Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[segnosaur]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, the Liberal government is far from clean on this one. The bigger problem however is the wasted decade when no progress was made. I give the Liberals 10% of the fault, based on time in office wasted.

 

At his point, the Liberals deserve 100% of the blame going forward. They are the ones in charge.And during the election, they were the ones who made rather questionable (and contradictory) election promises that they have to live with.

The current CF18 fleet would have been capable of lasting until at least 2025. While the conservatives failed to run a competition during their time in office, the remaining life time on the current fleet meant that it wasn't critical. Now the time is running out. And the Liberals are fumbling the ball much worse than the conservatives did.

[Smallc]

23 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

They may be temporarily strengthening the air force, but they appear to be setting up a situation where we end up flying substandard planes for the next 4 decades.

So, short term gain for long term pain.

 

 

Keep in mind that this is the same government who has delayed military purchases because they want do a defense review first. So, they're being rather 2 faced about this.

 

Either the defense review is important, in which case a change to commitment levels should wait until after the review, or the review is not important, in which case they should proceed with needed military purchases (including a proper competition for fighter jet replacements).

 

NORAD and NATO commitments won't change because of the defence review.  Further, we're talking about in the Super Hornet a plane that will be operated by our closest ally for at least 25 more years.  It's not the F-35, but it's far from sub standard. 

I'm actually surprised that until now we weren't meeting those obligations simultaneously.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

51 minutes ago, Smallc said:

NORAD and NATO commitments won't change because of the defence review.  

How do you know? It seems like NATO/NORAD commitments would be the type of thing that such a review should cover, since it impacts the type of equipment we purchase.

Further, we're talking about in the Super Hornet a plane that will be operated by our closest ally for at least 25 more years.

Yes, the Navy will use the F18 for a couple of more decades at least. But Canada's CF18 fleet will have been more than 40 years old by the time they are replaced, so its conceivable that, if we purchase the Super Hornet, we will be using them for more than 2 decades after the Americans have retired theirs.

And that's the problem. The cost of maintaining planes goes up as they get older. Trying to keep them flying in decades 3 and 4 will be the challenge.

 

It's not the F-35, but it's far from sub standard.

The Super Hornet may be "standard" now, but it will be out of date (at least compared to our allies) by about half way though its life span.

 

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

But Canada's CF18 fleet will have been more than 40 years old by the time they are replaced, so its conceivable that, if we purchase the Super Hornet, we will be using them for more than 2 decades after the Americans have retired theirs.

Yes, that will be a problem. The intent however is this will be an interim purchase, not an entire replacement fleet. If in 25 years, we have a mixed fleet and some fool decides to keep operating the Super Hornets then that will be a problem. 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

At his point, the Liberals deserve 100% of the blame going forward. They are the ones in charge.And during the election, they were the ones who made rather questionable (and contradictory) election promises that they have to live with.

The current CF18 fleet would have been capable of lasting until at least 2025. While the conservatives failed to run a competition during their time in office, the remaining life time on the current fleet meant that it wasn't critical. Now the time is running out. And the Liberals are fumbling the ball much worse than the conservatives did.

Have 2 agree for above reasons

[Rue]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, that will be a problem. The intent however is this will be an interim purchase, not an entire replacement fleet. If in 25 years, we have a mixed fleet and some fool decides to keep operating the Super Hornets then that will be a problem. 

Yes that is the problem. They will be distinctly different than an F35 or Gripen or whatever to maintain. It therefore makes no sense.. If the Superh could easily be upgraded and  and they were planning to upgradedone past the Superh that could be done to the Superh, that would be one thing but they are not. They've stopped building them. They will only make 18 more if Can wants them and  carry through with the deal to Saudi Arabia but nothing after that. Why buy a bar whose production line is being scrapped ? Makes no sense. 

They should have been honest and said, we are stuck with the F35,  and we are too gutless to get the Gripen or go spend bucks on the  Typhoon or Rafale . The F35 was chosen because it was felt it would employ the most Canadians. It was also felt the large number of countries behind it would keep the cost stable.

Now the F35 has soared in price not flight and its defects just come non stop one after another.

However if Trudeau is  locked into the F35 then he admit it and try hide it 5 years. Stop holding it off until the next election. Tell the truth,s ay Trudeau's hands are tired and the cost to pull out of the F35 is worse then sticking with it...admit the truth or move on to the Typhoon or Gripen . but stop gap Superh's made no sense.

They pretty much are just an updated F18 with incompatible parts to the old F18.

What's even more stupid is that you can take all the missiles and weapons out of the F18 and transfer them into the Gripen. If you go witht he F35, you can't do that which means we will have to scap our F18's rather than be able to recycle parts of them.

Will poor countries want to buy our old F18's? I don't know. I doubt it when they can get a Gripen for not much more cost and no headaches.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Rue

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

They should have been honest and said, we are stuck with the F35

In other words you don't see any value in an open competition, more back room deals? How can you proclaim the F35? I better rush out and buy an iPhone 7, because everyone is getting them and I don't want to be left behind.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

In other words you don't see any value in an open competition, more back room deals? How can you proclaim the F35? I better rush out and buy an iPhone 7, because everyone is getting them and I don't want to be left behind.

 

Procuring F-18 Super Hornets without any competition would seem to be another "back room deal".

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Procuring F-18 Super Hornets without any competition would seem to be another "back room deal".

Agreed 100%

Now what do you suggest we do for the corner we have been backed into? Should we forgo our obligations to NORAD or NATO? Should we cut a bigger back room deal with someone else?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Great, so let's define the requirements and have a competition based on the complete merits of all options. That is all I have been asking for for years, but the answer has always been - but fifth generation. 

Who do you think is best to make the decision as to which fighter is best for us? A bunch of politicians? A bunch of guys on the internet quoting third parties who might or might not know what they're talking about? Or the actual Air force people? I asked before for you people to suggest why the RCAF wants to buy an expensive, inferior, incapable aircraft. No one has answered.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Argus

[segnosaur]

26 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, that will be a problem. The intent however is this will be an interim purchase, not an entire replacement fleet. If in 25 years, we have a mixed fleet and some fool decides to keep operating the Super Hornets then that will be a problem. 

There are several things people are concerned about:

- that the purchase of the F18 Super Hornet may "bias" future competitions (after all, if we're already flying some F18s, it may artificially bolster the case for the F18 in the competition, since "we're already familiar with it".

- If a competition does end up selecting the F35, and we decide to scrap the F18s, then we've just wasted money. We buy jets with the idea that we'll use them for several decades. Granted, maintenance costs do go up near the end of the lifetime, but if we scrap a bunch of fighter jets after only 2 decades we're not getting our money's worth.

Oh, and by the way, if the government actually holds a competition and they select the F35, we'd end up flying a mixed fleet within a decade, not 25 years out.

 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

I asked you before to suggest why the RCAF wants to buy an expensive, inferior, incapable aircraft. 

That sounds like some guy on the internet quoting third parties who might or might not know what they're talking about.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

That sounds like some guy on the internet quoting third parties who might or might not know what they're talking about.

Nice way to weasel out of answering the bloody question.

Who knows better what aircraft we want than the RCAF? Why do they want this aircraft if it's so defective?

Edited November 29, 2016 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Agreed 100%

Now what do you suggest we do for the corner we have been backed into? Should we forgo our obligations to NORAD or NATO? Should we cut a bigger back room deal with someone else?

 

No, please keep doing what Canada always does for military procurements.   It is always very entertaining.

Canada's "closest ally" already has contingencies for this gong show continuing to impact NORAD and NATO obligations.  

[segnosaur]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Now what do you suggest we do for the corner we have been backed into? Should we forgo our obligations to NORAD or NATO?

NATO and NORAD seemed to be happy with the arrangements that we had previous to the new policy. Given that, I don't think you can really argue that we were "backed into a corner". The claim that there is some sort of urgent need to change the policy was manufactured by the Liberals.

 

[?Impact]

33 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

The claim that there is some sort of urgent need to change the policy was manufactured by the Liberals.

So you are suggesting that we should only meet part of our commitments, because commitments are not really commitments? It was Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood who said we can't meet them with the current inventory of CF-18s. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Will poor countries want to buy our old F18's? I don't know. I doubt it when they can get a Gripen for not much more cost and no headaches.

 

Gripen NG will have headaches....it is still in development.    It uses the same (single) U.S. engine (F414) as the Super Hornet.  Many other subsystems are foreign built and have to be integrated with "bugs" to be worked out.   

Edited November 29, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[segnosaur]

25 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So you are suggesting that we should only meet part of our commitments, because commitments are not really commitments?

Once again.... both NATO and NORAD were satisfied with the way we handled our commitments previously. Nobody was complaining.

It was Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood who said we can't meet them with the current inventory of CF-18s.

Yes, he said that, after the Liberals changed the way we handle our commitments.

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Once again.... both NATO and NORAD were satisfied with the way we handled our commitments previously. Nobody was complaining.

This is not about our ability to deliver today, it is about the state of our ability in 2025. Look at the number of CF-18 airframes we are operating, the hours on them, and how long they will last.  We have an obligation to prepare to meet our commitments, not wait until that capability is degraded beyond repair because nobody has complained yet. 

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

This is not about our ability to deliver today, it is about the state of our ability in 2025. Look at the number of CF-18 airframes we are operating, the hours on them, and how long they will last.  We have an obligation to prepare to meet our commitments, not wait until that capability is degraded beyond repair because nobody has complained yet. 

 

Why would it matter if anybody complained now or in the future (see Obama speech to Parliament) ?  

Canada's capabilities have been degraded for many years.   Where did this "gap" suddenly appear from ?

[segnosaur]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Once again.... both

NATO and NORAD were satisfied with the way we handled our commitments previously. Nobody was complaining.

This is not about our ability to deliver today, it is about the state of our ability in 2025. Look at the number of CF-18 airframes we are operating, the hours on them, and how long they will last.  We have an obligation to prepare to meet our commitments, not wait until that capability is degraded beyond repair because nobody has complained yet. 

And once again... the latest upgrades would have kept the bulk of the CF18 fleet active until 2025 at the least. (I'm sure there might have been an occasional crash, but it wouldn't have made a significant difference in our ability to handle the commitments.) We weren't going to have a gradual attrition until we  "ran out of planes" by 2025. The planes we have (the vast majority) would have remained airworthy.

The only change was that the Liberals needed an excuse to engage in shady dealings, and they found it: Make a change to the way we handle airplane distribution, even though none of our allies were demanding it.

 

[Smallc]

4 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Once again.... both NATO and NORAD were satisfied with the way we handled our commitments previously. Nobody was complaining.

NATO constantly complains that Canada doesn't pull its weight.

[Smallc]

6 hours ago, segnosaur said:

How do you know? It seems like NATO/NORAD commitments would be the type of thing that such a review should cover, since it impacts the type of equipment we purchase.

How do I know?  We're not rewriting international treaties that we've signed on to.  Nothing will change as per our obligations to NORAD or NATO.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Smallc said:

How do I know?  We're not rewriting international treaties that we've signed on to.  Nothing will change as per our obligations to NORAD or NATO.

 

Agreed...the United States and other allies will compensate for any degraded Canadian capabilities no matter how bad it gets.

 

[poochy]

10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

In other words you don't see any value in an open competition, more back room deals? How can you proclaim the F35? I better rush out and buy an iPhone 7, because everyone is getting them and I don't want to be left behind.

Its only your propensity for lying to cover for the liberals that allows you to pretend it hasnt already been done, the f35 is the best all around choice, it just is, there is no one from any part of this discussion that is claiming any of the other options are a better choice.  Just from the point of view of integration with our biggest and nearesat ally, it wins.  But, you couldnt give less of a damn about that, could you?  Not to mention, it would take at most another year to run a competition, not 5, anyway, you go on and keep covering for those lies.