The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,744
- Points
- 1,160
We're not talking about that. You said it was impossible to buy something that fast, someone gave you an example where you were incorrect. You said it wasn't the same dollar amount. Proven wrong again because over $100K the policies for contracting are all the same.
- Reaction score
- 7,675
- Points
- 1,160
If it is permitted to happen that fast, and it has happened that fast then anything slower than that fast is a result of inefficiencies in the system - inefficiencies that the system has demonstrated do not have to be there.
Apparently best is subjective - there is military best, bureaucratic best, commercial best and political best.
Apparently best is subjective - there is military best, bureaucratic best, commercial best and political best.
- Reaction score
- 19,441
- Points
- 1,360
jmt18325 said:
It explains sequencing and replacement in phases, and why they (must) keep older while they get newer in many steps, unlike how smaller fleet operators like Canada have done things in the past with single-phase procurement...except the C-17 program, of course.
- Reaction score
- 3,744
- Points
- 1,160
Because the US is capable of procuring aircraft to anticipate losses and keep a 10% spares pool, while we order one shot and as things become BER we end up with less and less.
- Reaction score
- 19,441
- Points
- 1,360
jmt18325 said:
No, it would be like Canada having bought 32 more original CF-188's in the mid-80s a few years after the purchase of the original 138 in 1982...but more to the point, was in giving an example to your question as to when did Canada more recently execute a procurement in a very short period.
If you insist on ignoring the basis of answers to the very questions you posed, you will likely get fewer and fewer answers to your questions, and then you can turn into a hermit, complaining about how no one will answer any of your questions. Or, at least warn people that your follow-on response to your questions will always be a divergent tangent to your question...
jmt18325 said:
No, they would be resurrecting hulks from Arizona or buying used. Seriously though, just consider the number of a/c that are required. Just to equip the navy would take several years of production and there are both the air force and marines plus all the partners to schedule. There current aircraft are rapidly running out of hours. They wouldn't last until their F35 replacement comes down the assembly line even if the navy could place its complete order tomorrow. So navy gets replacement a/c that it needs now. The second advantage of buying new F18s instead of increasing the F35 order is it will push delivery into the later 20's when navy can expect further development and improvements on the F35.
- Reaction score
- 19,441
- Points
- 1,360
YZT580 said:
^ This. :nod:
...in particular the older Marine A/Bs and Navy's C/Ds running out of FLE faster than planned. This is a far more significant factor that F-35 with, to DoD's view, minor delays.
- Reaction score
- 1,164
- Points
- 1,060
YZT580 said:
The Marines are doing this now. I'm not completely understanding why they wouldn't just increase their B buy. Especially considering the small number of fighters that are getting refurbished by Boeing. Does anyone know how feasible this course of action would have been for us?
- Reaction score
- 19,441
- Points
- 1,360
suffolkowner said:
Like the USN, only worse (the Marines operate legacy A/B Hornets like us) and I'm not even sure the Marines have had CP3 done to their A/Bs, so they could be in more of a failing state than our Hornets, which by many estimates, can hit mid 2020's with some care and attention (and CP3, which will cost a bit of $). There are few true legacy A/B-version Hornets out there for the USMC to flesh out their ranks, let alone Canada grabbing some more. The Canadian (and Australian) Hornets are some of the best-assessed (as far as remaining FLE) Hornets in the world, so the extended ELE (2025) would seem a fairly solid plan.
Ordering more 35Bs would not help the state of the existing USMC Hornet fleet.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 19,441
- Points
- 1,360
jmt18325 said:
...recall, through the magic of the interwebz, this:
jmt18325 said:
I figured $445M CAD qualifies as large, so I provided it as a factual example to your question. (ref: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-to-buy-5th-c-17-aircraft-1.2155642 )
So your argument is that too many informed people are factually answering your questions, so you're going to cover your ears, sing "la, la, la, la, la...I can't hear you!" and keep changing what you want people to respond to? ???
- Reaction score
- 3,744
- Points
- 1,160
jmt18325 said:
Your argument is that we can't buy things fast. You've been given numerous examples when we could purchase things quickly, if the political will is there to retask the procurement machine. Enough trees have been cut down for 2 procurement processes (3 if you count the original process in the 1990s) that we have sufficient data to quickly review and issue SOR, have it close in one year, and a decision 6 months later and finally make a decision on replacement that would likely have that aircraft start showing up around the same time as these "interim" SHs would.
Heck, we're capable of doing a full defense review in less than 18 months, why can't we figure out a fighter aircraft in that time as well?
Further to the above, while this does not refer to an aircraft, the original M777 Howitzer buy took five months from initiation to first rounds going down range in Canada on St Barbara's Day 2005. Less than three months later the guns were in action in Afghanistan.
