Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The real joke is that we might be able to convince your taxpayers to pay for the stupid jets.

 

No, the real joke is that Canada wants to lease interim "fighter jets" sole source because of another procurement fiasco.

What could go wrong this time around, right ?

 

 

[segnosaur]

37 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Actually, I think it is good. We clearly don't have the aircraft to do the job we need, they have admitted it and are doing something. By going with the Super Hornet as an interim, we are doing the same as Australia which is also a F-18A operator. They are committed to the F-35 long term but it won't start to become operational until 2021. 

Not exactly a comparable situation.

When Australia bought the its latest F18 Super Horents, they were replacing F-111s, that were first delivered in 1973. The planes were old, and were (for the most part) worn out.

Canada's fleet of CF18s first entered service in the early 1980s, almost a decade after Australia started flying its F-111s. And while the CF18 is getting old and does need replacement, the last set of upgrades should keep them useful for at least a few more years.

Lets face it, this "Buy Super-Hornets as a temporary measure" is just the way for the Liberals to try to rig the system, since the F35 will be at a disadvantage in any competition because the Liberals can always ask "How compatible is your plane with our current fleet" (which gives the advantage to the super hornet).

 

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No, the real joke is that Canada wants to lease interim "fighter jets" sole source because of another procurement fiasco.

Well, it goes without saying governments are a joke but probably closer to Keystone Cops/Three Stooges shtick than a Bob Newhart routine, especially as it relates to military spending/performance these last 60 years.

Quote

What could go wrong this time around, right ?

Where were you the last 60 years?

Edited November 22, 2016 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Well, it goes without saying governments are a joke but probably closer to Keystone Cops/Three Stooges shtick than a Bob Newhart routine, especially as it relates to military spending/performance these last 60 years.

 

Pick any American comedy act you like....just like the American "jets" Canada will ultimately lease/buy...eventually....some day.

[Wilber]

37 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Not exactly a comparable situation.

When Australia bought the its latest F18 Super Horents, they were replacing F-111s, that were first delivered in 1973. The planes were old, and were (for the most part) worn out.

Canada's fleet of CF18s first entered service in the early 1980s, almost a decade after Australia started flying its F-111s. And while the CF18 is getting old and does need replacement, the last set of upgrades should keep them useful for at least a few more years.

Lets face it, this "Buy Super-Hornets as a temporary measure" is just the way for the Liberals to try to rig the system, since the F35 will be at a disadvantage in any competition because the Liberals can always ask "How compatible is your plane with our current fleet" (which gives the advantage to the super hornet).

 

The Australians also need Growlers so they are going to have F-18's in their fleet for a long time anyway, regardless of what else they buy.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

10 years of mismanagement of this file created a crisis.

Yes, let's examine that history. First, the Liberal government joined the consortium developing the F-35, paying tens of millions each year to be a part of the project with the clear goal of ultimately purchasing the fighter. Then, they lost the election. Suddenly, the Liberals discovered the F-35 is a horrible aircraft, and with the aid of the media, managed to, for the first time in Canadian history, to get the stated cost to include the entire life cycle costs of the machines, the fuel that went into them, the pilots salaries, etc. etc. They and their anti-military colleagues in the NDP managed to make the costs seem so enormous that a timid Harper government backed away from it.

Now they will buy a dozen obsolete F-18s, which they will need to defend Canada's airspace after Trump boots us out of NATO and abandons Norad.

And if anyone thinks Trudeau will ever buy any other aircraft for the military I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them. This is not 'interim', it is the permanent solution the Liberals envision.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Argus

[Topaz]

The F-18s should be painted yellow, too many problems with them.

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

First, the Liberal government joined the consortium developing the F-35, paying tens of millions each year to be a part of the project with the clear goal of ultimately purchasing the fighter

Sorry, but your assumption is completely wrong. Participating in the program gave us the option of purchasing, or more specifically a place in line. There was no commitment to purchase made. The investment was a benefit to Canadian aerospace industry.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Topaz said:

The F-18s should be painted yellow, too many problems with them.

 

Many parts are painted yellow...green yellow....because of zinc chromate primer.

[poochy]

11 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Sorry, but your assumption is completely wrong. Participating in the program gave us the option of purchasing, or more specifically a place in line. There was no commitment to purchase made. The investment was a benefit to Canadian aerospace industry.

Honestly, I could not be more disgusted by the like of you than i am right now, they are rigging the game, more than the conservatives were ever accused of, and you're ok with it because you're a f***ing liberal, you sicken me.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Michael Hardner
language

[?Impact]

10 hours ago, poochy said:

Honestly, I could not be more disgusted by the like of you than i am right now, they are rigging the game, more than the conservatives were ever accused of, and you're ok with it because you're a f***ing liberal, you sicken me.

I guess thoughtful engaging conversation is dead, long live Trumpland.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Michael Hardner
language

[Rue]

The Superhornet is not a bad jet but its no the answer. If Trudeau had any balls he would have picked the Swedish fighter that made and makes the best money cents and operational sense for Canada. However the word balls and Justin in one sentence is impossible.

The fact is lobbyists from the States dictate the choice of jet. They have a strangehold on our procurement process. The Superhornet is the choice because the F-35 is not operational and I doubt will ever be.

Placating the US by choosing an alternative product from them is the name of the game.

.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Rue

[Argus]

51 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I guess thoughtful engaging conversation is dead, long live Trumpland.

Thoughtful and engaging? How about the horror that sole-source was spoken of by liberals who are now delighted with a sole source contract?

And I make a prediction. When the Liberals release the price, it will be the cost of buying the machines, not the life cycle cost. They will continually talk only of the purchase price while downplaying the lifecycle costs. Even though they basically invented the idea of using lifecycle costs to describe the cost of military hardware.

[Wilber]

The Gripen is a good aircraft but a lightweight. It's maximum takeoff weight is less than half that of the F-18E or F-35A. I don't know how well it would suit our needs.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

The Superhornet is not a bad jet but its no the answer. If Trudeau had any balls he would have picked the Swedish fighter that made and makes the best money cents and operat

What Swedish fighter? The Gripen? It's not in the same league as the F-35

Edited November 23, 2016 by Argus

[Rue]

Of course not Argus and I don't mean to revisit the issue because Derek and I and others debated it ad infinitum but I argue it suits exactly what we need.

I think 18 superhornets on an iterim basis is a necessity at this point.

However why not the Gripen E ? 

Here's the specs:

• full mach 2 capable dash
• 6 missile armed mach 1.25 super cruise 
• 1,500 km combat and 4,000 km ferry range
• will carry more then enough smart bombs to perform precision ground operations
• has comparable avionics suites and in some cases at this time superior systems
• very easy jet to upgrade / change systems
• has many other capabilities, buddy refueling system when air tankers are not in the area, can land on ice, short take off and land
• flies at 1/2 the cost per hour of the F-18E Super Hornet
• only requires one trained tech, a couple helpers, a tent and a road to operate
• for  every hour the F-18E flies the RCAF budget would save around $12,000 for every hour if it was flying Gripen E instead that can to the same job faster with better range
• small size has proven to be a great attribute to the effectiveness as a fighter in exercises
• the cockpit of Gripen is bigger then the F-18

• Canada will not be restricted to the single source weapon supply that accompanies an American or French fighter. Gripen will provide the latest avionics and software suites through co-development work with the Canadian aerospace industry, to ensure that the air force gets the fighter it wants now and for the next 40 years. Swedish technology in mission critical areas will ensure that Canada has full control over all key software, including vital source codes in elements such as Electronic Warfare. Weapon supply is critical to the acquisition of fighter aircraft. Primary and secondary weapons and pods, in all roles, can be provided and integrated from any supplier, if they can physically be carried on the aircraft. Designed-in digital health and usage monitoring of all key components allows for minimum spares holdings for Operational (O) and Intermediate (I) level (source: http://defence.frontline.online/article/2009/1/1656-Gripen-Fighters)

• Bombardier can manufacture Gripen in-country should that be a government requirement. Saab, in partnership, would set up an in-county maintenance and repair facility to meet depot level needs, and further transfer vital technologies to Canada. Gripen NG can offer all of this, with guarantees, and with no excess political baggage. Maximum capability, minimum cost, no political baggage.maintenance, maintenance carried out on demand not time. (source: http://defence.frontline.online/article/2009/1/1656-Gripen-Fighters)

 

My argument for it is also found here::

http://gripen4canada.blogspot.ca/

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-ii-the-gripen-ng

http://defence.pk/threads/why-canada-should-buy-the-saab-gripen-e-jas39-ng-fighter.235004

http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=529

http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/article-why-canada-should-buy-the-saab-jas39-gripen-e-next-generation-fighter-114190338.html

 

The current Defence Minister heavily favours the Superhornet.

 

The fact they chose 18 already is strong indication they will just do that and get more.

 

However the Gripenm makes the most sense. It would allow the most amount of jets at far lower the cost to maintain them, allow us to transfer all F-18 weapons to them,

cost far less to maintain, would be capable of being upgraded for 70 years and could be built in Canada.

 

It makes no sense not to choose them.

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

It makes no sense not to choose them.

 

Saab chose to walk away from Canada and its frustrating military procurement games.  Just a big headache.....

Saab withdraws from RCAF competition

Edited November 23, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[The_Squid]

Replacing the F18s with more F18s seems pretty darn good to me....

[DogOnPorch]

Hah, hah...it came to pass.

I said the Sopwith Camel was a fine aircraft.

♪♪♫Ten-twenty-thirty-forty-fifty or more. The Bloody Red Baron was running-up the score....♪♫

[bush_cheney2004]

Whatever happened to defining requirements first ?   Before procuring any platform ?

I will say it again...Canada has been flying U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters so long the only interim "zombie" choice is yet another U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter.   "Requirements" be damned ! 

Edited November 23, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Whatever happened to defining requirements first ?   Before procuring any platform ?

I will say it again...Canada has been flying U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters so long the only interim "zombie" choice is yet another U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter.   "Requirements" be damned ! 

 

Canada has photos of old aircraft carriers that need a full compliment of F-18s.

Ironically, only an F-35C would be able to operate off of one of those old girls without much fuss.

[DogOnPorch]

Haze Gray and Underway!

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/canada.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

I predict that Canada will choke on the total "lifecycle" price tag for 18 "interim" F-18 aircraft that would be delivered while the F-35 variants begin ramping up deliveries to other partner nations.   Five years down the road and Canada is right back where it started.   Another procurement fiasco is born !

[segnosaur]

9 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Replacing the F18s with more F18s seems pretty darn good to me....

No, it isn't.

Canada's CF18 fleet is based on the earlier F18 A/B designs. When the U.S. navy wanted a new plane, they almost started from the ground-up... While the planes have a similar shape, The F18E/F super hornet is substantially different than the previous F18A-D and CF18.... larger size, different engines, different avionics, etc.(The U.S. just used the designation 'F18' to get around rules regarding developing new planes.)

So, our flight crews and pilots will be dealing with what is almost a completely new plane, which requires a significant learning process.

All to purchase a plane that may be nearing the end of its production run.

 

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Rue said:

Of course not Argus and I don't mean to revisit the issue because Derek and I and others debated it ad infinitum but I argue it suits exactly what we need.

I think 18 superhornets on an iterim basis is a necessity at this point.

Says who? Not the head of the air force. He said last spring that his current fleet could meet all objectives for the foreseeable future.

 

14 hours ago, Rue said:

However why not the Gripen E ? 

Today's fighters are not dog fighters. They are missile platforms that launch at long distances. As such the primary consideration is how easy they can avoid detection, and how easily they can detect other aircraft and guide missiles in to them. The Grippen isn't even as good as the F18,  much less the F-35. Sure it costs less. So would a Spitfire, and have a lot lower operating costs, too. That's not the point, though.