Gordon Shumway Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Sugar coat as you want, but backing yourself and the nation into a corner is negligent at best (at best!). If you don't have the answers or a clear picture then you at least leave the door open. That's just bloody street smarts. "Selfie" didn't do that whatsoever and now people (media?) are covering for him and who may pay the inevitable price? The RCAF and the Canadian tax payer. There's no denying this, he and his cronies left themselves no options. That's on them 100%! YEP. His dad was at least smart enough to hold a full on fair competition to replace our then CF-101/CF-104 aircraft. I was a kid/teen during the "NFA" of the late 70's early 80's. I followed it pretty close, I wrote all the manufactures and they all kindly sent me media kits, brochures and photos, of the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and Tornado. I really tried to follow the process then. Yes, there was politicking but as far as I was concerned back then, it was full on fair competition. PM "Sunny Ways" should have not backed himself into a political corner on this one. Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Semi-related, sounds like regardless of how this plays out, Boeing is admitting that within a few years, they will be out of the tactical jet business. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/boeing-looks-beyond-fighters--wsj-20160611-00008 Execs are excited about transitioning from building jets to maintenance and overhaul work instead. I'm sure the thousands of workers in St. Louis are equally excited. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Semi-related, sounds like regardless of how this plays out, Boeing is admitting that within a few years, they will be out of the tactical jet business. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/boeing-looks-beyond-fighters--wsj-20160611-00008 Execs are excited about transitioning from building jets to maintenance and overhaul work instead. I'm sure the thousands of workers in St. Louis are equally excited. Again the timing could not be more perfect. This is basically admitting the obvious. Boeing has also "matured" their Advanced Super Hornet concept into a more watered down variant that is meant to work with the F-35 rather than attempt to compete with it. Edited June 11, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 So in essence if a nation buys the SH they do so knowing full well that the jet won't be produced much longer and the company that did build it is probably getting out of the fighter jet business altogether. Doesn't sound particularly appealing... Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) OTTAWA — The Liberal government is brushing off threats from Lockheed Martin that the U.S. aerospace giant could take billions of dollars worth of work elsewhere if Canada doesn’t buy its F-35 stealth fighter. Lockheed says it is studying whether to block Canadian companies from competing for future contracts associated with the F-35, which could total billions of dollars. The government, however, says whatever decision it makes on a new fighter jet will result in “very significant benefits” to Canada. The exchange comes after Postmedia reported the government plans to buy a new jet fighter soon. The Liberals say no decision has been made, but it is believed they will purchase a small number of Super Hornets from Lockheed’s rival, Boeing Co., on an “interim” basis to avoid a competition. National Post "Very significant" based on.... compared to....? "Avoid a competition" lol sweet irony Edited June 11, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 This will be interesting to see...... they've paid into be apart of the consortium......yet they are looking at a temporary bridge. The only thing I can see is leasing enough SH aircraft and then purchasing the F-35. Junior will eat crow......but it will be the same as when they bought the CH-149 under Chretien. Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 So in essence if a nation buys the SH they do so knowing full well that the jet won't be produced much longer and the company that did build it is probably getting out of the fighter jet business altogether. Doesn't sound particularly appealing... Boeing actually announced earlier this year that if Canada were to hold a competition their production line would be shut down by the time the winner was declared. I'm sure someone will find a link to that story. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Boeing actually announced earlier this year that if Canada were to hold a competition their production line would be shut down by the time the winner was declared. I'm sure someone will find a link to that story. What a crazy coincidence thay suddenly they need to be obtained without a competition now. What are the odds? And right after the Danes announced they weren't interested in them further curtailing the lines longevity Edited June 11, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) The more you look at it, the more you read about it, and the more you start seeing the evidence piling up the more this whole thing really stinks and reeks of a complete boondoggle and incompetence. Talk about Boeing putting a gun to Juniors and the Canadian tax payers head! Its like those infomercials..."BUY THEM NOW BEFORE THEY'RE GONE!! LOOK AT THE CLOCK WINDING DOWN IN THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN...BUY BUY BUY". Canadians should be both highly irritated/angry and more then a little worried. Edited June 11, 2016 by Don Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Has anyone has discussed the option of having 2 fighter aircraft. Perhaps some F-35's as the tip of the spear and some new 4th generation jets to do the day to day peacetime missions (interception Bears etc). Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Has anyone has discussed the option of having 2 fighter aircraft. Perhaps some F-35's as the tip of the spear and some new 4th generation jets to do the day to day peacetime missions (interception Bears etc). The cost of a mixed fleet costs more than it saves. I linked to a canaDian study earlier in the thread. That's why this is seen as a major move. Canada could do a mixed fleet, but it was cost more and has been previously declined. But we are entering surreal land so anything is possible Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 The cost of a mixed fleet costs more than it saves. I linked to a canaDian study earlier in the thread. That's why this is seen as a major move. Canada could do a mixed fleet, but it was cost more and has been previously declined. But we are entering surreal land so anything is possible I would have thought 30 F-35's and 80 4th Gen jets would be cheaper than 110 F-35's? Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Maybe, but Canada was only looking at 65 F-35s . Even with the Conservatives. Also we are down to under 70 CF-18s now. Less as time goes on. Maybe 60 in a couple years. Edited June 11, 2016 by phantom Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Sugar coat as you want, but backing yourself and the nation into a corner is negligent at best (at best!). If you don't have the answers or a clear picture then you at least leave the door open. That's just bloody street smarts. Wait, are we talking about Trudeau ? or Trump ??? Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Wait, are we talking about Trudeau ? or Trump ??? Well its a thread about Canadian Cf-18 replacements so.... ;) But yes, there are no shortage of stupid and/or unqualified and shady/criminal politicians on all sides. Edited June 11, 2016 by Don Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I would have thought 30 F-35's and 80 4th Gen jets would be cheaper than 110 F-35's? Definitely not. the ANAO also determined that when all was said and done Australia paid more for its super bugs than F-35s. It's the dual upkeep that really kills. Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 So in essence if a nation buys the SH they do so knowing full well that the jet won't be produced much longer and the company that did build it is probably getting out of the fighter jet business altogether. Doesn't sound particularly appealing... Not exactly, they are shifting their focus to supporting SH rather than building it. There are still lots more dollars to be made from SH, so buyers will definitely not be left with an unsupported aircraft as you are suggesting. Besides the majority of profits on A/c are made AFTER the sale not the sale itself. I do think Boeing is being short cited in giving up on competing for any new fighter production. After the F-18 F15 are retired they will have nothing left and all corporate knowledge will be lost forever. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Not exactly, they are shifting their focus to supporting SH rather than building it. There are still lots more dollars to be made from SH, so buyers will definitely not be left with an unsupported aircraft as you are suggesting. Besides the majority of profits on A/c are made AFTER the sale not the sale itself. I do think Boeing is being short cited in giving up on competing for any new fighter production. After the F-18 F15 are retired they will have nothing left and all corporate knowledge will be lost forever. I wonder how much has already left? How many of the originals that designed the teens and X-32 are still kicking around? After 2040 what little support there will be will be expensive. We can keep things flying for a very long time providing you have a checkbook. When the USN let's go of the super bug, upgrades and support will skyrocket, and it would be unaffordable for Canada. The latest CF-18 upgrade was thanks to the US Marines continuing to fund upgrades so canada could hop on and have what they were having. If the USMC hadn't done that, canada funding on its own would be too expensive, so the upgrade would not happen The CF-18s almost got sent home from Kosovo because they didn't have the latest encryption on their Comm. Systems. Luckily everyone just transmitted Unencrypted to keep them going but without that, they would have never been included. It's really important that canada stay interoperable, and this time there won't be US Marines around to piggy back off of. The Aussies are going to retire their bugs I'm guessing in the 2030s some have said even earlier. One of the big attractions to the RCAF is that the F-35 is going to be heavily supported and upgraded for a very long time. There are 2 super hornet operators out there. Both also sprung for Growlers, and both are purchasing F-35s too. Hinty-hint-hint I dont know what canada does if they buy a 12-24 pack of super hornets. They go OOP and now canada still must replace dozens of other aircraft. Maybe it will be an "interem" order or 80, just to get by PS if the F-35 was terrible wouldn't JT want it so it couldn't be used? lol Edited June 11, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Not exactly, they are shifting their focus to supporting SH rather than building it. There are still lots more dollars to be made from SH, so buyers will definitely not be left with an unsupported aircraft as you are suggesting. Besides the majority of profits on A/c are made AFTER the sale not the sale itself. I do think Boeing is being short cited in giving up on competing for any new fighter production. After the F-18 F15 are retired they will have nothing left and all corporate knowledge will be lost forever. I just have to wonder how robust the SH support network will be down the road when the majority of the USN fleet is gone? I haven't read of any firm plans to SLEP the earlier blocks that are starting to run low on traps and hours. I know the Navy hasn't been the most enthusiastic supporter of the JSF but when the time comes, are they going to spend billions to rebuild all those early SH's or elect to put the money into new F-35C's? Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I would have thought 30 F-35's and 80 4th Gen jets would be cheaper than 110 F-35's? No, its more expensive to purchase, and to operate: right now the F-35 is the lowest cost tactical fighter on the market... Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Unless something changes drastically, the Navy is not giving up the SH anytime soon. Growler will be around even longer (Read:parts commonality with SH). The proposed FY18 SH buy is meant to replace early lot SH that prematurely reached end of life. Legacy was never meant to fly past 6000 hours but look what's being done now...full center barrel replacements. Legacy SLEP/SLAP has grown far beyond what anyone ever planned, so never say never. Let me remind you that all of this was made possible by massive delays in JSF and unplanned operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (I'm sure that won't happen again! :eyerolls: ) Edited June 11, 2016 by graves_09 Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Has anyone has discussed the option of having 2 fighter aircraft. Perhaps some F-35's as the tip of the spear and some new 4th generation jets to do the day to day peacetime missions (interception Bears etc). Yes, it has been discussed (and I see you have been replied to). But if we were to have two fleets you have your thinking reversed. The F-35 is a deterrent against our biggest threat, the Russians. When a Bear is intercepted you want the Bear crew reporting they had no idea they were being intercepted, You'd use the lower tech stuff versus the cavemen in the desert. Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Definitely not. the ANAO also determined that when all was said and done Australia paid more for its super bugs than F-35s. It's the dual upkeep that really kills. Comparing cost estimates of a proven platform with 15+ years operation experience vs. a platform still in DT is comparing apples to oranges. Not saying it's wrong, just far more unknowns and variables in the F-35 life cycle cost analysis than one for the SH. Based on LM'S history of overly optimistic JSF cost estimates, I'd take that ANAO study with a LARGE grain of salt. Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Unless something changes drastically, the Navy is not giving up the SH anytime soon. Growler will be around even longer (Read:parts commonality with SH). The proposed FY18 SH buy is meant to replace early lot SH that prematurely reached end of life. Legacy was never meant to fly past 6000 hours but look what's being done now...full center barrel replacements. Legacy SLEP/SLAP has grown far beyond what anyone ever planned, so never say never. Let me remind you that all of this was made possible by massive delays in JSF and unplanned operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (I'm sure that won't happen again! That may be all fine and dandy for the USN but honestly how does that really help Canada? Canada has a limited budget and it needs to be assured...no "ifs", "ands", or "buts"...that if they purchase the SH in the next year or so (an AC that Boeing itself has admitted to having its production line closed anytime in the next couple years... or sooner) will be adequately supported throughout the service lifetime Canada requires. Canada gets A LOT of mileage out of its AC so we are talking a minimum of 2045 and likely beyond. Sounds like a HUGE gamble to me when far newer AC are available that will be in production for years to come and therefore adequately and more easily supported. And in all likelihood cheaper to support too. Edited June 11, 2016 by Don Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 You all never know....LM might just find an interm measure to bridge the gap. Just think F-16s in the mix..... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts