bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 CF-188 - that is an old name, never made it to the deployed aircraft as far as I know. They have been known as CF-18 since before delivery. I expect "back then" they were not expecting the delays that have plagued the F-35. The official RCAF designation is CF-188 Hornet...."CF-18" is yet another "Americanization". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Inversely, aircraft designed for naval service, with the very attributes that you mentioned (in addition to an overall stronger airframe) will typically last longer (when used from shore bases) then aircraft designed for land bases... Yes, absolutely there are tradeoffs of all different designs. As you point out the heavier aircraft designed for carrier landings will have less wear and tear on the landing gear when used on land. The folding wings however probably will have shorter life spans than the land version of the craft. The bigger issue however was with all that extra weight, they had much shorter range and couldn't carry the same armaments as the land version. It all boils down to what are your requirements, and where do you want tradeoffs to be made. With the massive patrol area for the Canadian Forces, range is an important consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Never saw this coming: U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is warning Canada that $825 million in aerospace industrial contracts signed with Canadian companies to build and equip F-35 jets would be moved to other partner nations if the Trudeau government decides to buy a different fighter jet. Steve Over, the company's director of F-35 international business development, says other countries that have already committed to buying the stealth jet are clamouring for the work. "It's not really a threat," Over said in an interview with CBC News. "I don't want it perceived as a threat, but we will have no choice, if Canada walks away from F-35, except to relocate work in Canada to other purchasing nations."​ By the end of the year, Over said he expects the value of Canadian parts and sustainment contracts to reach $1 billion, with an anticipated lifetime value of $10 billion or more. Combine the major hit to our economy, not only the dollars of it, but the massive high tech jobs losses..........with a follow-up lawsuit, which one can assume other industry giants will pile onto, and the Liberals political and legal misstep could cost Canada billions...........like I've been saying for years with regards to the industrial/economic implications and with the political misstep since the Liberals first made it during the election........Trudeau torpedoed himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Not much of a defense.......nations with far smaller economies manage to maintain a capable military. I think Oz, for example, spends more than we do in absolute terms, never mind per capita. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures It sure isn't much of a defence but that's the country I see around me, one where at every election the sitting govt gets criticized for spending too much on the military. We need one of those national conversations to decide if we are serious about defending ourselves. Edited June 11, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 .... With the massive patrol area for the Canadian Forces, range is an important consideration. Sure...that's why Canada inexplicably rejected the longer range F/A-18L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 The official RCAF designation is CF-188 Hornet...."CF-18" is yet another "Americanization". My bad, you are quite correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Never saw this coming: No big surprise to me....LockMart has better things to do than continue to grab-ass with Canada, which wants things both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 with a follow-up lawsuit Yes, it does sound like a follow-up lawsuit is in order. Canada has invested since day one in the F-35, and if Over is going to make such threats and follow through on them then Canadian companies and the federal government should sue Lockheed Martin for billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Never saw this coming: Combine the major hit to our economy, not only the dollars of it, but the massive high tech jobs losses..........with a follow-up lawsuit, which one can assume other industry giants will pile onto, and the Liberals political and legal misstep could cost Canada billions......... I'm sorry but I'm confused about why you think any of that would have the slightest importance compared to the Liberal party avoiding the embarrassment of buying the same plane they had been campaigning against for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Yes, it does sound like a follow-up lawsuit is in order. Canada has invested since day one in the F-35, and if Over is going to make such threats and follow through on them then Canadian companies and the federal government should sue Lockheed Martin for billions. Go ahead...Canada is only a Tier 3 JSF partner and was only in it for the jobs anyway. The Americans will play hardball with the rookie Canadian prime minister, and that includes putting the screws on F-18 Super Hornets too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Yes, absolutely there are tradeoffs of all different designs. As you point out the heavier aircraft designed for carrier landings will have less wear and tear on the landing gear when used on land. The folding wings however probably will have shorter life spans than the land version of the craft. The bigger issue however was with all that extra weight, they had much shorter range and couldn't carry the same armaments as the land version. It all boils down to what are your requirements, and where do you want tradeoffs to be made. With the massive patrol area for the Canadian Forces, range is an important consideration. You're incorrect with such a blanket statement.....wing folds are engineered to be durable for that very reason............as to the weight, again, that is dependent on the actual aircraft .......compared to say an F-16, no operator once complained about the range or munitions capacity of the Phantom or Corsair II.......limitations associated with weight and naval aircraft are largely attributed to take-off weight with the use of a catapult....which required the aircraft to launch with limited fuel, then be topped off from a tanker once airborne......this naval practice proved so effective, land based air forces make use of it now, from everything as small as an F-16 up to the B-52..... That being said, the Hornet and Super Hornet, contrasted with many of their peers, including the aircraft they replaced (F-14 and A-6), are considered "short legged". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I think Oz, for example, spends more than we do in absolute terms, never mind per capita. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures It sure isn't much of a defence but that's the country I see around me, one where at every election the sitting govt gets criticized for spending too much on the military. We need one of those national conversations to decide if we are serious about defending ourselves. Sure or the Dutch.....Norwegians.....South Koreans.....etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 The Americans will play hardball with the rookie Canadian prime minister, and that includes putting the screws on F-18 Super Hornets too. It is only Conservative Prime Minister wussies like Diefenbaker that kow-tow to the Americans. Keep your Super Hornets as well, lots of other options available. Keep up that isolationist stance, and you will be building a northern wall as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Yes, it does sound like a follow-up lawsuit is in order. Canada has invested since day one in the F-35, and if Over is going to make such threats and follow through on them then Canadian companies and the federal government should sue Lockheed Martin for billions. It doesn't work that way....Per our membership in the program, we're expected to stay on and purchase the F-35...why should Canadian industry get a crack at billions worth of contracts over those industries in nations that are remaining in the program? With regards to the legal aspect, the federal Liberals excluded the F-35 by name during the election, in addition, via international treaties, the Americans and European makers will without a doubt file legal and trade challenges through their governments if the Liberals elect to sole source the Super Hornet.......which they also cited by name during the election.......a huge legal f**k up.....if they hadn't of mentioned either aircraft and ran a rigged competition they would have likely skated, but they elected to get "political". Edited June 11, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It is only Conservative Prime Minister wussies like Diefenbaker that kow-tow to the Americans. Keep your Super Hornets as well, lots of other options available. Keep up that isolationist stance, and you will be building a northern wall as well. Sure are, but Canada won't bust a move for any of those either. When it comes to tactical aircraft, rotary winged aircraft, transport aircraft, missiles, and bombs....who is Canada's "daddy" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I'm sorry but I'm confused about why you think any of that would have the slightest importance compared to the Liberal party avoiding the embarrassment of buying the same plane they had been campaigning against for years. It is truly idiotic..........and I've been saying this for years with regards to the impact on the economy and industry.......forget the economics, this will do to Canada's aerospace and high tech industries far more damage then what was done by the cancelling of the Avro Arrow........this will be Trudeau's legacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 why should Canadian industry get a crack at billions worth of contracts over those industries in nations that are remaining in the program? It was day one investment, and continued investment over the years. So you are saying that Lockheed Martin should benefit from all that early money and not return anything. How do you think that will work in industry if you ask for investment money, and then when you start producing product you don't return to the investors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It was day one investment, and continued investment over the years. So you are saying that Lockheed Martin should benefit from all that early money and not return anything. How do you think that will work in industry if you ask for investment money, and then when you start producing product you don't return to the investors? The Canadian economy has already seen near a billion dollars worth of work......far more then we have invested in the program......we leave the program, we won't continue to profit from the program........simple concept........having your cake and eating it too doesn't work when one is wearing big-boy pants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It was day one investment, and continued investment over the years. So you are saying that Lockheed Martin should benefit from all that early money and not return anything. How do you think that will work in industry if you ask for investment money, and then when you start producing product you don't return to the investors? Canada has received an equal amount of industrial offsets with F-35 contracts to date. No pay...no play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Canada has received an equal amount of industrial offsets with F-35 contracts to date. No pay...no play. Canada has seen far more then has been invested....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Canada has seen far more then has been invested....... So the initial investors in any company should be forced out? I guess Bill Gates should return his billions and give it away to later entrants. If Lockheed Martin does not abide by the initial terms, the lawyers will have a field day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) If Lockheed Martin does not abide by the initial terms, the lawyers will have a field day. Lockheed is clean on this...remember...it was Liberal PM Chretien who started down the JSF path for Canada. Nobody forced him to do it. Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Lockheed is clean on this... I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. The contracts are what count - period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 So the initial investors in any company should be forced out? I guess Bill Gates should return his billions and give it away to later entrants. If Lockheed Martin does not abide by the initial terms, the lawyers will have a field day. They will be forced out by the terms of the contract the previous Liberal government signed when we joined the program.....no ticky, no laundry. Lockheed is abiding by the terms of the partnership, Canada leaves the program, the program leaves Canada.........the field day for lawyers will be when the GoC elects to purchase the Super Hornet through a sole sourced contract........then not only Lockheed, but Dassault, Airbus and Saab etc will be able to sue the GoC, by the terms of Canadian procurement laws, and then their parent nations will file unfair trade practice challenges through the WTO........hell the Americans could even block the sale of the Super Hornet and any European aircraft that make use of American parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) According to the National Post, the Conservative interim measure changes that let them buy the Asterix makes this deal (if there is to be a deal) perfectly legal. Edited June 11, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.