Where oh where is our Hornet replacement?

[11bee]

39 minutes ago, Ken Cartwright said:

But I can see our Boeing rep is still active. They are apparently treating you well.

 

Wut?  I sold all my BA stock a few months back.  Got zero interest in what Canada picks for a jet.   Personally, if I was the guy in charge, I would realize that Canada will never go to war without the US and as such, I'd just order a dozen refurbished F-5's and call it day.  

 

 

[Ken Cartwright]

14 minutes ago, 11bee said:

 

Wut?  I sold all my BA stock a few months back.  Got zero interest in what Canada picks for a jet.   Personally, if I was the guy in charge, I would realize that Canada will never go to war without the US and as such, I'd just order a dozen refurbished F-5's and call it day.  

 

 

Wow, for someone who has zero interest in what Canada picks, you sure post a lot in a thread about it, and even post something discrediting an F-35 supportive post.  Those checks must be clearing on a regular basis.

[11bee]

21 minutes ago, Ken Cartwright said:

Wow, for someone who has zero interest in what Canada picks, you sure post a lot in a thread about it, and even post something discrediting an F-35 supportive post.  Those checks must be clearing on a regular basis.

My bad.  I forgot that this thread was limited to F-35 fan boyz.   BTW - out of a 12 page thread, a scant 8 posts are mine (and one of those was restricted to my thoughts on government subsidized child care).  Not sure I'd call that "a lot" but I appreciate your thoughts regardless.  Let's let the two guys who have provided 70% of the content on this thread get back to work without distraction.    All that being said, to atone for my transgressions, please enjoy the following kewl picture:

 

   

Edited January 9, 2017 by 11bee

[Ken Cartwright]

46 minutes ago, 11bee said:

My bad.  I forgot that this thread was limited to F-35 fan boyz.   BTW - out of a 12 page thread, a scant 8 posts are mine (and one of those was restricted to my thoughts on government subsidized child care).  Not sure I'd call that "a lot" but I appreciate your thoughts regardless.  Let's let the two guys who have provided 70% of the content on this thread get back to work without distraction.    All that being said, to atone for my transgressions, please enjoy the following kewl picture:

 

   

OK, my original response to you was to show you how silly it is to say someone is a company shill just because of their views of an aircraft - I never actually assumed you were a Boeing rep, and your replies show how stating something like that is not appreciated by the recipient. 

 

Now you've gone on and made a straw-man argument - I never suggested this thread for fan-boys only, just that someone who has said they have no interest was posting a lot.  And since you brought up the numbers, I counted, and I saw 11 posts from you, not counting your replies to me.  You averaged about 1 per page, which again, I think is a lot for something you don't care at all about.  And you seem get upset when someone voices an opinion you don't like about it and feel the need to reply.  Again, something I wouldn't expect from someone who doesn't care at all.

 

I don't care what your views on the F-35 -- or any aircraft -- are, I would just like to think someone could state their views without being directly insulted for them.

[Alvis 3.1]

Ahem.
Gentlemen, there is NO fighting in the war room!!!!
Please return to rational, non-political discussions of the CF-188 replacement aircraft, thank you.

 

 

Al P
ARC Moderation Team Shill Bucks Recipient

[Emvar]

Tax payer Emvar favours F-35 but model builder Emvar is intrigued with F-18 E/F/G. 

 

 

[Ken Cartwright]

I have to admit that I like the look of the 4th gen jets better than 5th gen, for the most part.  To me, the F-16 is about as good as it gets, but that's probably also partly nostalgia.  Underwing stores are also more interesting to build.

[Alvis 3.1]

I think Ken revealed what it is about the F-35 that I like the most: Lack of external stores! I'm a lazy modeller, and hate making bombs n pylons n tanks n stuff.
Now I get it!
:)

Alvis 3.1

[phantom]

8 hours ago, Emvar said:

Tax payer Emvar favours F-35 but model builder Emvar is intrigued with F-18 E/F/G. 

 

 

This, this is how I feel as well.

[Scooby]

22 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

Wut?  I sold all my BA stock a few months back.  Got zero interest in what Canada picks for a jet.   Personally, if I was the guy in charge, I would realize that Canada will never go to war without the US and as such, I'd just order a dozen refurbished F-5's and call it day.  

 

 

 

It's posts like this as a Canadian Veteran that I find very offensive. Don't downplay the contributions that Canadians have made on the world scene, we are not often supported by our political leaders. We have a small population but contribute in a large and effective way. Vimy, Juno, Gulf War, Balkans, and Afghanistan to name a few.

[TaiidanTomcat]

23 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

   Personally, if I was the guy in charge, I would realize that Canada will never go to war without the US and as such, I'd just order a dozen refurbished F-5's and call it day.  

 

 

 

[cf18hornet]

4 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

It's posts like this as a Canadian Veteran that I find very offensive. Don't downplay the contributions that Canadians have made on the world scene, we are not often supported by our political leaders. We have a small population but contribute in a large and effective way. Vimy, Juno, Gulf War, Balkans, and Afghanistan to name a few.

 

Also as a Canadian, albeit not a veteran, I also found 11bee's remark to be very offensive as well. I was thinking of responding to his comment but I wouldn't have been able to post a reply that wouldn't have been censored by the mods. Thank you Scooby for this response to his comments. There was no way I could have said it any better than you did. As small a population Canada has I feel we as a country have made giant contributions for the better of the world over the last 100+ years and I know Canada will continue to do so.

 

BTW Scooby. Thank you for your service. It doesn't go unnoticed or without appreciation. 

 

Mark

[Scooby]

20 hours ago, cf18hornet said:

 

Also as a Canadian, albeit not a veteran, I also found 11bee's remark to be very offensive as well. I was thinking of responding to his comment but I wouldn't have been able to post a reply that wouldn't have been censored by the mods. Thank you Scooby for this response to his comments. There was no way I could have said it any better than you did. As small a population Canada has I feel we as a country have made giant contributions for the better of the world over the last 100+ years and I know Canada will continue to do so.

 

BTW Scooby. Thank you for your service. It doesn't go unnoticed or without appreciation. 

 

Mark

 

Ironically this isn't the first time he has made such a post suggesting we ride the coat-tails of another country.

[Don]

For those interested:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-super-hornets-1.3956306

 

[Raceaddict]

Wow... 10% saved by buying jets that first entered service 18 years ago. Definitely need to jump on that deal.

[Gordon Shumway]

Yep I read the CBC article too and all I can say here without being called out as too political is,  with a deep breath exhale of Uhaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!

[phantom]

Yeah, its sounding like paying a lot more money for a lot less aircraft.

[MacStingy]

This whole thing is so frustrating. It's like watching someone who is a poor driver try to parallel park.

[Don]

It is rather comical...

Notice ^^^ the creek...what was the name of that creek we're heading up without a paddle again...?

 

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Don

[TaiidanTomcat]

22 hours ago, Don said:

For those interested:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-super-hornets-1.3956306

 

 

 

This article actually seemed to tackle in a straightforward way the costs and cost differences, Thank you! However, I still don't understand:

 

 

 

Quote

 

A cost breakdown of the Super Hornets is provided in U.S. Department of Defence estimates:

• The base price for a Super Hornet, according to U.S. Department of Defence 2015 budget estimates, was $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.
• On top of that, there is what's known as government-furnished equipment, which can be anything from engines to radar and other electronics, depending on what the air force says it needs. That could add $26.2 million ($20 million US) per fighter — although those fees can sometimes be negotiated.
• Washington also levies what is known as a foreign military sales charge of about 3.5 per cent, but other costs for research and development could boost U.S. service charges to as high 11 per cent, according to Pentagon records.

"What an airplane costs depends upon configuration, timing of deliveries and quantities. The U.S. government documents are a good reflection," said Boeing's Gillian.

That all means the final cost of each individual Super Hornet could range from $115 million ($88 million US) to $123 million ($94 million US), bringing a total purchase price of between $1.9 billion ($1.5 billion US) and $2.1 billion ($1.6 billion US) for 18 jets.

 

 

That still is excluding some support costs I believe because BASE+GOV Furnished = Flyaway. The flyaway cost for a USN super bug last year was $US 78 million. So this still not showing all the costs. The KPMG report for Canada put the F-35 flyaway cost at $88 million flyaway for the majority of F-35s (keeping in mind however this would be post 2019, whereas this deal for super bugs is current with delivery for 2019.) So maybe even 10 percent is being generous but I need more information. 

 

Boeing for far too long has been "forgetting" to include the GFE in the price... which helps contribute to false notions over the year. Throw 10 million dollars woth of engines (not counting spares) and watch what happens to the price. Canada is finally going to get a real look and discover "hey eh! aboot that cost on the F-35..."

 

read the first comment and was satisfied. 

 

 

21 hours ago, Raceaddict said:

Wow... 10% saved by buying jets that first entered service 18 years ago. Definitely need to jump on that deal.

 

 

 

yup!

 

You need to also remember the "savings" when you consider the F-35 is between 4-10 times more effective than legacy aircraft, and of course that the life of the Super bug is rated for 6,000 hours, vs the F-35s, 8,000 hours. 

 

Oh well, buy "cheap" buy twice. 

 

but wait! there is more:

 

 

As for what caused such a heinous incident that resulted in a three-day long temporary stand-down of the entire Growler and Super Hornet communities, that remains under investigation, but at least one possible culprit has been identified. The cold weather combined with the spraying down of the aircraft before the mission has been identified by engineers as possibly having at least a partial hand in the overpressurization and the explosion of the canopy that followed. Mitigation measures have since been put into place so that these combined factors won’t present themselves again, and thus invite another mishap. New procedures have also been initiated for ground crews so that they can quickly identify and correct the issue if it occurs again. It is also reported that the aircrew were troubleshooting environmental control system issues at the time the event occurred, which is unsurprising considering the outcome, and some sources have mentioned a valve system that is meant to relieve pressure under such circumstances had failed, although this is not official at this time.   The Hornet fleet, Growler included, has been plagued with issues surrounding its environmental systems. The Super Hornet’s issues are supposedly related to its onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS) that supplies air to the aircraft’s crew. The legacy Hornet’s issues, which have been less severe, are thought to be due to the jet’s cabin pressure system as it does not have an OBOGS and uses liquid oxygen instead. Between May 2010 and October 2015 there had been 297 documented physiological incidents of all types on Hornets, but most have to do with hypoxia (the lack of oxygen to the brain and its debilitating effects) or a total and sudden loss of airflow to the aircrew. None of the incidents involved a death or a crash of any sort, but still the problem is well known within the Hornet community. Although the Navy has been trying to fix the problems for years, and has put all types of measures in place to lessen its effects, its direct cause, or causes, remains a mystery. A report on the issue is due from the Navy on December 1st on this year.   At this time there is no known evidence that ties the incident at Whidbey Island last month to past Hornet and Super Hornet’s environmental control system woes. Additionally, no similar occurrences have been noted in over 15 years of operational flying of Super Hornets and Growlers, and over 35 years of legacy Hornet operations. Still, even if there was a direct tie, it is very doubtful the Navy could keep the jets from flying as a solution was figured out they make up the entirety of the service’s tactical fighter capabilities. Even the prolonged grounding of just the Super Hornet and Growler communities would be catosphic as far as the Navy’s combat punch is concerned.

 

http://hrana.org/articles/2017/01/ea-18g-growler-crew-saved-by-portland-based-pjs-after-canopy-explosion/

 

 

worth reading the whole things for the heriocs

Edited February 1, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

DOT&E does not expect test results from SCS H10E FOT&E to alter the previous assessment made in F/A-18E/F and EA-18G reports regarding key deficiencies in operational performance. While both systems remain operationally effective in some threat environments, DOT&E has noted in classified reports that both systems remain not effective in the more stressful current air warfare environments. Though the Navy has begun to address long-standing deficiencies in air warfare by making incremental improvements in capability during recent FOT&E periods, DOT&E is unlikely to change this finding until deficiencies are resolved.

DOT&E FY15 report

The Navy has begun to address long-standing deficiencies in air warfare during H8E. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapons system is operationally effective and suitable for some threat environments. However, as noted in previous DOT&E classified reports, there are current, more stressing threat environments in which the F/A-18 remains not operationally effective.

DOT&E FY14 report

The Navy did not attempt to address long-standing defi ciencies in air warfare or AESA radar reliability with SCS H8E. Overall, the F/A-18E/F/G is not operationally effective for use in certain threat environments, the details of which are addressed in DOT&E’s classifi ed report issued following SCS H6E, SCS 23X, and AESA FOT&E.

DOT&E FY13 report

Overall, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system is operationally effective and suitable for most threat environments. However, the platform is not operationally effective for use in certain threat environments, the details of which are addressed in DOT&E’s classified report.

DOT&E FY12 report
 

 

Remember too that the DOT&E does not just test the F-35... 

[Slo-pine]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-admit-interim-super-hornet-jets-may-only-fly-for-12-years-despite-costing-billions

[Don]

1 hour ago, Slo-pine said:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-admit-interim-super-hornet-jets-may-only-fly-for-12-years-despite-costing-billions

I just don't think I can read anymore articles on this topic...

 

...it honestly hurts the head.

[Gordon Shumway]

3 hours ago, Don said:

I just don't think I can read anymore articles on this topic...

 

...it honestly hurts the head.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........ I agree with you 100%  and  Big league....Big league. The RCAF can probably have at minimum 65 F-35A  in service by 2020-2021 I'd bet.   Jeebus, help us, BIG LEAGUE!

[MacStingy]

Article says between 5 and 7 billion. Pfft...what's a billion here or there? Why is this kind of information buried and not picked up by the media on a wider basis? This kind of extravagant waste should be accountable. Don't mind the smoke coming out of my ears.

Edited February 4, 2017 by MacStingy