Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal Platforms on the Military

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I notice you convinently ignore the $250m price for Japan. OK, sure the US will sell it for its marginal cost to nice Canada... and sure Canada would love to have a plane that requires 30 hours maintenance for each hour in the sky...
    And you have ignored...

    Ready:
    F-101 Voodoo, Bomarc, F-5, A-4 Skyhawk (Israel), F-15 & F-16 (Israel), Apache Helicopter (Britain), F-18A (Canada). Is that enough or do I need to go into my notes?
    I have highlighted the key word in this quote...projected...a fancy way of saying estimated.
    Built by the same people that build the F-35! How is this helping your argument?
    One you must really hate:
    Which is why I stand by what I have repeatedly said, here in post 162:
    Quote:
    But hey if we had clear mission requirements and an open competition on performance/mission compatibility/contract costs that was all public and transparent we may have real numbers and an aircraft that can actually meet the needs of the DND for the next 25years by which time we can start the whole disaster over again.
    In short you ignore anything that goes against your premise that it's the right aircraft and that the PC government in power is right.

    Facts are I tend to vote PC, but I am not afraid to call them out when they are wrong and this time they are IMO.

    Once again instead of selecting the right mix of equipment they are doing the NFA all over again with a political cheap skate decision to try and use one piece of equipment to do multiple jobs

    When in fact they need to define the mission profiles that need to be filled and get the right equipment for each.
    You want a mud mover...get a mud mover
    Want an long range interceptor...get a long range interceptor
    Want an air superiority fighter...get an air superiority fighter

    Next they will want that mud moving, long range interceptor, air superiority fighter to also be a tactical and strategic transport (Hercules/C-17)

    Get the right tools for the jobs

    There is an USAF old joke:
    Politician keep cutting budgets and trying to be multi purpose, so they get fewer and fewer aircraft to do more and more jobs.

    Soon they will have only "ONE" airplane to do everything
    USAF gets it Monday-Wednesday-Friday
    Navy gets it Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday
    Marines get it Sunday

    Comment


    • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
      ^I notice you convinently ignore the $250m price for Japan. OK, sure the US will sell it for its marginal cost to nice Canada... and sure Canada would love to have a plane that requires 30 hours maintenance for each hour in the sky...

      But heck, lets take your word on what plane meets DND needs over this "fool":

      “The F-35 Lightning II is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf,” says Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Commander of Air Command.

      “Given the increasingly complex and uncertain future security environment, the F-35 Lightning II will provide Canada with the greatest probability of mission success and the greatest probability that our men and women will survive and return safely from their missions.
      http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/...ng.asp?id=1396
      Actually had the pleasure of meeting him...nice guy, well spoken, diplomatic and very astute politically.

      You do realize he holds a position granted by the minister of defense?
      You do realize it is a highly political position?

      You do realize the whole F-35 issue is a highly politically charged decision that if there is any resistance by the military (IMO) the budget will likely disappear?

      You actually think I believe you are that naive?

      Comment


      • ^^OK:

        On my coment that none are sold for marginal cost while they were state of the art to Canada, I stand by it. All of those aircraft were well into lifecycle, I provided a source that US would sell F22 for $250m, you have not provided any source for what they would export a plane that cost them more than $300m to develop, for.

        On Lockheed also being the F22 producer, that is an advantage. They learned from the mistakes of F22, F35 has been designed as lower cost to maintain from the outset. Has the program been perfect? No. Is any military program? No.

        On the open competition, aside from the fact that all international participants paid for one between Boeing and Lockheed, this is one of the reasons why we aren't doing another competiton:

        While Burbage recently told Parliament’s defence committee Lockheed Martin envisioned $9.5 billion in work for Canadian aerospace companies as part of the global supply chain for the F-35, on Tuesday Burbage said even more work will flow north to Canada.

        And Lockheed Martin’s estimates don’t even include maintenance of the aircraft over its lifespan, which Burbage said will be done almost exclusively by Canadian firms and could total more than $7 billion.

        “As the program has become more predictable, and more opportunities have actually been awarded, the total value of the Canadian program has actually gone up,” Burbage said. “Our projections are we will exceed the plan that we projected in the past.”
        Canada, as well as eight partner nations, is committed to providing our men and women in uniform the best equipment to take on the challenges of the 21st century,” wrote Defence Minister Peter MacKay in an e-mail Tuesday, adding the government’s figures have always been “consistent.”

        “Our government’s commitment to procure 65 F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft as well as spares, infrastructure, weapons and simulators for $9 billion provides almost $12 billion worth of industrial benefits for Canadian industry.
        http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/24...ed-martin-exec

        But heck, why care about Canadian jobs producing for over a 1,000 of aircraft, when they could just work on 60, right?
        Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 05:29 PM.

        Comment


        • As to maintenance

          Check some comparables before complaining about 30hrs to 1flight hr, rather than quoting a link.

          IIRC the Abrams Tank is about that and the Apache Helicopter is much higher

          Comment


          • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
            ^^OK:

            On my coment that none are sold for marginal cost while they were state of the art to Canada, I stand by it.
            I'm shocked...they were all state of the art when sold to other nations

            On Lockheed also being the F22 producer, that is an advantage. They learned from the mistakes of F22, F35 has been designed as lower cost to maintain from the outset. Has the program been perfect? No. Is any military program? No.
            So what new mistakes are they coming up with?

            My quote from an above post with reference to your link:
            So lets take a look the highest development risks
            1) Software.....this deep into the game and not solved? That's a big worry
            2) Pilot controls...oh come on, really...think it's tied to the soft ware issue?
            3) V/STOL landing weight...who cares doesn't apply to us
            4) Helmet mounted displays...these have been around a decade in highly advanced form, now there is an issue?

            Then there's the engine issue

            and so much for the less expensive to operate.
            Which is why I repeatedly state:
            Which is why I stand by what I have repeatedly said, here in post 162:
            Quote:
            But hey if we had clear mission requirements and an open competition on performance/mission compatibility/contract costs that was all public and transparent we may have real numbers and an aircraft that can actually meet the needs of the DND for the next 25years by which time we can start the whole disaster over again.
            As to economic benefit, from post 143 which apparently you chose to ignore in bringing your latest argument.
            We will lose the economic spin offs...yeah right same company, they will be happy to accommodate the same deal as they have done in past dealings, likely a little better as development costs on the F-22 have already been recovered thru the American programs.
            So now that we have gone full circle at least twice in one afternoon I truly regret stepping back into this discussion...it's HSR/DT 2.0

            but hey I gave things a 2nd chance...bye
            Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 27-05-2011, 05:32 PM. Reason: additioinal information...bye

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
              but hey I gave things a 2nd chance...bye
              Yeah I know Tom, it was a really credible coment of yours that we could buy F22's for $130 odd million based on US marginal cost with no R&D payback for the US, when I provided an actual source that is relevant that shows Japan can't even buy them for $250m, your 2nd chance is gone too.

              At least I admit when I am wrong (like on the annual maintenance cost of F35).
              Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 05:37 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                At least I admit when I am wrong
                Hahahahhahahahahaha!

                Comment

                Working...
                X