Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[segnosaur]

20 minutes ago, Omni said:

Not only have the costs gone through the roof,

Once again... they haven't. Development costs are higher than initially planned, but for Canada's purposes, it was irrelevant... we would in theory have had a signed contract with a fixed price.

...look at how far behind the program has become.

Once again, irrelevant.

The plane has taken longer to develop than expected, but Canada wasn't prepared to purchase the planes back then anyways. So the fact that it has taken longer to become available didn't really impact us at all.

Now that the plane is late in its testing cycle, getting closer to entering full production, has been purchased by other countries, and has been declared operational by at least parts of the U.S. military,  its availability would fit in well with Canada's expected procurement plans.

The F35 is a very technologically advanced machine... its got features that are either completely unique, or only found on a small handful of planes. (Everything from stealth, the pilot's helmet, internal weapons bays, limited supercrise, advanced sensors, etc.) When you're dealing with a plane with those features, its not unexpected to run into problems that delay development. The only way not to risk running into delays is to not do anything new with technology, in witch case you run the risk of seeing potential rivals outstrip you.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's DND mission(s) and government responsibilities for domestic and international obligations should not depend on the design/development/cost/schedule of the F-35 JSF program.   Several competing strike fighter platforms have been in production for the duration of this very delayed procurement.

The F-35A could be completely operational today and Canada would be in an identical position.

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The F-35A could be completely operational today and Canada would be in an identical position.

True, but we fixed that problem in October 2015.

[segnosaur]

15 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

True, but we fixed that problem in October 2015.

No we didn't fix the problem.

We voted in a government that is introducing all new problems, without fixing the original one.

The Liberals have been in power over a year. More than enough time to run a competition if they so choose (especially since some of the work had already been done.) Yet they haven't. So our "problem" isn't fixed.

Instead, we're about to buy F18 Super Hornets (with no competition), potentially wasting millions/billions of dollars and potentially distorting the results of any future competitions.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Everything from stealth, the pilot's helmet, internal weapons bays, limited supercrise, advanced sensors, etc.

The stealth has long ago been hacked by the Chinese, the helmet will snap your neck if you eject, supercruise, correct quite limited, pilot's can't see out of it, and the cost overruns now bring it up to a 400 billion project and how many years behind? Not where I want to invest my tax dollar.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

The stealth has long ago been hacked by the Chinese, the helmet will snap your neck if you eject, supercruise, correct quite limited, pilot's can't see out of it, and the cost overruns now bring it up to a 400 billion project and how many years behind? Not where I want to invest my tax dollar.

 

But you did invest Canadian tax dollars to become a Tier 3 JSF program partner.   Canada will beg LockMart to keep the contract jobs.

[Omni]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But you did invest Canadian tax dollars to become a Tier 3 JSF program partner.   Canada will beg LockMart to keep the contract jobs.

We'll continue to help build it, even if we don't buy it, at least according to Bogdan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

We'll continue to help build it, even if we don't buy it, at least according to Bogdan.

 

No, the work will go to other partner nations who are not nearly as dysfunctional for military procurements.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, the work will go to other partner nations who are not nearly as dysfunctional for military procurements.

You mean the partners who continuously reduce their orders? Other less dysfunctional suppliers are offering contracts as well so we'll keep busy.

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, Omni said:

You mean the partners who continuously reduce their orders? Other less dysfunctional suppliers are offering contracts as well so we'll keep busy.

 

I mean paying customers, not tire kickers.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I mean paying customers, not tire kickers.

Speaking of which, have you got those Super Hornets airworthy yet?

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Speaking of which, have you got those Super Hornets airworthy yet?

 

Yes, but again, only paying customers please.   Please step aside for the paying customers.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes, but again, only paying customers please.   Please step aside for the paying customers.

As much as you seem to lust over Canadian issues, apparently you don't keep abreast of the news.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

As much as you seem to lust over Canadian issues, apparently you don't keep abreast of the news.

 

The news is that Canada wants to take five years to hold a replacement strike fighter competition.  

The world yawns....

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The news is that Canada wants to take five years to hold a replacement strike fighter competition.  

The world yawns....

We enjoy that 6 billion Boeing invests here to help them build their planes as well. But if you say the Super Hornets are ready, we'll come pick them up.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

We enjoy that 6 billion Boeing invests here to help them build their planes as well. But if you say the Super Hornets are ready, we'll come pick them up.

 

I don't think so....other paying customers are already in line for theirs.   Go to the back of the line, please.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't think so....other paying customers are already in line for theirs.   Go to the back of the line, please.

At least you finally got it through your head we are paying customers. Sometimes progress is slow.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

At least you finally got it through your head we are paying customers. Sometimes progress is slow.

 

No, you are just at the back of the line.  Not a customer yet.  

No more jumping in the line to take USN/USAF scheduled production like the CC-177s.

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[segnosaur]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

Everything from stealth, the pilot's helmet, internal weapons bays, limited supercrise, advanced sensors, etc.

The stealth has long ago been hacked by the Chinese,

Ah yes, the myth of the magical Chinese Stealth Busting technology. (The same myth also applies to theoretical Russian anti-stealth technology.) You do realize that at this point, there is about as much evidence of Chinese stealth hacking technology available for use as there is of the Loch Ness Monster or the shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

Here are a few things to consider: The U.S. has been working with stealth technology for decades, the chinese for only a few short years. If such magical anti-stealth technology existed, why wouldn't the U.S. have invented it first (having more experience dealing with stealth in the first place)? And if stealth were so easy to defeat, why are the Chinese wasting time and money building their own stealth planes?

The more likely scenario is that the idea of magical anti-stealth technology was a myth created by either the chinese (who want to improve their standing in the world) or opponents of the F35 (who want to discredit it for whatever reason.)

And even if there were (in theory) some sort of anti-stealth technology... It will likely take decades to go from some concept that works in lab to one that would work in the field, and then to be used in weapons, and then to be sold to potential opponents to current JSF users, during with time the stealth functionality will be an asset.

I think it speaks volumes about the opponents of the F35 if they have to result to dragging up such myth.

the helmet will snap your neck if you eject,

As I pointed out, the helmet is an amazing piece of technology. Heck, a pilot can even use it to look through the plane, something that can't be done on any other jet.

As for the ejection seat issue, it was overall a pretty minor issue, and its pretty much been solved. From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/20/f35_ejection_seat_modifications_nearly_done/

Three key modifications are taking place, according to Defense News. A weight-activated switch in the seat will delay parachute deployment if a smaller pilot is sat in the seat, letting it slow down slightly and thus putting less force on the pilot; a head support panel has been fitted to stop the pilot's neck from “over-flexing backwards”; and helmet manufacturers Rockwell Collins are trying to cut down the helmet's weight.

supercruise, correct quite limited

While it doesn't have the supercruise ability of (for example) the F22, it does have more supercruise ability than the F18E/F (i.e. the main competitor to the F35 here in Canada, and the one the Liberals are planning on buying.)

Its such a bizarre line of thought... The F35 can't do something perfectly, so lets go out and buy a plane that can't do something at all.

pilot's can't see out of it

Not sure where that claim is coming from.

First of all, as I have pointed out, the functionality of the helmet allows the pilot to "see" through the plane, giving them abilities they certainly don't have in other fighter jets.

Now, there were some complaints that the pilot's seat was obstructing some of their view. But lets take a look at what a test pilot actually had to say. From: https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

What I initially found to a bit negative in visual combat was the cockpit view, which wasn’t as good as in the F-16....However, It turned out that practice was all it took to improve the situation...The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35.

Now, the F16 does have a remarkably good cockpit view... but it is a rarity, and we are not buying the F16s. The competitors to the F35 are the F18, Eurofighter, Raphael, etc., and it is likely that none of those planes would be as good as the F16 either.

...and the cost overruns now bring it up to a 400 billion project and how many years behind?

Your argument has already been addressed and debunked.

So, your arguments are pretty typical of the F35 opponents... full of myths (the magical chinese stealth busting technology), outdated information (ejector seat issues) and poor thought processes.

We'll continue to help build it, even if we don't buy it,

It is true, the current agreements that we have to build F35 components don't require that we buy the plane. But how long do you think that will continue if we decide never to buy the F35? How long before countries like Denmark or the U.K. go to Locheed Martin and say "why are you giving business to Canada when we are loyal customers and have companies that can also build the components?" Canada may eventually find themselves on the outside.

Now, some may be claiming "Boeing will make up for the loss of contracts", but the future global market for the F18 is perhaps a few dozen planes, whereas its expected that thousands of F35s will be built. So which do you think gives us more opportunity for work? Building parts for a dozen planes or building parts for a thousand planes?

You mean the partners who continuously reduce their orders?

Yes, some countries have reduced the number of F35s they plan to buy.  So what? There's probably not a plane out there that some country hasn't cut back their orders for.

For example, here's a case where Austria has cut back the number of Typhoons they were going to buy. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2675028220070626

Fighter jets are expensive. When there are budget problems, often military purchases are seen as a luxury that can be cut and/or delayed.  Probably the only reason you don't see more cases of countries cutting orders for the F18 E/F is because they have so few orders. The fact is, countries may be reducing their purchases for F35s, but they are still buying them; they've won multiple competitions.

 

[Argus]

On 1/3/2017 at 5:39 AM, Omni said:

 Harper chose to try and ignore the rules. I wonder why?, and look at the black mark it earned him. Perhaps if he would have been honest instead of arrogant.

Trudeau is also ignoring the rules. I wonder why you're clapping like a trained seal at that.

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Omni said:

Oh yes they can. 

Not in the Canadian Military, they can't...

[Smallc]

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

Trudeau is also ignoring the rules. I wonder why you're clapping like a trained seal at that.

Actually, these are the same rules that allowed the Conservatives to lease the Asterix.

[segnosaur]

18 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Actually, these are the same rules that allowed the Conservatives to lease the Asterix.

The rules do allow the government to skip competitions under certain circumstances (e.g. emergency needs, limited vendors, etc.) I suspect that the leasing of the Asterix falls into that category.

The question is whether there is such an emergency need to purchase the F18 Super Hornet as a stop-gap measure. Given the fact that the military said that the current fleet of CF-18s should be viable until at least 2025, AND the fact that our allies were satisfied with the way we had deployed our existing planes until now, then there doesn't appear to have been an emergency,  The view that many have is that the claim of an "emergency need" is just a made-up problem that the Liberals falsely created in order to rig the system to be politically favorable to them.

 

 

[Smallc]

im not necessarily in favour of this purchase.  I am in favour of having enough planes to actually meet our stated obligations, and not just on a flexible basis.  A larger RCAF is not something I'm going to speak against.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Trudeau is also ignoring the rules. I wonder why you're clapping like a trained seal at that.

At least I know what rules Im talking about. Do you?