Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

no - we keep coming back to this - why? There never was a requirement in joining the program to actually purchase the F-35. If you keep insisting so, then provide a cite to that end. We also cycled round-&-round over being able to bid on contracts without purchasing... you know that's a fact... that's what'a happened to date, and it was one of the U.S. procurement 'big-cheeses' who categorically stated Canada would still be eligible to bid on contracts into the future without purchasing the F-35... just needed to be a part of the program (as in pay the yearly fees). This was all referenced and cited - are you going to make me actually dig up posts from whatever F-35 related thread that's in?

.

What's happened to date, is that the Liberal government missing a payment.............the contention still remains or clearly:

so now we get LockMart uttering threats - nice! Of course, that's par for the course given some of the tactics used to secure sales, right? Don't make me post that wikileaks info concerning the Norwegian sale... don't make me do it!

Lockheed wouldn't have a leg to stand on with said "threats", if they had no contractual basis........as noted, the Harper government stated the damage to our industrial base, the industries association has voiced the damage to their member companies and now Lockheed says quite clearly, they will pull all Canadian contracts............yet the Waldo says it isn't so

[Army Guy]

that's what you come back with? It's a profiled issue; the prior 2 modernization pursuits were covered to the nth degree pubicly and yet... somehow... you automatically presume that we (the public) would hear nothing about this latest one? Is that really your position or are you just so determined to... argue for the sake of argument? The "as I'm aware" usage is simply a statement that I've not found anything to the contrary - I can't give you something that might not exist - ya think! I could say the same wasted space comment as you've just thrown back to me - you not being able to find a source is not YOUR excuse, is it?

you keep nattering on about "money approved by Harper" - here's the thing, once the Air Force actually figures out what might be needed and determines the practical and logistical aspects to realize that need... lower-level approvals are required from branches of government to actually realize those monies and initiate actions to dispense them - the DND, Treasury, PSPC, etc. Do you really think given the politicization around the CF-18 replacement undertaking, that there would be a dearth of information in that regard? In recent days, the so-called gap is playing prominently in comments, rationale, etc.. Could there be such a gap... if the latest modernization understandings/intent were known and work was proceeding to eliminate that so-called gap? In that article cited/referenced (April, 2016), the Air Force lead of this latest modernization pursuit is stated as saying, "Brzezinski said the upgrades have to be on the aircraft by 2021 if the project is to make financial sense. That means decisions have to be made and contracts placed within the next two years." I guess, for the sake of your own 'argue to argue sake', work can be progressing without any public knowledge of government approvals, of contracts having been let, bid on and selected... it's not like the government has a formal process around all that with full information available to the public! Ya think?

I'm going to repeat the following since you so clearly chose to ignore/blow it off - perhaps you might be inclined to actually comment given another chance - yes?

So... this is all predicated on the F-35 being in a full production state and a proven entity between 2021 and 2025. Based on past delays/problems with the F-35 program should this simply be "matter of fact" and accepted outright - who other than the most die-hard partisan F-35 proponent would accept that? An unknown quantity at an unknown cost! The alternative to that could be... purchase some number of proven Super Hornets as an "interim gap measure"... and allow the F-35 to actually settle in, prove itself and have realistic/actual costs determined accordingly. What a concept!

.

And we the public have not heard anything on this issue since Apr 2016, I suggested that it was a work in progress, But it is not is it My bad, I apologize for asking questions in a topic where you and Derek seem to have a further grasp on the topic than the average man on the street.

But this project is on someone's desk, one could only assume that news of it has reached the PM office, because of all the barking dogs and alarms going on at the PM office, talks about short timelines, rushing in the Super Hornet so not to loose any capability. And if that is the case, Why not just explain it to the public, lay it all out by time line....and answer all the who, what , when and whys.....That has not happened....

instead we have someone leaking out a sole source for SH might be taking place, to the public it sounds like they are testing the waters, because it fits in with all there campaign promises , not purchasing the F-35, getting the airforce some planes , saving some cash for the navy....like a nice bow on a cake....

Because 5 years is not enough time to get a contract in place, and get the equipment on the aircraft prior to 2021....even with the PM putting his weight on it....Then most Canadians would agree and the airforce would have 2 airframes in inventory....

And I did not blow off your question, I simply stated if the contracts go through to upgrade, then there is no need to purchase the SH, as they would have 9 years to find a replacement.....I also stated that if the F-35 is not ready once we or if, we decide to purchase a replacement for the F-18...then it would not qualify as a competitor would it....But both sides are just guess right now, saying it will or won't be ready.....lets wait and find out.....instead of flying a 2 airframe airforce, that can not afford not only for logistical and maintence reasons, but you would need more of each type to satisfy all our Nato and Norad requirements. all of that does not make any sense, unless you had skin in the game like the liberals do....

[Derek 2.0]

Defence Minister Jason Kenney, you say! Who knew? Supply ship gap prompted changes in regulations governing sole-source military purchases

how does this line-up against the previous thread internet-lawyering?

.

Simple, there is no urgent need, nor does our current fleet effect our operational requirements to NORAD and NATO........this meme only surfaced a month ago during the MND speech at CANSEC, the same trade show where its been established that Boeing has lobbied this government more than all other defense companies combined.

[bush_cheney2004]

Lockheed wouldn't have a leg to stand on with said "threats", if they had no contractual basis.....

Agreed....LM is much more experienced at this than Justin Trudeau. I've searched everywhere, and Canada appears to have zero leverage.

Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

again, it would most useful to see that formally documented... and recognized. Source/cite request:

.

Lockheed's "threats" and the Canadian aerospace industries voiced concerns are more than enough.

[Derek 2.0]

as highlighted above; notwithstanding the vagueness of your "usable time" - are you speaking of between now and 2020?

- if so, don't hesitate to provide details that speak to the delivery of F-35s to Canada by then to replace the entire CF-18 fleet... F-35s with guaranteed capability and certain costing.

There is no requirement to purchase any aircraft within this decade (out to 2021 per the head of the RCAF) if the planned life extension is funded by this Government.........allowing more than enough time to conduct their promised "open & fair" competition.........

[Derek 2.0]

Agreed....LM is much more experienced at this than Justin Trudeau. I've searched everywhere, and Canada appears to have zero leverage.

Exactly, there is no leverage.......Lockheed wouldn't "threaten" the Trudeau government, in the press, if Canada had one ounce of leverage....what would be the point?

[Derek 2.0]

....instead of flying a 2 airframe airforce, that can not afford not only for logistical and maintence reasons, but you would need more of each type to satisfy all our Nato and Norad requirements. all of that does not make any sense, unless you had skin in the game like the liberals do....

That's just it, from what is being speculated in the press, the intention is to only purchase a handful of Super Hornets as opposed to replacing the entire fleet........aside from the initial purchase price, what are the sustainment cost going to look like? What will it cost to establish new schools and supply chains? The RCAF rejected operating two fleets years ago, and hasn't done so since the Freedom Fighter was retired.........

[?Impact]

What's happened to date, is that the Liberal government missing a payment.............the contention still remains or clearly:

Again, I ask what do the contracts say? The last payment Canada made keep us in the program until September 30, 2016. I have heard this magical May 1st date, but nobody seems to know what it means.

[waldo]

What's happened to date, is that the Liberal government missing a payment.............the contention still remains or clearly:

Lockheed wouldn't have a leg to stand on with said "threats", if they had no contractual basis........as noted, the Harper government stated the damage to our industrial base, the industries association has voiced the damage to their member companies and now Lockheed says quite clearly, they will pull all Canadian contracts............yet the Waldo says it isn't so

the missed payment was termed an oversight... that the outstanding commitment would be met. LockMart officials are now quoted as stating, "that existing contracts would be honoured until renewal, and once they expire, they would go to nations participating in the program."

just what are you on about here? We've danced this tune already! Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defence for acquisition, told reporters in Fort Worth, Tex., on Tuesday that he can’t see why the existing $637 million in contracts wouldn’t remain with Canadian firms.

“I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don’t see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada buys jets or not,” Kendall was quoted as saying by the web site DefenceNews.

“We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program.”

so now... now we have some 'bent out of shape' LockMart officials posturing with threats over... over what? A gap filling interim measure taken because their plane ain't ready... for prime time?

you tell me - who calls the shots here - the Pentagon... or, apparently, whiny vindictive LockMart officials? You tell me!

.

[waldo]

about that proffered U.S. military procurement system; the supposed top-tier and infallible system... the apparent measured reference bar that the claimed, "lowly, miserly and failed Canadian military procurement system", could only dream to be: The Pentagon’s procurement system is so broken they are calling on Watson

IBM’s Watson, the computational genius... now has what is perhaps its greatest challenge—taking on the morass of federal procurement process...The only way to navigate a stifling bureaucracy that virtually everyone agrees it is broken, is to turn to the power of the machine.

Critics have long focused on the schedule delays and cost overruns that have routinely plagued major weapons programs. But Thornberry (the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee), who said the military has had acquisitions trouble since “the Continental Army of George Washington,” said the problems have become so bad that they now create a national security threat.

“The technology cycle is faster than it’s ever been, and speeding up,” he said at a Brookings Institution forum earlier this month. “If it takes us another 20 years to field the next airplane or the next ship, it’s going to be out date by the time it gets there, and we will not be able to defend the country.”

.

[waldo]

again, per Harper Conservatives... former Defence Minister Jason Kenney: "A line was added to contracting regulations in June and gives the federal cabinet authority to award a deal to a single company if there are urgent “operational reasons” and it fulfills an interim requirement."

Simple, there is no urgent need, nor does our current fleet effect our operational requirements to NORAD and NATO........

and the urgency that necessitated Harper Conservatives introducing... and acting upon this revision was... what? In any case, it's a good thing LockMart has your internet lawyerly skills to draw upon! If only the F-35 wasn't into its second decade of development and would actually be ready for prime time in a known guaranteed time period with known cost attachment... why... there would be no reason for any of this gap-filling talk, right?

.

[waldo]

That's just it, from what is being speculated in the press, the intention is to only purchase a handful of Super Hornets as opposed to replacing the entire fleet........aside from the initial purchase price, what are the sustainment cost going to look like? What will it cost to establish new schools and supply chains? The RCAF rejected operating two fleets years ago, and hasn't done so since the Freedom Fighter was retired.........

2 fleets? Huh... say what? Are you stating that Canada will be replacing it's full fleet of CF-18s all at one time? Really? Hot Damn, that LockMart line will just be cranking em out like 'hot cakes'! There won' be that sustaining 2 fleet concern you're raising, right? Oh my!

.

[Derek 2.0]

the missed payment was termed an oversight... that the outstanding commitment would be met. LockMart officials are now quoted as stating, "that existing contracts would be honoured until renewal, and once they expire, they would go to nations participating in the program."

.

Was that ever up for debate? I cited the very reporting quoting Lockheed.

just what are you on about here? We've danced this tune already! Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning

Again, he is clearly referring to those current LRIP contracts that Canadian companies already are producing for........the Lockheed "threat" is clearly referring to far more lucrative production and sustainment contracts.

so now... now we have some 'bent out of shape' LockMart officials posturing with threats over... over what? A gap filling interim measure taken because their plane ain't ready... for prime time?

No, we have a representative of one of the World's largest defense contractors stating the obvious......we don't purchase the aircraft, we don't get anymore contracts.............there is no "posturing", but a statement of fact..........

And again, per the head of the RCAF, there is no need of an interim type if this government elects to fund the Hornet upgrade.........granting upwards of five years for this Government (assuming its reelected) to award a contract via a "fair & transparent" competition...as it promised.........

But for shits and giggles, let's assume there is a justified reason, say the Government is looking to expand its role in NATO and deploy additional aircraft to Eastern Europe, thus an actual requirement for partial expansion of our current capabilities...........Said "gap filing measure" could just as easily be filled by the far cheaper (then both the Super Hornet and F-35) Lockheed F-16, be it new production aircraft or recycled F-16s rebuilt and upgraded to the latest standard at a further discounted price.

Though the F-16, like the Hornet family, traces its roots back to the 1970s, the F-16 is the cheapest to procure and operate, is currently the backbone of NORAD and has a near 40 year proven track record operating (and being based) in the Arctic (with the Americans, Norwegians and Danes).........unlike the Super Hornet........and doesn't have an unresolved oxygen generation problem that could result in lethal incidents.

So why does it appear the Liberals, after a huge lobbying session by Boeing, appear unwilling to hold a competition for the "gap filling measure"......as noted by Alan Williams, competitions versus sole source contracts are both quicker and yield better results for the economy and taxpayers.......as the conditions in a competition are set prior to bidding, versus negotiating after the fact with a sole bidder.

So who in the Trudeau government is doing the dirty with Boeing?

you tell me - who calls the shots here - the Pentagon... or, apparently, whiny vindictive LockMart officials? You tell me!

Lockheed, BAE and Northrop Grumman choose their subcontractors......not the Pentagon, as the Pentagon doesn't produce aircraft.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a great story...more fun than the softwood lumber caper that really got Canadians all fired up.

We all know how that one turned out. Go Lockheed Martin !

[waldo]

"in the past I've trotted out a critique of stealth by USN Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert - 2012 dated now. This updated article reference also includes mention of the same Admiral Greenert speaking on stealth... within a broader context of USN views toward the F-35, particularly against the backdrop of the 'tried and true' workhorse, the Super Hornet: Analysts: Navy brass view F-35C's stealth as overrated"

Why is this being revisited and spun yet again? As clearly indicated and cited several years, both the actual remarks from the speech and their transcripts, the CNO was clearly talking in context of the entire USN's platforms (sub/surface/air launched munitions) and their current reliance on namely short range weapons, and the few remaining stand-off weapon types they currently employ (Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles) trace their linage to the early 70s and late 60s................

yet again? Well... a MLW member posted critical/questioning commentary on stealth and I quite naturally chimed in with this ole' chestnut. Of course, I'm still so confused as to how you view the F-35 doesn't get included in 'the mix'? Now some, certainly not the waldo, might interpret the Admiral suggesting to forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack. And, of course, this recent post has the good Admiral being quoted right from the NavyTimes itself:

"What does that next strike fighter look like?" Greenert asked the packed forum. "I'm not sure it's manned, don't know that it is. You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated.

Greenert was speaking about the next generation of fighter aircraft, but his comments could just as easily be applied to Lockheed Martin's F-35C, the carrier-based version of the joint strike fighter. Aviation analysts who watch the F-35 program closely say Greenert's comments reflect ambivalence among naval aviators about the F-35 as a strike fighter, especially compared to the tried-and-true F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.

Greenert has expressed skepticism about stealth technology's value before, arguing in a 2012 paper that improving computing technology will render even the most stealthy aircraft more detectable.

"Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons," Greenert wrote.

"It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them."

.

[Derek 2.0]

again, per Harper Conservatives... former Defence Minister Jason Kenney: "A line was added to contracting regulations in June and gives the federal cabinet authority to award a deal to a single company if there are urgent “operational reasons” and it fulfills an interim requirement."

Where is the urgent need? The head of the RCAF has gone on public record as stating there is no need to select an aircraft within the next five years.

[Derek 2.0]

2 fleets? Huh... say what? Are you stating that Canada will be replacing it's full fleet of CF-18s all at one time? Really? Hot Damn, that LockMart line will just be cranking em out like 'hot cakes'! There won' be that sustaining 2 fleet concern you're raising, right? Oh my!

.

Apples and Oranges, a period of transition doesn't require two separate training and supply chains, as the aircraft being drawn down has no need for such things and halts such requirements as the new type enters service..........versus a speculated partial replacement of the Hornet fleet, which would require two of everything (schools, supply chains, maintainers etc).

[Derek 2.0]

yet again? Well... a MLW member posted critical/questioning commentary on stealth and I quite naturally chimed in with this ole' chestnut. Of course, I'm still so confused as to how you view the F-35 doesn't get included in 'the mix'? Now some, certainly not the waldo, might interpret the Admiral suggesting to forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack. And, of course, this recent post has the good Admiral being quoted right from the NavyTimes itself:

.

I know, and as cited several times in past threads, the CNO's remarks were in context of the entire USN..........in terms of aircraft, if technological advancements reduce the effects of "stealth".........what does that mean for non-stealthy aircraft........The difference is clear........in regards to standoff munitions versus current short range munitions...don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[waldo]

No, we have a representative of one of the World's largest defense contractors stating the obvious......we don't purchase the aircraft, we don't get anymore contracts.............there is no "posturing", but a statement of fact..........

.

Lockheed, BAE and Northrop Grumman choose their subcontractors......not the Pentagon, as the Pentagon doesn't produce aircraft.

your declared "statement of fact" doesn't jive with the prior comments from the U.S. Pentagon's Under Secretary for Acquisition... can ya help a brother out here: what right did the related chief Pentagon rep have to offer those comments - just what is the role of the U.S. Pentagon's Under Secretary for Acquisition in this regard... anyway? I mean his emphasis on 'best value' was pretty clear and definitive: "We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program."

.

And again, per the head of the RCAF, there is no need of an interim type if this government elects to fund the Hornet upgrade.........granting upwards of five years for this Government (assuming its reelected) to award a contract via a "fair & transparent" competition...as it promised.........

good on ya for finally coming around and adding a proper caveat like, "elects to fund the Hornet upgrade". I guess pressing you enough times for a cite actually worked, hey! But again, even if you line up your ducks to 2025... and the F-35 is actually ready for prime time somewhere in that 2021-2025 period, just how many F-35s would Canada get through that period? Do you have a latest revision on the "ever changing, every revising" production schedule with actual numbers attached to respective countries and U.S. military branches? You know, something that actually lines up with your "no need of an interim type" statement?

.

But for shits and giggles, let's assume there is a justified reason, say the Government is looking to expand its role in NATO and deploy additional aircraft to Eastern Europe, thus an actual requirement for partial expansion of our current capabilities...........Said "gap filing measure" could just as easily be filled by the far cheaper (then both the Super Hornet and F-35) Lockheed F-16, be it new production aircraft or recycled F-16s rebuilt and upgraded to the latest standard at a further discounted price.

Though the F-16, like the Hornet family, traces its roots back to the 1970s, the F-16 is the cheapest to procure and operate, is currently the backbone of NORAD and has a near 40 year proven track record operating (and being based) in the Arctic (with the Americans, Norwegians and Danes).........unlike the Super Hornet........and doesn't have an unresolved oxygen generation problem that could result in lethal incidents.

perfect! You're good to go with an interim purchase... just so long as it's not the Boeing Super Hornet! Yeesh.

[waldo]

Where is the urgent need? The head of the RCAF has gone on public record as stating there is no need to select an aircraft within the next five years.

citation request again... you made me do it!

your statement presumes on the ~1/2 billion being spent to give the Hornets another 4-5 years... extending from 2020/21 to 2024/2025. Decision criteria is not yet finalized/approved and Air Force project lead states he has approximately to the end of the year to finalize (say worst case)... and states he then has 2 years to establish everything required to ensure work completes by 2021 (latest). His emphasis is that this must be the timeline to make the changes fiscally worthwhile. Seems doable.

so... where does the F-35 availability and production figures for Canada line-up around that... presuming the most optimistic of optimists projections... which presumes the CF-18 fleet, in its entirety, is turned over to F-35s by 2025, or... some number of CF-18s are either not flown past 2025 or are flown without regard to the stated 4 year extension gain attached to this latest modernization option.

let's see your schedule, projections... real (projected) numbers - yes?

.

[waldo]

Apples and Oranges, a period of transition doesn't require two separate training and supply chains, as the aircraft being drawn down has no need for such things and halts such requirements as the new type enters service..........versus a speculated partial replacement of the Hornet fleet, which would require two of everything (schools, supply chains, maintainers etc).

wouldn't that depend on the length of transition - ya think? Which brings us back to you providing schedule/numbers for the F-35, presuming on it's readiness and availability within the production cycle that fits to the transition, presuming on Canada slotting in, as required, against U.S. military branches and other nations - which, of course, equally presumes upon actual partner nation purchases and actual funded U.S. military branch purchases.

.

[waldo]

I know, and as cited several times in past threads, the CNO's remarks were in context of the entire USN..........

which includes or excludes the F-35 from his commentary?

.

[Derek 2.0]

your declared "statement of fact" doesn't jive with the prior comments from the U.S. Pentagon's Under Secretary for Acquisition... can ya help a brother out here: what right did the related chief Pentagon rep have to offer those comments - just what is the role of the U.S. Pentagon's Under Secretary for Acquisition in this regard... anyway? I mean his emphasis on 'best value' was pretty clear and definitive: "We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program."

.

I would have to see the entirety of his remarks to offer a more qualified response.....other then to say, from all the related media reports, its clear he is referring to current contracts.

and the F-35 is actually ready for prime time somewhere in that 2021-2025 period, just how many F-35s would Canada get through that period?

How long is a piece of string? That would depend at what point we ordered the aircraft etc.......of note, from one of the cited NP links a few pages back, it was mentioned that the US Government has offered Canada to jump the que in front of their orders to accommodate our Hornet retirement.

Do you have a latest revision on the "ever changing, every revising" production schedule with actual numbers attached to respective countries and U.S. military branches?

Nothing has changed with the full rate production rates........Lockheed plant expansion is still slated for 200 aircraft a year once full rate production starts in 2019.........as to who gets what when, I have no idea, other then there will be some expectation of first come, first serve..........

You know, something that actually lines up with your "no need of an interim type" statement?

Yes, that per the head of the RCAF, the planned Hornet life extension will give us five years to select a replacement........there is no reason that a competition couldn't be held, with the proper resources funded, within 18-24 months.......at such a time, the USAF will be on ~2 years post F-35 IOC, granting us a better idea of its then operational capabilities.

perfect! You're good to go with an interim purchase... just so long as it's not the Boeing Super Hornet! Yeesh.

Not at all, like a split buy, its merely a thought exercise for this discussion.........outside of an actual emergency, I don't see a need to justify a sped up, sole source, contract at all.........get on with it and do the actual long term replacement, run a political dog and pony show if they must, but an interim purchase is not required or a good use of resources.

[Derek 2.0]

citation request again... you made me do it!

already provided via the NP cite several pages back........for his full statement, I would assume Hansard? Maybe CPAC? I dunno, haven't looked.

so... where does the F-35 availability and production figures for Canada line-up around that... presuming the most optimistic of optimists projections... which presumes the CF-18 fleet, in its entirety, is turned over to F-35s by 2025, or... some number of CF-18s are either not flown past 2025 or are flown without regard to the stated 4 year extension gain attached to this latest modernization option.

let's see your schedule, projections... real (projected) numbers - yes?

Again, I don't know who gets what when.......AFAIK, thats not public information.

The best I can do, and not sound glib, is to assume this government were to order the F-35 concurrent with the upgrade sometime in this mandate.......worse case, based on our (far larger) Hornet introduction into service (from a far smaller production line) 3-5 years for the full 65 aircraft........

The 1st through 2nd year would see the establishment of a cadre of instructors and senior officers to stand-up our own first squadron, likely in the US, all the while, the initial batch of maintainers would be receiving training, concurrent with the standing down of the Hornet conversion training squadron and likely the schools........2nd through 3rd years, establishment of the first and start of the second operational squadrons, meanwhile the first operational Hornet squadrons retires.....etc etc

Clearly the signing of the contract sooner rather then later would be ideal, allowing those slated to be the initial instructors and maintainers to start receiving full time training even before full rate production starts and we receive aircraft. .........the initial establishment of training and supply chains to allow the first operational squadrons or two would be the pain in the ass at first, but once its established, the rest will follow in its wheel ruts.....