Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Buying 18 to fill the gap until the competition is decided is what's hapenning FYI. But once again, good luck to Lock-Mart. But they will need more than luck.

 

Sorry, that's clearly not competition.   Kinda embarrassing politically after all that campaign bluster, but it is what it is.

"Hello....Boeing ? "    <click>

[?Impact]

53 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Actually we can. While there are accusations that the costs of the F35 are "out of control", the fact is that the unit price has dropped significantly as the production rate has increased, and will drop further in the near future.

Sounds like a huge rewrite of history. The program cost continues to escalate, and the orders are way down from the original estimates. Both the Navy and Air Force have cut the number of planes they intend to order, only the Marines are still on track with their original plans.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Sounds like a huge rewrite of history. The program cost continues to escalate, and the orders are way down from the original estimates. Both the Navy and Air Force have cut the number of planes they intend to order, only the Marines are still on track with their original plans.

 

Apples and oranges estimates...program costs are not the same as unit costs.    I presume you meant the United States Navy and Air Force, which have little to do with Canada's handling of this "file".

Edited November 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, segnosaur said:

The Canadian military has already stated that with the latest upgrades that the CF18 fleet would be operational for approximately a decade. Not that that's ideal, but we should be able to have enough time to run a proper competition before they need to be retired.

 

More so, the head of the RCAF has stated we wouldn't need to make a selection for five years.

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, ?Impact said:

We are still flying vacuum tubes with less power than a slide rule.

 

In some cases we are.........due to Liberal government interference and political punting.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

In some cases we are.........due to Liberal government interference and political punting.

Over the past 30 years, the Liberals have been in government 13 or about 45% of the time. Nice try.

[Derek 2.0]

6 hours ago, segnosaur said:

For example, I believe they were required to identify aircraft visually before shooting them down.

That depends on the given airspace and ROE, for instance, missions over the Persian Gulf are found within heavily trafficked areas.......both by allies and civilians. Likewise Canada, on a NORAD tasking, they wouldn't splash a lone airliner from beyond visual range.......a stream of Russian bombers is of course a different story.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Over the past 30 years, the Liberals have been in government 13 or about 45% of the time. Nice try.

 

And in that time, they reduced by over a third our fighter force, well using the remainder in intensive operations overseas....and now are saying there is a "gap", despite the sworn statement by the head of the RCAF......this is nothing but a political punt. 

[Derek 2.0]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

When was Canada's last air combat kill....Korean War ?   

 

World War II........though we had pilots on exchange with several allies, we had no fighters in Korea.

[Derek 2.0]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

The US assumed the F4 would never need to engage in a dogfight so it had crappy mobility and many were destroyed. 

 

Ponder this.........in most areas, the F-4 Phantom had/has equal or better raw physical performance, especially on the deck, then the Hornet and Super Hornet........where as the Phantom, unlike the Hornet family, was an actual air superiority fighter........only limited in development in that arena by it's smaller nose (unable to fit a new, larger, radar like what was found in the F-15 and F-14)

The only reason the Hornet bested a proposed "Super Phantom" was due to cost, and the fear it would cut the grass of the Tomcat.

 

[Derek 2.0]

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

So as an interim aircraft, the F-18E makes perfect sense to me. Long term, not as much.

 

The entire Super Hornet platform was designed on the basis of being an interim type.......just as the original Hornet was a nod to tight budgets and small carrier decks in the 1970s.

 

WRT to Canada, per the head of the RCAF, we have no need of an interim type within the next five years.

[Derek 2.0]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Where are those elusive F35s

In operational squadron service with the USMC and USAF.

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Kinda embarrassing politically

More so would have been selecting the F-35 after promising not to do so.........oops

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Both the Navy and Air Force have cut the number of planes

 

As stated, apples to oranges........during the Obama administration, the number of operational USN and USAF squadrons have been reduced, ergo the larger requirement for larger numbers of F-35s.........the same is true with all other nations (The UK, Italians, Dutch etc) with "reduced" F-35 buys.....a reflection of reduced defense budgets, not the F-35's reduced purchase price.........its worth noting, the Danes and Norwegians  have both deduced the purchase of the F-35s the cheaper and more capable option then the Super Hornet.......in the case of the Danes, they were able to hold an open competition in just over a year. What is the Trudeau Liberal's problem?

[Wilber]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Other than having a yoke instead of a joystick, there is more in common between a modern Airbus and Boeing aircraft than the analog instruments and controls of yesteryear. Today everything is fly by wire, touchscreens, etc. The flight crew has very different responsibilities today then they did years ago. The 707 had a crew of 3 or 4 (navigator needed for over water operations), and the 777 has a crew of 2. Yes, I may have that familiar Ford logo on the steering wheel, but it is not my father's Ford (I couldn't use Oldsmobile as they are history).

Nope, while they all have to have hydraulic, electric, fuel, pneumatic, pressurization, flight guidance and control systems, they have very different approaches to how they work, are controlled and operate together. Boeing has not yet used cockpit touch screens but they are in the works. iPad's have replaced paper charts in many cases. but the aircraft CRT displays still use hard keys. Most of the aircraft in the worlds commercial fleet are not yet fly by wire although they eventually will be. Most washouts on new aircraft are due to not being able to get a handle on the new and different magic, not because people can't fly the aircraft. Those washouts are higher when people are transitioning to a different manufacturer's aircraft.

Navigators went out in the early seventies, replaced by INS. Flight engineers were replaced by the 2 man aircraft but they systems they used to operate are still there. Normal operation of these systems is more automatic but abnormal situations still have to be dealt with by the pilots. The work load in the two man aircraft is higher than the older machines due to the amount of multitasking required by the remaining pilots. No more turning to the F/E and asking him to do things like get an ATIS, talk to company, maintenance, agents, F/A's etc, fill out logs, do walk arounds, or a dozen other things they used to do on top of managing the aircraft's systems and running all the checklists. Over half the preflight was done before the pilots even got to the aircraft.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry, that's clearly not competition.   Kinda embarrassing politically after all that campaign bluster, but it is what it is.

"Hello....Boeing ? "    <click>

You don't understand competition?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

You don't understand competition?

 

I understand when I don't see any....."Hello...Boeing?"

[Omni]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I understand when I don't see any....."Hello...Boeing?"

Say tuned, you will see it rolled out soon enough.Who knows maybe lockmart will win.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

Say tuned, you will see it rolled out soon enough.Who knows maybe lockmart will win.

 

No such thing as "soon" when it comes to Canadian military procurements.  

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No such thing as "soon" when it comes to Canadian military procurements.  

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "soon". BTW, what is your definition of "circle jerk" you so often talk about in matters Canadian, which you espouse not to be interested in. I'm confused.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "soon". BTW, what is your definition of "circle jerk" you so often talk about in matters Canadian, which you espouse not to be interested in. I'm confused.

 

You're new around here...veteran members know exactly what I am talking about.   This is not the first CF-18 replacement rodeo.

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

You're new around here...veteran members know exactly what I am talking about.   This is not the first CF-18 replacement rodeo.

Oh awright, I will try to catch up.

[segnosaur]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

For example, I believe they were required to identify aircraft visually before shooting them down.

That depends on the given airspace and ROE, for instance, missions over the Persian Gulf are found within heavily trafficked areas.......both by allies and civilians. Likewise Canada, on a NORAD tasking, they wouldn't splash a lone airliner from beyond visual range.......a stream of Russian bombers is of course a different story.

My comment was referring to a specific claim... that the ability to dogfight was important because the U.S. experiences in Vietnam showed that missiles were sometimes ineffective. I was pointing out that the reason they had to dogfight wasn't necessarily that long range missiles were ineffective, but that  the rules of engagement in that conflict required visual confirmation (which would have resulted in more dogfights.) 

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

The entire Super Hornet platform was designed on the basis of being an interim type.......just as the original Hornet was a nod to tight budgets and small carrier decks in the 1970s.

 

WRT to Canada, per the head of the RCAF, we have no need of an interim type within the next five years.

No way there will be F-35's in Canada by 2021. The Australians are committed to the F-35 and they aren't scheduled to have their first squadron operational until 2021

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

No way there will be F-35's in Canada by 2021. The Australians are committed to the F-35 and they aren't scheduled to have their first squadron operational until 2021

 

I didn't say that there would be, nor have to be.........the head of the RCAF testified before committee that with the planned upgrade (by the Harper government) the GoC wouldn't need to select the replacement until ~2021, followed by the planned 3-5 year transition........this was noted in the National Post story posted by Argus several pages back, and I've cited the actual report numerous times in the various related threads.........oddly enough, said link is now "Page Not Found", none the less, this is rather clear:

 

Quote

Extending the estimated life expectancy of the CF-18 to 2025 was assessed as a low-risk option in terms of cost, schedule and technical factors and as moderate risk in terms of operational factors. An estimated life expectancy of 2025, based on a five-year transition window would mean that the first aircraft in the fleet would be retired no earlier than January 1, 2021, and the last aircraft would retire on December 31, 2025. Such a change in estimated life expectancy would require an additional incremental investment to ensure the airworthiness of the CF-18 and to address issues of out-of-date and ineffective parts and avionics.

 

Said life extension was started by the Harper Government, hence, per the RCAF, the current legacy fleet would start to be reduced as the new aircraft entered service.....hence there is no reason for an interim type.....and that's assuming we actually need five more years to evaluate the various options........thus, this move by the Trudeau government is but a political choice......fore operationally the RCAF can meet its current commitments out to the mid 2020s and there is no need for a "interim type".

 

Even Alan Williams, the Liberal appointment in charge of procurement, that actually signed us onto the F-35 program, is saying this is the worse possible path and is questioning if the sole source of an interim type is even legal and a waste of money.