Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

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

There was no "competition" last time (for CF-188s), and there won't be any "competition" this time either. The "competition" in Canada means tight budget constraints, industrial offsets, labour union favour, political expediency, and government agency internecine fighting. How the aircraft actually performs is a secondary matter of much lower importance.

[Argus]

that's right... you spoke of a competition held... and I expect you've now confirmed there wasn't one!

Go play with your straw men elsewhere. I said nothing of the sort, though there were clearly competitions in Finland and Denmark and a lot of other countries which the F-35 won. How many did the Super Hornet win?

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.

.

We spent $300 million so far. That's a lot for access to documentation. You'd think that Lockheed Martin would provide whatever documentation a possible purchaser would ask for for free, eh?

[Argus]

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

You would, huh? In fact, the F-35 did win a competition over other contenders to be the next generation of strike fighter.

[Argus]

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?

.

Hey, is that up to me? The man you worship like a God promised an open and transparent competition between all contenders.

Why is he reneging? Is it possibly because someone has told him the F-35 would win? If not, then why?

[Argus]

it's interesting comments from the highest U.S. military that state the F-35 will require the F-22 as combat support.

Only when it's loaded with bombs. Aircraft loaded with bombs usually aren't that good as fighters. Something to do with a lack of missiles and maneuverability.

If all you need the plane for is as a 'bomb truck'

That's not all it's needed for.

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.

Thank you, General Waldo, for surely your ability to accurately predict the timeline of military scientific advancement renders all arguments pointless.

Which military institution did you graduate from again?

.. of course, 'today' is a relative term as fits to the F-35... since it won't be ready any time soon.

U.S. Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email Wednesday that the USAF “is making steady progress toward declaring F-35A initial operating capability between August and December 2016.” Initial operating capability is military-speak for when a certain equipment is considered ready for combat.

“The F-35 will provide the joint warfighter unprecedented levels of survivability, lethality, and situational awareness, allowing them to fight and win in the emerging highly contested threat environments,” Graff added.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/f-35-ready-to-go-company-says-as-u-s-air-force-prepares-to-declare-stealth-fighter-combat-ready

Of course survivability isn't an issue for you, is it, General Waldo? Given you won't be in one of these planes.

[Smallc]

You would, huh? In fact, the F-35 did win a competition over other contenders to be the next generation of strike fighter.

And the Super Hornet was selected to replace the F-14. I'd assume it was selected using some method. Edited June 9, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

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

And that was shown to you being dated information, the cost has risen due to Boeing's plant reducing its rate of production.......to say nothing of the required FMS fee, that could be upwards of 15-20% in additional costs........so the Finnish price, like the Danes (that also found the F-35 to be cheaper than the Super Hornet) price are what Canada would be paying.........to say nothing, as found by the Danes, the far greater through life support costs associated with the Super Hornet over the F-35.

[Argus]

And the Super Hornet was selected to replace the F-14. I'd assume it was selected using some method.

It was selected eleven years ago. How old were you eleven years ago? What technology were you using eleven years ago that you'd want to use now? Did you have a cell phone in 2005? Want to use the same model?

Edited June 9, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

It was selected eleven years ago. How old were you eleven years ago? What technology were you using eleven years ago that you'd want to use now?

And yet the USN is still buying new ones.

[Smallc]

And that was shown to you being dated information, the cost has risen due to Boeing's plant reducing its rate of production.......to say nothing of the required FMS fee, that could be upwards of 15-20% in additional costs........so the Finnish price, like the Danes (that also found the F-35 to be cheaper than the Super Hornet) price are what Canada would be paying.........to say nothing, as found by the Danes, the far greater through life support costs associated with the Super Hornet over the F-35.

You talk about my dated information (the fall) and respond with nothing. Interesting.

[Derek 2.0]

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/

Of course, purchase price aside, the Super Hornet was designed with less than 7000 airframe hours (due to being designed as a cheap interim aircraft for the USN).....versus the F-35, and most other 4th generation aircraft, which have an engineered life of ~8500-9000 hours..............and of course, this is why the Super Hornet has received very little in export sales.....If your aircraft has 2/3rds the life of the others, but near the same cost, why would you purchase it.

[Argus]

And yet the USN is still buying new ones.

Yes? They have a fleet of them. Of course they're still buying replacements until they replace the fleet -- kind of like we're doing now, replacing the fleet.

[Derek 2.0]

You talk about my dated information (the fall) and respond with nothing. Interesting.

I certainly did, in countless other threads...........forget what I say if you will.......but you can't bullshit your way around the greater price of the Super Hornet, found by the Finns and the Danes.

[Derek 2.0]

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...

And Belgium.....which is likely to purchase the F-35 and continue its decades long integration with the Dutch.

[Derek 2.0]

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?

Not dodgy, but easily explained by the differing programs........The Super Hornet (F-16 and F-15) are subjected to foreign military sales fees, by US law, aimed at recouping development fees etc.....the F-35 program, due to its international nature, saw FMS fees waived due to the partners paying differing portions of the F-35 development from the start, which in turn allowed said nation's industries to bid on the F-35 contracts.

[Derek 2.0]

And the Super Hornet was selected to replace the F-14. I'd assume it was selected using some method.

No, it was forced on the USN due to Clinton era budget cuts.........in the case of the F-14, the USN had intended to procure the "Super Tomcat", which would have incorporated engines based of the F-22s, a new radar and a fully digital avionics suite..........the "Super Hornet" was only ever intended as an interim fix, using the legacy hornets same engines, to replace the then aging A-6E fleet.

[Smallc]

I certainly did, in countless other threads...........forget what I say if you will.......but you can't bullshit your way around the greater price of the Super Hornet, found by the Finns and the Danes.

Yet you haven't refuted the actual numbers.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

.

Interesting find, Boeing has been directly lobbying the Trudeau PMO..........odd that, but then, Trudeau elected to make the F-35 an election issue, and used the boneheaded move of naming it and the Super Hornet in political material.........

Then there is this out today:

Jack Crisler, Lockheed Martin’s vice-president of F-35 business development and strategic integration, said the company plans to support the Canadian procurement process, but believes its plane can compete with and beat the Super Hornet for any contract.

When asked if the company would sue the federal government if blocked from competing for the fighter jet contract, Crisler said the company would look at all of its options.

“Right now, all we want to do is to be able to compete,” Crisler said in a telephone interview.

“So if we get told that we’re not allowed to compete, then we’ll go and evaluate all of our alternatives at that point. But right now all we’re asking to do is be able to compete in a fair, open, transparent and requirements-based competition for the replacement of the CF-18s.”

I've been saying for months the preclusion of the F-35 during the election would bite the Trudeau government in the ass........likewise, the inclusion of the Super Hornet in the same election material........and now they (maybe?) have been talking about sole sourcing the Super Hornet and Boeing has been lobbying Trudeau's staff directly.........and that's just Lockheed, you can bet that Airbus/Eurofighter, Dassault and Saab will be lining up behind the lawsuits and trade challenges.........who knows, the Chinese and Russians might even get in on the action.

Do the Trudeau Liberals even have a legal team? This could make the 1/2 billion wasted on the EH-101 look like peanuts.....

[Derek 2.0]

Yet you haven't refuted the actual numbers.

I did, numerous times.......lest say I'm out to lunch though.......are you suggesting the Danes and Finns are to?

[Army Guy]

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.

Crises averted then, plenty of time to make the hard choices. And run a real competition everything is coming up roses....

Except a few questions remain. Does the Liberals have a leak ? If this was just talks around the table how did the media get ahold of it, unless if it was than just talk but actual plan was made......or where they testing the waters to see if they could bully their way through an interim purchase...And if it was a plan did anyone think about asking the Military for an opinion or at least bringing them on the same page...

I was not a big fan on how the Cons handled DND purchase projects, but it is starting to look like more of the same from the liberals, How can we keep the military happy while not spending anything on it....

[Smallc]

I did, numerous times.......lest say I'm out to lunch though.......are you suggesting the Danes and Finns are to?

I'm suggesting that the Danes are given reasons already stated in links here. I have no idea about the fins. I'd personally get the F-35, were it ready.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm suggesting that the Danes are given reasons already stated in links here. I have no idea about the fins. I'd personally get the F-35, were it ready.

What reasons? That Boeing claims the Danes based their selection on "flawed data".......data that saw the Super Hornet loose.

You speak to being "ready", even though the IOC for the F-35A is this summer, but Boeing has yet to resolve the Super Hornets oxygen generation system problem........why would the Trudeau Government sole source a contract worth billions for an aircraft that has a faulty (and unresolved) oxygen system problem, that could result in loss of life?

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet the USN is still buying new ones.

Indeed...the USA is buying and developing all kinds of aircraft...simultaneously. Canada...not so much. This "file" is a hangar queen.

[waldo]

Go play with your straw men elsewhere. I said nothing of the sort, though there were clearly competitions in Finland and Denmark and a lot of other countries which the F-35 won. How many did the Super Hornet win?

you're right - too many mixed posts/discussions... I subsequently read you were actually speaking to the Danish comp. I'm not aware of any finalized competition within Finland - no monies available. Notwithstanding the dodgy process the Danish military followed, that final decision hasn't been made yet; as I understand there's a 2 week review process for the Danish Parliament... a part of that review with require an accounting of just what the Danish Military did - I read that Boeing (and others) have formal submissions before the Danish Parliament for a review of the unique criteria only the Super Hornet was held to.

Kuwait intends to buy 28 Super Hornets; that commitment was reaffirmed this last January. The Super Hornet was leading the Brazilian competition... that was scuttled by Brazil when the NSA spying on Brazilian leaders came forward... that resulted in Brazil selecting the Saab Gripen. Of course, Australia purchased 24 Super Hornets... and has recently added an intent for another 12 (the F-18G 'Growler' variant)... something about an "interim purchase" brought on by continued F-35 delays - go figure... that sounds very familiar!

.

We spent $300 million so far. That's a lot for access to documentation. You'd think that Lockheed Martin would provide whatever documentation a possible purchaser would ask for for free, eh?

what I said was accurate in terms of joining the program... in 2001... that was your reference point I responded to. What year is it now? What is the latest ever changing production date... for this phase? Once actual LRIP development came forward those additional monies paid allow companies within partner nations to bid on F-35 related contracts... of course, pork-barrel focused U.S. politicians like to take care of their own States first! And, again, Canada is not required to ever purchase a single F-35 to continue bidding on F-35 contracts put forward.

.

[waldo]

You would, huh? In fact, the F-35 did win a competition over other contenders to be the next generation of strike fighter.

no - in 1997, 4 U.S. manufacturers presented 'proof of concept'... 2 of those were selected (Boeing and LockMart) to develop prototypes - the LockMart prototype was chosen and bore no resemblance to the actual F-35 today. That multi-variant F-35 design, supporting unique requirements for the 3 distinct branches of the U.S. military (Air Force, Navy and Marines) developed over time from that initial prototype - 10 years later the first one came off the LockMart assembly line... the rest is a long & winding shyte-show of over-scheduling delays, under-delivery, over-hype and problems to the nth degree - problems that today have serious questions being raised by U.S. politicians in regards funding and just how many planes should/will actually be purchased by the respective branches of the U.S. military. Of course, all those 'artificial' F-35 costs projected all presume on volume purchases - not just those from the U.S. military... but also those initial 'on paper' commitments from partner nations. Notwithstanding the partner nations that have significantly reduced their initial commitment numbers... which are meaningless anyways since no contracts... with money exchanged... have been signed by those partner nations! Well... there are onesy-twosey purchases by nations so they can actually get their hands on an F-35.

.

.