Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Argus]

Looks like the Danes also think the F-35 is better and cheaper.

The F-35 just won a competition — and it wasn’t even close. In every category, from combat performance to cost, the Danish government rated Lockheed’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter as superior to Airbus’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18F Super Hornet.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/f-35-wins-denmark-competition-trounces-super-hornet-eurofighter/

Edited June 8, 2016 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Hooray for the United States Navy ! Canada....we got your back !

[Smallc]

Looks like the Danes also think the F-35 is better and cheaper.

The F-35 just won a competition and it wasnt even close. In every category, from combat performance to cost, the Danish government rated Lockheeds F-35A Joint Strike Fighter as superior to Airbuss Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeings F/A-18F Super Hornet.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/f-35-wins-denmark-competition-trounces-super-hornet-eurofighter/

There's a lot of questions over that competition. It has been roundly criticized from many angles.

[waldo]

Looks like the Danes also think the F-35 is better and cheaper.

The F-35 just won a competition — and it wasn’t even close. In every category, from combat performance to cost, the Danish government rated Lockheed’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter as superior to Airbus’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18F Super Hornet.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/f-35-wins-denmark-competition-trounces-super-hornet-eurofighter/

flim-flam competition - see here:

.

[overthere]

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!

.

Please stop quoting an unquailifed blogger as somehow having the analytic expertise to assess combat aircraft. Of course you like anything that gets Trudeau and Co off the hook, just for a minute until they impale themselves again, while you pretend other sources and other opinions have no weight. You and 'Doug' must be pen pals.

[waldo]

Please stop quoting an unquailifed blogger as somehow having the analytic expertise to assess combat aircraft. Of course you like anything that gets Trudeau and Co off the hook, just for a minute until they impale themselves again, while you pretend other sources and other opinions have no weight. You and 'Doug' must be pen pals.

I'd be interested in your qualifications that call out the blogger... in any case, there's no shortage of analysis of that Danish competition and just how skewed it was. As I said, I could have linked directly to Boeing's response (or many other representations of it) to the Danish Parliament. Rather than your natural penchant to attack Trudeau (that has no bearing on the Danish competition... ya think!!!), you could actually do some research and come back to support the Danish actions taken in that competition - one that you, apparently, in your unsubstantiated qualification, feel warranted to support... even without looking into it!

.

[PIK]

Trudeau himself said the F-35 do not work and trudeau is never wrong, right waldo?

[Big Guy]

It will take many, many years before any military airplanes or ships that a Canadian government orders is delivered and functional.

The kind of warships and airships we will need will depend on who our enemy is at the time. Will it be somebody in the Middle East, Africa, Russia or ....? Each demographic has different conditions.

Will it be defensive, offensive or part of an alliance?

What will be the state of technology 15 years from now? Will robotics have taken over warfare? Lasers as the main weapon?

I have not heard nor seen a definitive plan anticipating our needs and the reasons for them.

Why would we jump into committing $multi billions when we don't know what we need?

How about a large armed transport drone that can drop into the war zone, open its loader and disgorge a number of robotic, unmanned tanks into battle?

Edited June 8, 2016 by Big Guy

[waldo]

Trudeau himself said the F-35 do not work and trudeau is never wrong, right waldo?

in this particular instance, if you've at all followed these many F-35 related threads, you would recognize the F-35, 'does not currently work" in any meaningful capacity... and will not for many years yet. Notwithstanding the capability it may ultimately present is highly suspect - aka, the 'paper tiger'. If you're going to jump in with such a politicized comment, without regard to the past, present and future of the actual F-35, why bother?

.

[Argus]

There's a lot of questions over that competition. It has been roundly criticized from many angles.

At least they HELD one. Your guys don't even intend on doing that.

[overthere]

I'd be interested in your qualifications that call out the blogger.

Its your blogger and your repetitive links to him make it your job to demonstrate his analytic competence and complete lack of bias in the selection process.

Oh wait, there is no selection process. Has that program been "REPROFILED" too?. Let me guess, more consultation required? Mrs Farqhuarson of Dartmouth, NS has not yet been asked her opinion on the merits of the Typhoon?

Or do you now support the sole sourcing of our defence future, the very thing you howled about a short time ago?

No, what will happen is that the file has been Justbinned. That is my term for the growing number of files that started with stupid, unrealistic promises or unpleasant subjects that require leadership from Trudeau to resolve. Justbinning involves delay delay delay in the hope that the turd on the table will just go away for a while. It isn't a promise broken, just an urgent need for lengthy and perhaps endless consultation to arrive at a conclusion that is Just and fair. and won't cost so many seats at the next election.

[Argus]

flim-flam competition - see here:

.

Are you suggesting Denmark, one of the most honest political jurisdictions on Earth, would rig a competition in order to get a less capable and more expensive fighter aircraft? If you are, do you have a motive? And one for Finland, as well, please...

Edited June 8, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

At least they HELD one. Your guys don't even intend on doing that.

All I've heard so far is rumours. That said, it wouldn't make them any worse (or better) than the Conservatives.

[Argus]

All I've heard so far is rumours. That said, it wouldn't make them any worse (or better) than the Conservatives.

Yeah, it would. All the Conservatives did was continue down a path the Liberals had already set us on by investing in the F-35 in the first place. And it would have resulted in us having the most modern fighter aircraft available which would last long into the future.

What the Liberals did, on the other hand, was reverse course on the F-35 purely for political purposes, grandstanding to score political points, much like they did on the Afghanistan fighting they originally committed us to, and now they appear to be grabbing the only other aircraft available just so they can say "See, we were right" and without holding the competition they promised. That makes them liars, hypocrites, and people willing to throw billions of dollars away while sacrificing Canada's ability to defend itself on the alter of political expedience.

[?Impact]

I think the most telling statement in the comparison mentioned above is the following:

UPDATE: Leading aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia pointed to me that the procurement prices per plane are dodgy. The F-35A is priced at $80 million, which is the ambitious but no longer implausible target that program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the plane will reach around 2019. But the F/A-18F Super Hornet is priced at a whopping $122 million, when the Navy’s official figure is $57 million and prospective sales are often priced lower.]

The term dodgy is perfect for describing pricing. Remember when our own F-35 program cost $9 billion back when Peter McKay was holding photo-ops in a cardboard mockup, and after review suddenly became $45 billion. In the comparison, one of the biggest factors talked about is the life cycle costs based on an estimated 8,000 fight hours for the F-35 compared to 6,000 for the F-18. Do we really believe that this new plane will last longer than the tried and tested F-18?

[waldo]

At least they HELD one. Your guys don't even intend on doing that.

please describe the Canadian (Harper Conservative) competition held for the JSF F-35?

.

[Army Guy]

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.

.

Perhaps the confusion is on my part, however your reference comes right after remarks made about the legality of making the purchase. "its just an upgrade" And yet they ( government purchase regulations) are clear, on their use of word upgrades, meaning a modification or upgrade of existing vehs or equipment do not need to follow the competition regulations. But as you stated this can not be done to existing airframes but rather would require a purchase of new aircraft....meaning it would have to run a competition in order to be legal. just so we are clear "no sole sourcing"

The excuse of Time is running out,( 2021) or we will have a capability issue has been proven false....one could only assume that the liberals handling of this new found direction of theirs is no better than harpers.

To be fair, I have found lots of sources stating that the ELE Life extension) 2025 was approved, by the Harper government. And could not find any sources that states these modifications had been completed. Which does not surprise me, as Military spending was frozen prior to election, and might have been overlooked by our new masters...or like many ongoing projects canceled , funding with held by the same government.

So now the current ELE deadline would be 2020. which has caused some panic once DND reminded them about it....

When really all that needs to be done is the current government push to have these 400 mil mods done....giving them lots of time to select the CF's new fighter.

[waldo]

Its your blogger and your repetitive links to him make it your job to demonstrate his analytic competence and complete lack of bias in the selection process.

I'm not interested in circling your... gyration. Without knowing anything whatsoever about that Danish competition, you've simply chosen to accept it, outright. If you don't care for the blogger reference you've been provided, try a googly - there's no shortage of discussion, like discussion, that details the unfair criteria that the Danish review body held the Super Hornet to. That criteria significantly favours the F-35 and can't be justified, on any level. If you don't agree... I don't care. All you've offered to counter it is your own unsubstantiated (and clearly questionable knowledge on the subject matter) opinion.

Boeing challenges Danish decision to go with F-35 – company says Danes used flawed data

[waldo]

To be fair, I have found lots of sources stating that the ELE Life extension) 2025 was approved, by the Harper government. And could not find any sources that states these modifications had been completed. Which does not surprise me, as Military spending was frozen prior to election, and might have been overlooked by our new masters...or like many ongoing projects canceled , funding with held by the same government.

a reference to it can be found in that original link I provided to you - this one: --- per that April 2016 article, this latest modernization requirement was officially 'kicked off' in September 2015... per Lt.-Col. Jean-Marc Brzezinski, who is leading the process in the RCAF’s fighter capability office, he has been given, 'roughly a year' => “My mandate has been given roughly about one year to look at what we need to do to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (and) interoperable,” The rest is... making it all happen and complete by 2021 in order to provide the extension to 2025.

.

.

[Argus]

The term dodgy is perfect for describing pricing. Remember when our own F-35 program cost $9 billion back when Peter McKay was holding photo-ops in a cardboard mockup, and after review suddenly became $45 billion. In the comparison, one of the biggest factors talked about is the life cycle costs based on an estimated 8,000 fight hours for the F-35 compared to 6,000 for the F-18. Do we really believe that this new plane will last longer than the tried and tested F-18?

Tried and tested is great, but not when it comes to technology. Otherwise we'd all be using Windows 3 on Pentiums. Or hey, how about we still use slide rulers instead of those calculator thingamagigs? Slide rulers were tried and tested, after all. Or horse and buggies? They were tried and tested, and didn't break down like those newfangled horseless carriage things...

The F-18 has been out there for twenty years now, and will have been out there more than 25 years before we get any planes. What happens when 25 year old technology comes up against cutting edge technology? What happens twenty years from now when that technology is 40 years old, if it comes up against more modern Chinese or Russian tech, not just fighters but anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of third parties?

Of course, you aren't betting your life on this question the way you're asking our pilots to bet theirs.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

please describe the Canadian (Harper Conservative) competition held for the JSF F-35?

The thing about the F-15 was that it was the one our allies wanted, the thing our air force wanted, and the program the Liberal party joined. All the Tories did was go along that path.

And didn't the Liberals spend the last six years bitching about no 'full competition'? Did I imagine that? Did I imagine them promising to start an "open and transparent" competition as soon as they got elected?

I expect the reason they're backing away from it is, logically, because they know that in an open and transparent competition, the F-35 would win - which would be quite embarrassing. There is no other reason behind this move.

Screw the air force. Screw the taxpayer. Liberal party embarrassment is more important!

Edited June 8, 2016 by Argus

[waldo]

The thing about the F-135 was that it was the one our allies wanted, the thing our air force wanted, and the program the Liberal party joined. All the Tories did was go along that path.

And didn't the Liberals spend the last six years bitching about no 'full competition'? Did I imagine that? Did I imagine them promising to start an independent competition as soon as they got elected?

that's right... you spoke of a competition held... and I expect you've now confirmed there wasn't one! Your roundabout way of acknowledging that is... interesting. You've spoken (at least twice now) along the lines of your above, "the program the Liberal party joined". Again, joining that program did not include any commitment (from any country) to actually purchase the F-35. Joining was to allow more in-depth access to information/documentation towards helping nations make a decision to purchase.

.

[waldo]

The F-18 has been out there for twenty years now, and will have been out there more than 25 years before we get any planes. What happens when 25 year old technology comes up against cutting edge technology? What happens twenty years from now when that technology is 40 years old, if it comes up against more modern Chinese or Russian tech, not just fighters but anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of third parties?

Of course, you aren't betting your life on this question the way you're asking our pilots to bet theirs.

it's interesting comments from the highest U.S. military that state the F-35 will require the F-22 as combat support. If all you need the plane for is as a 'bomb truck' (which is how Canada has deployed the CF-18s), that's a pretty expensive truck! Countries without the F-22 are kinda SOL... which, of course, has countries then feeding their F-35s into the American mill where the F-22s will be there. That doesn't sound like independent foreign policy, does it... why that sounds like... aligning to the wants of the United States - yes? Which really puts into perspective the lengths taken by LockMart, the U.S. DOD and the American government proper to sway and influence attempts to sell the F-35. There's an interesting wikileaks reference I provided long ago that showcased this type of "influence" in how the Norway choice was made.

in any case, there should be no discussion of 40 year life-spans for any modern purchase... think 20 years out and the state of drone warfare development in the interim. Accordingly, buy cheaper now, buy drones/capability now (for surveillance, possibly for degrees of defense)... and look to align with changes in 20 years. There is much conjecture as to the capabilities of the F-35 going up against those Russian/Chinese advances today and into the near future... of course, 'today' is a relative term as fits to the F-35... since it won't be ready any time soon. And even then, LockMart crafted a handy measure to avoid further delay embarrassment (and all that goes with that) ... all that "good stuff" that was a part of the initial design and promises, is now into the "next phase" - which has an indeterminate timeline since there is no certainly when "this phase" will actually deliver a production ready plane - a real one... not these LRIP versions coming out now.

.

.

[waldo]

I expect the reason they're backing away from it is, logically, because they know that in an open and transparent competition, the F-35 would win - which would be quite embarrassing. There is no other reason behind this move.

Screw the air force. Screw the taxpayer. Liberal party embarrassment is more important!

in your described 'open competition', what version of the current F-35 do you presume to suggest would be compared to other nation/manufacturer alternatives? Or are you saying alternative active working/flying options would be compared to an "on paper" F-35?

.

Edited June 8, 2016 by waldo

[Smallc]

please describe the Canadian (Harper Conservative) competition held for the JSF F-35?

.

I would assume that the Super Hornet won a similar competition.