Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

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.

.

No, as the first people that would transition to another type would be namely instructors and more senior personal, followed by the newly minted and those officers/personal returning to squadrons from courses and differing postings.......from the establishment of the new type's school, there is no longer a need to train new personal on the Hornet......supply chains and deep maintenance would follow.......so one could take ~12-18 months to establish a squadron, which coincides with the retirement of a Hornet squadron, and build on it from there......all the while, the pool of spare Hornets & parts grows as more squadrons transition out....in reality, Canada could only realistically handle ~10-15 aircraft (a Squadron) a year, which would translate into about ~5-7% of the production slots each year.

[DogOnPorch]

The aircraft is certainly making the airshow circuit...June 8th...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y61g6XkPQk

Impressive G-s on the deck...must be the suit.

Edited June 11, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[?Impact]

[F-16].........unlike the Super Hornet........and doesn't have an unresolved oxygen generation problem that could result in lethal incidents.

It is worth noting that the problems the navy has reported occur equally in the old Hornet, the same aircraft the Canada currently flies CF-18. While the new Super Hornet has an onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS), the old one relies on bottled liquid oxygen like the F-16. While there was some initial blaming on the OBOGS, it is not clear that is the cause. The F-22 raptor also had oxygen problems that were blamed on the OBOGS, and a modification was made to have backup bottled oxygen with automatic cutover. The F-35 also uses an OBOGS, although we don't have enough flight hours to make statistical comparisons there has been reported problems there as well from the Marines F-35B.

There are many alternate theories as to why there are more physiological episodes in recent years in the navy. Some have to do with other air contamination (e.g. new glues or cleaning compounds with lingering effects), and others have to do with the training procedures that involve pulling higher G's and putting other strains on the body. These are concerning issues that need to be resolved, but terming it an 'unresolved oxygen generation' problem is inappropriate at this time.

I guess the one thing about the F-35 is that we won't be putting undue stress on the pilot in combat because as it lumbers along being beat by 40 year old F-16s in dogfights due to its poor maneuverability. The pilot will not be oxygen deprived during the flight and have a front row seat to be shot down by the ancient MiGs.

[Argus]

While the first statement seems clear, what if the 'open and transparent competition' comes up with the F-35 as the answer?

That would be embarrassing. Therefore, the primary purpose of the competition, or the lack of a competition, is to ensure that doesn't happen, without regard to the immense cost or degradation of Canada's defense capabilities, or offense given to allies.

[Argus]

That doesn't even make sense as Ana analogous situation.

It's totally analogous. The Chretien Liberals made political hay of the EH-101 purchase, and spent years depicting it as wasteful and unnecessary for political purposes. When they got in power they cancelled it, without regard to the cost to taxpayers, and without regard to the degradation of Canada's defensive abilities. And they refused to hold a real competition because they knew the EF-101 would win.

The Trudeau Liberals are doing EXACTLY the same thing in every respect. Except here the waste of money will be even higher, the degradation even deeper.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

When they cancelled the EH-101, we didn't get anythin

We got a lawsuit. And we're likely to get the same this time around.

[Argus]

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.

“The good-faith intent … was that Canada will buy aircraft and they will be allowed to participate in the supply chain,” Crisler said. ““There’s not an entitlement to future contracts unless you’re buying aircraft.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-government-shrugs-off-lockheed-warning-over-f-35s

[Argus]

notwithstanding it's not old, it's still current, is still in active production... and has an immediate upgrade path to the 'Advanced Super Hornet' level, how does your labeling line up against settling for an, at this point, unproven and indeterminate costed F-35 option. Does the term 'vapour-ware' mean anything to you?

It's a 20 year old design. And in 20 years all our allies will be flying the F-35 and the only contribution Canada will be able to make will be to serve as the "third world enemy combatant" in exercises.

[Smallc]

We got a lawsuit. And we're likely to get the same this time around.

We're also getting a new aircraft of this goes through. Because - the Conservatives already made the necessary changes for this to be legal.

[Argus]

We're also getting a new aircraft of this goes through. Because - the Conservatives already made the necessary changes for this to be legal.

No, we're getting an outdated aircraft. And the most feeble lawyer around could get that line dismissed since there is clearly no pressing need to justify buying the old hornet now. I expect he'll be able to get any number of senior ex-air force guys to testify, too.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

.... and the only contribution Canada will be able to make will be to serve as the "third world enemy combatant" in exercises.

This is a role that Canada's diesel electric submarines serve well, when they are seaworthy. Another fine Liberal PM contribution to DND...hmmm...is there a trend here ?

[Smallc]

No, we're getting an outdated aircraft. And the most feeble lawyer around could get that line dismissed since there is clearly no pressing need to justify buying the old hornet now. I expect he'll be able to get any number of senior ex-air force guys to testify, too.

Thers a choice between buying something new (the Super Hornet only reached IOC 15 years ago and received its last software update a month or so ago) and spending 1/2 a billion in updates to 65 of our current Hornets. Without that update, which has taken almost two years just to get to the consideration phase, we have a gap. I have no faith in DND getting any of it done by the 2021 time frame as required. It's clear the government shares that feeling.

I mean, seriously - how many projects have come in on time and budget?

[Smallc]

It's a 20 year old design. And in 20 years all our allies will be flying the F-35 and the only contribution Canada will be able to make will be to serve as the "third world enemy combatant" in exercises.

In 20 year, the Super Hornet will just be starting to retire from the USN.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

...I mean, seriously - how many projects have come in on time and budget?

To that point, there is no guarantee that procurement and deployment of USN Super Hornets by Canada will be without many, costly issues. Sorry, but in this game, if you have to ask how much, probably can't afford it.

[Smallc]

To that point, there is no guarantee that procurement and deployment of USN Super Hornets by Canada will be without many, costly issues. Sorry, but in this game, if you have to ask how much, probably can't afford it.

Canada has a great history of single source off the shelf procurement - witness the C-130j and C-17 (and to a lesser extent, the CH-47 - we made some changes that caused delays).

[SpankyMcFarland]

I don't like the sound of being forced into buying this thing. The costs are alarming.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has a great history of single source off the shelf procurement - witness the C-130j and C-17 (and to a lesser extent, the CH-47 - we made some changes that caused delays).

Actually, Canada, lacking any meaningful planning and procurement process, butted in line to take United States Air Force production for its first C-17 Globemaster III aircraft. That won't be possible for Super Hornets.

Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't like the sound of being forced into buying this thing. The costs are alarming.

Agreed..the costs are alarming...but Canada wants the jobs and tech transfer too. Can't have it both ways. No pay...no play.

Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Actually, Canada, lacking any meaningful planning and procurement process, butted in line to take United States Air Force production for its first C-17 Globemaster III aircraft. That won't be possible for Super Hornets.

Unnecessary - there's a lot of room at the factory. As soon as the long lead items arrive they can begin construction.

[?Impact]

It's a 20 year old design.

To be fair, the F-35 is also a 20 year old design. Both airplanes evolve every day.

The Aviationist recently carried a good article on dogfighting that should be inspiration to the F-35 lovers who have had to endure the humiliation of losing to a 40 year old F-16 last year.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unnecessary - there's a lot of room at the factory. As soon as the long lead items arrive they can begin construction.

At this pace....the line will be shut down long before Canada shows up to order them and some large fries. Decisions and actions seem to be in very short supply.

[Smallc]

At this pace....the line will be shut down long before Canada shows up to order them and some large fries. Decisions and actions seem to be in very short supply.

The line has at least another year - the USN has need for at least 29 more SH, unfunded to this point. That would give it another couple of years.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

The Aviationist recently carried a good article on dogfighting that should be inspiration to the F-35 lovers who have had to endure the humiliation of losing to a 40 year old F-16 last year.

There is no humiliation in losing to an old or modernized F-16...that's why over 4,500 have been built. Appropriate to this thread, Canada chose a USN carrier based strike fighter instead. History repeats itself....

[bush_cheney2004]

The line has at least another year - the USN has need for at least 29 more SH, unfunded to this point. That would give it another couple of years.

That's cutting things pretty close....Canada should expect to pay dearly for its boutique Super Hornets.

[Smallc]

That's cutting things pretty close....Canada should expect to pay dearly for its boutique Super Hornets.

Possibly - as of the fall, the US Navy was paying far less for a Super Hornet than the US airforce was for the F-35A.