Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

From the Government's side so it would seem..........but, coming from Boeing's vantage point, it makes little sense........why would they offer Canada a less capable aircraft?

Because Canada's government would buy it over a more capable aircraft....that's what it did before.

I don't understand it either, but it is what it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Is that because of best match, or availability of aircraft in theater?

No...the F-15E Strike Eagle was a purposeful variant for air-to-ground (strike) missions.

[?Impact]

Because Canada's government would buy it over a more capable aircraft....that's what it did before.

I don't understand it either, but it is what it is.

F-15 was eliminated due to it's high purchase price.

[Derek 2.0]

Is that because of best match, or availability of aircraft in theater?

Best match bar none.....the Strike Eagle was intended to move mud, and is able to do it better then other currently serving combat aircraft.......and if/when needed to do counter air, despite the added weight of another crew member, is still one of the more lethal aircraft currently in service around the world.....only bested by a handful of other aircraft intended as air superiority types.

[Derek 2.0]

F-15 was eliminated due to it's high purchase price.

In the later 70s.......today, based on their proposed deal with the South Koreans, they're not much more then Super Hornets or the F-35......granted their operational costs will be more..........but if Singapore can afford to operate them, Canada could.

[waldo]

Again, I'll revert back to the intention and practice done by most nations.......like Canada, the partners seek to purchase during full rate production, hence it should be no surprise that very little is being bought in the low rate production phase of the program. Second, many of the buyers don't cast for the big fish, but smaller fishes of equal weight......i.e, they purchase their requirements with gradual purchases instead of one large block buy in order.

yabut, such a determined highly profiled undertaking... why such a herculean effort to try to land the big ones? There must have been something driving it - yes? What could it be, what could it be?

how many LRIPs were there to be initially... and what, (subject to yet further delay/change), will be the number of the "last" LRIP before full-rate? With concurrency and the need to bring forward all those LRIP jets, with all the known major problems still outstanding (the ones allowed to be made public), just when is that full-rate again? Since the other guy just felt keen to pump the Denmark sale, what F-35 state did the Danes actually evaluate?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

F-15 was eliminated due to it's high purchase price.

Agreed, that was then, but the F-15 Silent Eagle would be cost competitive with current options being considered. Mission requirements are usually defined first and solutions are compromised after costs and other factors are considered. The public/political debate in Canada has it backwards.

[Smallc]

In the later 70s.......today, based on their proposed deal with the South Koreans, they're not much more then Super Hornets or the F-35......granted their operational costs will be more..........but if Singapore can afford to operate them, Canada could.

Link required.

Canada is cheap. We all know this.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

yabut, such a determined highly profiled undertaking... why such a herculean effort to try to land the big ones? There must have been something driving it - yes? What could it be, what could it be?

Marketing.

how many LRIPs were there to be initially... and what, (subject to yet further delay/change), will be the number of the "last" LRIP before full-rate? With concurrency and the need to bring forward all those LRIP jets, with all the known major problems still outstanding (the ones allowed to be made public), just when is that full-rate again? Since the other guy just felt keen to pump the Denmark sale, what F-35 state did the Danes actually evaluate?

Again, full rate production is still slated for 2019.......WRT the Danes, I'd assume block 3F and better.

[bush_cheney2004]

Link required.

Canada is cheap. We all know this.

Not really...the F-15 is rated for nearly double the number of flight hours....offsetting any higher operational costs. Some estimates are for more than 30,000 hours. This is what Canada does to aircraft and helos...love them long time.

[?Impact]

Agreed, that was then, but the F-15 Silent Eagle would be cost competitive with current options being considered. Mission requirements are usually defined first and solutions are compromised after costs and other factors are considered. The public/political debate in Canada has it backwards.

Which gets us back to putting the cart before the horse. We need to have a requirements definition, not a who has the shiny toy argument. Is the Silent Eagle a product yet, I thought it was just a concept. We also don't know what Boeing is pitching, lots of assuming going on in the peanut gallery (ref my earlier note that the meetings with the government that stirred up this latest batch of rhetoric could have been on any number of subjects).

[waldo]

From the Government's side so it would seem..........but, coming from Boeing's vantage point, it makes little sense........why would they offer Canada a less capable aircraft?

again, think Advanced Super Hornet or upgraded Super Hornet... notwithstanding who around here is forever decrying the Super Hornet as old... and not being updated anymore:

The Navy has plans to boost its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler capabilities in the coming years to match an evolving threat, but plane manufacturer Boeing is still pushing for conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system and a new engine that the company says would add even more range and warfighting capability.

The Navy has already put on contract three Super Hornet upgrades included in Boeing’s new Advanced Super Hornet design. The service will upgrade its Raytheon AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. It will add the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV with increased electronic warfare self-protection, which is set to be fielded later this year. And the Navy will buy Lockheed Martin’s Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor system to supplement the aircraft’s radar, which is set to reach initial operational capability for the first block later this decade, Gillian said.

[Derek 2.0]

Agreed, that was then, but the F-15 Silent Eagle would be cost competitive with current options being considered. Mission requirements are usually defined first and solutions are compromised after costs and other factors are considered. The public/political debate in Canada has it backwards.

Exactly, even forgoing the proposed Silent Eagle, for an interim purchase, the latest blocks as purchased by South Korea, Singapore or Israel wouldn't be that much more..........

[bush_cheney2004]

...Again, full rate production is still slated for 2019.......WRT the Danes, I'd assume block 3F and better.

Sounds about right....the Dutch just ferried two of their RNAF F-35A aircraft across the pond (used RNAF refueling too) with great fanfare and live streaming like it was a Space Shuttle landing. The politicians were keen to demonstrate concrete action for modern replacement of older F-16s...just git 'r done. Canada doesn't operate like that....drama and procurement fiascos are more important.

[Derek 2.0]

again, think Advanced Super Hornet or upgraded Super Hornet... notwithstanding who around here is forever decrying the Super Hornet as old... and not being updated anymore:

The proposed advanced Super Hornet still isn't in the same league as the latest F-15, let alone the proposed Silent Eagle.....apples to oranges.

[Derek 2.0]

Not really...the F-15 is rated for nearly double the number of flight hours....offsetting any higher operational costs. Some estimates are for more than 30,000 hours. This is what Canada does to aircraft and helos...love them long time.

A very good point, the current F-15C fleet is operating far past its intended service life, upwards of 3-4 times that of the Super Hornet.......even if the operational costs are double that of the Super Hornet etc, in terms of both capability and durability its not even close.

[?Impact]

The proposed advanced Super Hornet still isn't in the same league as the latest F-15, let alone the proposed Silent Eagle.....apples to oranges.

Great, we have a proposal. Could you share it with the rest of us?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Which gets us back to putting the cart before the horse. We need to have a requirements definition, not a who has the shiny toy argument. Is the Silent Eagle a product yet, I thought it was just a concept. We also don't know what Boeing is pitching, lots of assuming going on in the peanut gallery (ref my earlier note that the meetings with the government that stirred up this latest batch of rhetoric could have been on any number of subjects).

Understood, but at the 100,000 foot level, there have long been several viable CF-18 replacement aircraft available, ready to go from production lines. Canada has been mired in other issues having nothing to do with any particular aircraft type....politics, labour offsets, tech transfer, foreign policy, etc.

Even if the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet was/is the "best choice", the procurement process is so constipated and dysfunctional that production will come and go before any decision(s) are made.

[waldo]

Marketing.

Again, full rate production is still slated for 2019.......WRT the Danes, I'd assume block 3F and better.

who said this: "The current 'official schedule' to complete full development and testing of all Block 3F capabilities by 31 July 31, 2017 is not realistic."

.

[waldo]

The proposed advanced Super Hornet still isn't in the same league as the latest F-15, let alone the proposed Silent Eagle.....apples to oranges.

what's the 'Canada need/role' to align with your F-15 promotion?

.

[Derek 2.0]

who said this: "The current 'official schedule' to complete full development and testing of all Block 3F capabilities by 31 July 31, 2017 is not realistic."

.

Didn't the discrepancy translate into a mater of months? I forget.

[bush_cheney2004]

...A very good point, the current F-15C fleet is operating far past its intended service life, upwards of 3-4 times that of the Super Hornet.......even if the operational costs are double that of the Super Hornet etc, in terms of both capability and durability its not even close.

Agreed...and I think we have been consistent on such matters all along instead of just F-35 "cheerleaders". The F-15 is arguably the best demonstrated air superiority platform of the past 40 years, with zero air combat losses. The Super Hornet was a low cost, risk avoiding strategy for the U.S. Navy after it was embarrassed by the A-12 program. The original base design F/A-18A was already a low cost lighweight, low hours platform.

[?Impact]

the procurement process is so constipated and dysfunctional that production will come and go before any decision(s) are made.

Yes Canadians take forever to make up their mind. Americans on the other hand order 3000, and then cut it back to 150 at a later date.

[waldo]

Didn't the discrepancy translate into a mater of months? I forget.

uhhh, no - but that's not the point in terms of the original question... and your subsequent answer. You suggested the Danes evaluated "Block 3F... or better" - or better! Now, that's still "on paper" right? But if completion of 'development/testing for Block 3F as July 2017... isn't even realistic... how could the Danes be using it as a part of their evaluation of the F-35 in the just completed competition?

.

Edited June 14, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

Yes Canadians take forever to make up their mind. Americans on the other hand order 3000, and then cut it back to 150 at a later date.

for the thread win!

.