchase.........

[Derek 2.0]

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.

Which is directly correlated with capability.........How many rotary phones could one purchase with the same funds used to purchase the latest smartphone?

[?Impact]

Which is directly correlated with capability.........How many rotary phones could one purchase with the same funds used to purchase the latest smartphone?

Zero, you couldn't purchase a phone in 1960 - period. They were supplied with the service, just like the $0 phones with far more capability are supplied with the service today. When phones did become available for purchase however, they were very expensive.

Local phone service in 1960 was under $10/month, phone service today is about $25/month for basic (about a bazillion times more capable than in 1960). Long distance service has decreased by well over an order of magnitude.

The $1 million computer of 1960 has less processing capability, memory, storage than the $0 phone of today.

[Derek 2.0]

Zero, you couldn't purchase a phone in 1960 - period.

I'm of course not talking about 1960, but today, with today's dollars (And yes, I do remember the old BC Tel rotary phones)

Local phone service in 1960 was under $10/month, phone service today is about $25/month for basic (about a bazillion times more capable than in 1960). Long distance service has decreased by well over an order of magnitude.

The $1 million computer of 1960 has less processing capability, memory, storage than the $0 phone of today.

And that proves my point even further..........In the later 1950s, the F-101 Voodoo was state of the art, but with the introduction of the F-4 Phantom in the early 60s, the Voodoo became near obsolete overnight......yet today, they are the rotary phones compared to the smartphone that is the F-35....and in 50 years, the F-35 will be just as obsolete with whatever comes next.

Like consumer technology, military technology, since man first picked up a rock, has not stayed in stasis......and once you find a nice rock, the guy in the cave over will come up with one even bigger.....etc etc etc.

[waldo]

What are you talking about? ...and the MND's spokeswomen's release, speaking for the Minister well he was traveling....

As to the Super Hornet sole source purchase:

Owens denied cabinet has discussed a sole-source deal.

"what am I talking about"? This is case in point: the MLW link you provide above, as quoted, has you saying this:

"regardless, per the MND's spokeswomen, the government has no intention (now?) to sole source Super Hornets........."

in a prior post to that, you said this:

".........this gets leaked and now the MND's spokesperson goes on record as stating there is no intention of sole sourcing Super Hornets"

now, again, you initially never actually quoted what you were basing your statement on... you simply dropped the link. Do you see the disconnect and the liberty you took with what you now quote when challenged/pressed to? You went from the article stating the spokesperson "denied cabinet has discussed a sole sourced deal" (notwithstanding, that's not even a direct quote... that's the journalist stating that)... to where you stated twice (drawing reference to the MND spokesperson), that there is, "no intention to/of sole source/sourcing Super Hornets". There's no correlation between what you stated and the quote you presume to base it on; again, notwithstanding it's not even a direct quote from the spokesperson... it's the journalist stating it.

so... we went from the original PostMedia article (per Berthiaume/Ivison) --- to this latest offering, where we have one of those same two journalists stating, "while his defence minister refused to say if the Liberals will hold a competition to replace Canada’s aging fighter jets". In that article we read Prime Minister Trudeau making a very accurate statement on the status of the F-35 ("far from working")... we read references to Boeing lobbying efforts (which is nothing new for any of the manufacturers, notably the lengths LockMart has taken in many cases documented/discussed in MLW related threads)... and then we read PostMedia digging in by quoting nonsense from LockMart about deliveries already made and BS references to IOC... none of which, of course, speaks to the actual LRIP state/capability of those planes delivered or the interesting shifted narrative on what "combat ready" actually means in the face of an urgent need to pump the LockMart propaganda.

.

[Argus]

One of the reasons long cited by the Liberals for excluding the F-35 — also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) — was that it cost a lot more than the Super Hornet. That is no longer true because the JSF has dropped dramatically in price. Finland recently costed the Super Hornet at about $92 million each, compared to $85 million for the JSF, he said.

Repugnant, deceitful and dishonest are some of the milder words used by others in the defence community when asked to describe how the Liberals have handled the fighter jet file.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-buying-super-hornets-not-f-35s-will-saddle-air-force-with-the-wrong-aircraft-forever

In its party platform of last fall, the Liberals stated they would “immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the F-18 fighter aircraft.” Almost eight months after the election it is still not clear what progress has been made. But one of the Liberals’ main concerns with the Joint Strike Fighter buyer consortium that Canada is currently a member of was that the decision to purchase had not been part of an open competition. A sole-source purchase now – even billed as a “limited” one – verges on hypocrisy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-needs-new-fighter-jets-and-a-transparent-purchasing-process/article30347198/

[PIK]

This shows the liberals do not care at all about our military.

[Argus]

I don't know if they can fix it. No one has been able to so far.

Then why have you guys been screaming and pounding desks for the last five years about the F-35 not having a full and fair bidding process? Apparently it's unfixable and you have no interest in even trying so you're going to sole source a multi-billion dollar program for fighters the air force neither wants nor says it needs. Sounds to me like the fix was in. I wonder how much money from Boeing has found its way into the pockets of important Liberals.

[Argus]

This shows the liberals do not care at all about our military.

Everything they've ever done has shown the Liberals don't care about our military.

[Smallc]

Then why have you guys been screaming and pounding desks for the last five years about the F-35 not having a full and fair bidding process? Apparently it's unfixable and you have no interest in even trying so you're going to sole source a multi-billion dollar program for fighters the air force neither wants nor says it needs. Sounds to me like the fix was in. I wonder how much money from Boeing has found its way into the pockets of important Liberals.

I wasn't one of those people. I was actually arguing that the costing was fine and that we should have bought it.

[Smallc]

One of the reasons long cited by the Liberals for excluding the F-35 also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was that it cost a lot more than the Super Hornet. That is no longer true because the JSF has dropped dramatically in price. Finland recently costed the Super Hornet at about $92 million each, compared to $85 million for the JSF, he said.

Repugnant, deceitful and dishonest are some of the milder words used by others in the defence community when asked to describe how the Liberals have handled the fighter jet file.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-buying-super-hornets-not-f-35s-will-saddle-air-force-with-the-wrong-aircraft-forever

In its party platform of last fall, the Liberals stated they would immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the F-18 fighter aircraft. Almost eight months after the election it is still not clear what progress has been made. But one of the Liberals main concerns with the Joint Strike Fighter buyer consortium that Canada is currently a member of was that the decision to purchase had not been part of an open competition. A sole-source purchase now even billed as a limited one verges on hypocrisy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-needs-new-fighter-jets-and-a-transparent-purchasing-process/article30347198/

The latest USN purchases (enter BC200and whatever) show an at least $40M price difference in favour of the Super Hornet.