F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[jmt18325]

ASH - Not FOC
Gripen NG - Not FOC
F-35 - Not FOC

And none of those would be up for consideration, as a result.

You still don't understand what IOC and FOC mean. IOC in one country could be FOC in another, or at least a lot closer.

The F-35 is not fully operational.  Even at IOC it's not funny operational.  It will not be fully combat capable for another 6 years, according to some estimates.

It'll be a great aircraft.  It's not ready yet.

 

[Loachman]

It'll be a great aircraft.  It's not ready yet.

So you're saying the same thing about our Chinooks, then, right?

 

[PuckChaser]

The F-35 is not fully operational.  Even at IOC it's not funny operational.  It will not be fully combat capable for another 6 years, according to some estimates.

You don't get it at all. Our procurement cycle in 6 years will barely be signing ink to a contract to purchase. We'd be buying a full combat capable aircraft, likely with combat deployments under its belt in 2022 (those 6 years). Procurement isn't about not being able to see beyond your nose, you have to look out and buy things that are relevant in 20 years.

 

[jmt18325]

So you're saying the same thing about our Chinooks, then, right?

There are similar Chinooks operating around the world, but I would argue that we made a mistake with too much customization, as we do on so many projects

 

[jmt18325]

You don't get it at all. Our procurement cycle in 6 years will barely be signing ink to a contract to purchase. We'd be buying a full combat capable aircraft, likely with combat deployments under its belt in 2022 (those 6 years). Procurement isn't about not being able to see beyond your nose, you have to look out and buy things that are relevant in 20 years.

And it might be that we are able to wait for the F-35.  It might not be.  I don't personally know all the details.

What I do know, is that our most successful procurements of late have involved what are basically off the shelf designs.  Other procurements, haven't gone so well.

 

[Altair]

He should have just campaigned on not sole-sourcing it.  That way he could have kept his options open.

By promising to exclude the F-35 from our selection, he effectively took his own options off the table.  If he had simply said "We won't sole-source the F-35, but will instead hold a competition to select the best possible aircraft for Canadians" - he'd have a lot more wiggle room.

Not only that be they have more or less said they are buying American while excluding the f35 with leaves the super hornet.

Unfortunate. Exclude the f35 if you want, politics and whatnot, but to exclude the European plans is really handcuffing yourself.

 

[PuckChaser]

They could go even older. Not sure on the status of the F-15/F-16 production lines.

 

[jmt18325]

They could go even older. Not sure on the status of the F-15/F-16 production lines.

The F-16V is a definite possibility is price and quantity are factors.

 

[Loachman]

I would argue that we made a mistake with too much customization

Why would you argue that?

What's wrong with them, in your expert opinion?

 

[Journeyman]

..... in your expert opinion?

You're just being cruel now.  ;D

 

[Loachman]

I don't personally know all the details.

Understatement.

What I do know, is that our most successful procurements of late have involved what are basically off the shelf designs.

Which were all in development at one point, and were loudly criticized by "experts" for "fatal flaws" during those periods. The shortcomings discovered during those developmental periods were all overcome.

The same thing will happen/is happening with F35.

Only two uniquely Canadian-driven projects that have given grief come to mind: CH148 and boots (well, the latter is actually several projects).

 

[Good2Golf]

There are similar Chinooks operating around the world, but I would argue that we made a mistake with too much customization, as we do on so many projects.

jmt, like others, I would be very interested to know which Canadian-specifics we should not have added? ???

Regards
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

I don't know that the equipment we added was detrimental (I doubt it is) - simply that it increased the delivery timeline over what we would have expected otherwise.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't know that the equipment we added was detrimental (I doubt it is) - simply that it increased the delivery timeline over what we would have expected otherwise.

How so?  ???

The first aircraft was delivered to us 35 months into a 36 month target date and systems integration and flight testing commenced ahead of the contracted timelines.  Fully met and exceeded expectations.  As did first delivery of the operational aircraft (47 months vice the 48 contracted) and delivery of the last aircraft at 59 months after contract award (vice 60 required).  Heck, that's 3 for 3 major timeline targets met or delivered early.

I see nothing that supports your position that the inclusion of Canadian-specific modifications delayed delivery of the aircraft.

Are you saying we should have removed the specific capabilities necessary to operate in Canada such as extended-range fuel tanks, improved electrical systems and improved self-defence suite in order to deliver the aircraft even earlier than expected (even though the aircraft would not be nearly as employable or supportable)?  ???

This sounds entirely like uneducated conjecture on your part.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

Somebody should really stop digging his hole deeper.

 

[Journeyman]

Somebody should really stop digging his hole deeper.

But we know he won't.  :facepalm:

Even on this site, where sometimes there's...piling on certain posters, I don't think I've ever seen so many qualified, experienced, knowledgeable people tell one person repeatedly  that he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.  And yet like the energizer bunny of 'rectal pluckage,' [a term this one person  has caused to be created] he goes on and on and on.
        :

 

[tomahawk6]

Not an aviator nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn,but with regard to modding aircraft in my limited experience its all based on the mission.Some missions you add external fuel tanks.Other missions may not require that.Special operations ac have enhanced capabilities that arent necessary if you are flying a gun section around the battlefield.Today the catch phrase is modular.Right tool for the right job.

 

[Altair]

But we know he won't.  :facepalm:

Even on this site, where sometimes there's...piling on certain posters, I don't think I've ever seen so many qualified, experienced, knowledgeable people tell one person repeatedly  that he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.  And yet like the energizer bunny of 'rectal pluckage,' [a term this one person  has caused to be created] he goes on and on and on.
        :

kilo?

 

[jmt18325]

How so?  ???

The first aircraft was delivered to us 35 months into a 36 month target date and systems integration and flight testing commenced ahead of the contracted timelines.  Fully met and exceeded expectations.

Then I stand corrected.  I was under the impression that the contract timeline wasn't able to be followed.  Perhaps it was that the aircraft contract timeline would have been shorter, had it not been modified.  There was a great deal of criticism of the original 3 year timeline, if I recall.  Again, if not, I stand corrected.

 

[PuckChaser]

We're making money on some of those modifications, because they were so useful.