OzairI take your point that Boeing is trying to stifle competition. Do you think Delta will be inclined to buy narrow body aircraft in the future? I think Airbus has a significant lead in narrow body product at the moment with the A320NEO (until Boeing can deliver its successor to the 737MAX post 2025). I don’t think Delta will buy Boeing narrow bodies until then. If Boeing is going to go to great lengths to damage Delta’s interests, I don’t see Delta buying Boeing wide bodies if they have an alternative either. Airbus offers alternatives to both the B787 and B777.
What does Airbus have to do with any of this? There is no logical reason to associate the dispute between Boeing and Bombardier with a future decision by Delta to order Boeing aircraft. Delta as a business will order whatever aircraft is most appropriate and cost effective for its route structure (which incidentally in Delta’s case often involves used aircraft and not new purchases)
As for your claims on the A320NEO, if you look at orders since both were available to order it is pretty comparable. They are close enough in capability that individual airline price, fleet and routes play a bigger role than capability.
Canadian politicians will use this as an excuse to switch back to F35. Period.
Any potential SH order is about interim lift. While it may aid Boeing in the upcoming competition to replace the whole fighter fleet if the SH is already present it is just that, a competition. Given current capability, price, production capability and RCAF preference the F-35 is certainly the best option but in Canada those previous metrics mean little…
OzairThe F-35B is intended to operate from M-FARPs as part of their plan for distributed operations.
Better you read it:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc…ation-Plan.pdf
Indeed, a pretty simple well understood and documentated concept. Most interesting is the following nugget of info on page 48 of the 2017 Marine Aviation Plan you provided which states the following,
Qualifications and certifications for deploying the F-35C to austere expeditionary sites and conducting landings using M-31 Expeditionary Arresting Gear.
So as a component of the F-35C going IOC with the USMC it is required to be certified for use at austere expediitionary sites, including arrested landings…
OzairLooks like Spain will be announcing their intention to acquire the F-35 today.
http://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/defensa/Rajoy-comunicara-Trump-Espana-F-35_0_3006299356.html
The question now is which variants they may acquire. Will Spain maintain a F-35B fleet or acquire both the CTOL and STOVL variants? There are obvious advantages to maintaining a STOVL F-35B fleet that can operate from L61 and from austere bases but also potential cost savings from acquiring and operating the cheaper CTOL F-35A alongside a smaller F-35B buy.
OzairAnd multiple delays and concurrency have nothing to do with the obsolescence of systems before they are operational?
Again, your claim is not logical, concurrency and delays have nothing to do with this. The jets can be upgraded but the customer is making a determination on the cost benefit of such an upgrade. The jets are designed for 8000 hours of operation which translates at a training unit flying 500 hours a year (a huge number for an airframe) that they are good for at least 15 years. Obsolescence therefore has nothing to do with it, funding does.
OzairLook, i understand it would not be catastrophic .
Do you? By using the term catastrophic I don’t think you do.
But tbh, if it happens it will still be a big failure of program management.
There is no logical link between the success of F-35 program management and the decision of one of the operators to not upgrade aircraft used for training. Can the aircraft be upgraded? Yes. Is this decision being made by the JPO and LM? No. If it occurs it is the primary customer who is deciding, with ~2440 jets on order, so it may be less than 5% of their expected fleet.
OzairWow, and very soon i’ll learn that “it was always the plan”… And no, a conversion unit equiped with subpar standard is not a good idea. You are qualifying pilots on subpar stds (aka not fully qualified)
While I am also of the opinion that all the training jets should be upgraded to 3F your point is not valid. Pilots who graduate from an Operational Conversion Unit come out at a baseline standard. The intent of the course is to learn to fly the jet and then depending upon type, operate the jet in basic A2A and A2G scenarios with baseline threats. The difference then between a 2B and 3F for OCU is marginal at best. When aircrew leave OCU they start at ‘D’ Cat, functioning as a junior squadron member and spend the next year or two learning the jet, tactics and threat capabilities before they graduate higher, can command a pair and then years later a four ship.
The OCUs I am aware of for several western Air Forces all operate typically either lesser capable jets or delay upgrading the OCU jets until last.
OzairWe are talking 138 million for F-35 for Canada, vs 290 million for super hornet and there are some people who are actually claiming this is cheaper while sputtering about support costs and that super hornets “ain’t a cheap aircraft”
While there is probably a cost difference we need to be mindful that FMS costings are always on the high side and nations typically pay less than the initial estimate. The SH application is also obviously not an apples to apples comparison to an F-35 acquisition given the different sustainment profiles and Canada being a member of the JSF program.
That being said the result shouldn’t be a surprise given the production volumes and respective operators.
Would be nice to hear some conservative noise on this issue but frankly the Canadian public doesn’t care. If the fighter jet acquisition was such a hot political topic this would be all over Canadian papers… Instead it is relegated to deep back pages of the paper and Trudeau remains somewhat teflon to this debate.
OzairIn fact no. There is a kind of special dispensation within european rules about security procurements.
Had a quick scan of the procurement rules and the associated EU contract documents and that doesn’t appear to favour the French either way. It certainly doesn’t force the Belgians to have to accept the bid. Given the Belgiam government has indicated they need to access the legality of the submission it clearly isn’t black and white.
It is not like if a judgement from a “supreme court” was needed to cancel a call for proposal to rehash the RF rules (cf. KC46)
Humour acknowledged, but that was contested for a different reason, that the evaluation wasn’t conducted as the RFT indicated, not that the tender documents weren’t submitted on time or as specified by the RFT.
It is quite common in western procurement to exclude a vendor because their submission does not meet the required framework. Accepting such a submission usually biases the evaluation as you need to interpret that submission against a different set of often unspecificed criteria, which seems possible in this instance.
OzairNope, and neither do I care as they are not trying to circumvent an “open” competition by doing a back-room deal like France is trying to do.
It would not surprise me if the submission is rejected on legal grounds. First world military procurement policy is pretty strict and clear to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action and given two other valid tender submissions appear to have been received there is no excuse the French can made to overcome that, irrespective of how unfair they may have considered the tender itself.
OzairIf Dassault perceive the belgian “contest” as being rigged to make the F35 win (Norway contest anyone?), then they should not participate in that farce because:
1. Why spend millions on a contest you have no chance of winning?
2. After being beaten by politics, F35/US fanboys wouldn’t stop beating their chest because the result would miraculously prove that the F35 is superior to the Rafale.Nic
The scenarios are available for all to view. If Dassault don’t think they can complete them to the same proficiency as the other competitors, while remaining competitive on price, then no surprise they have withdrawn.
OzairBilly was great to listen to. Side note, not sure why AvWeek has such poor audio for its podcasts, it is amateur at best…
OzairPoint is you do not know the context and the discussions there were about F4 standard being delayed…
You’re right, I don’t but it comes down to the budget available and if France and Germany are serious about developing a new aircraft then funding will be scarce… The alternative is using the Rafale F4 and subsequent MLU as a means of test bedding technology for a future European 5th gen aircraft but
And Germany will not invest in F-35. Take the bet?
I’m not convinced it is that black and white yet, hence why I indicated General Lanata mentioning it means it is at least a possibility.
OzairLet’s see, the man has to motivate politicians to allow the development (invest money) of new aircraft.. do you expect him to come before them and say “our fighter is the nicest and most perfect bird there will be for the next 1000 years? Look at the USAF generals when speaking to authorities, they had the “best fighter on the planet, with over 100 kills without any losses, it’s the best out there…” and so on; but when they needed budgets for their next new and shiny toy: “we’re completely outclassed, we need the next thing…” , even if those that “outclassed them” were exactly the same that were dominated a few years before
Your example doesn’t make sense in this context. For starters US Generals don’t say they are outclassed, they specifically say the capability gap is shrinking. In this context though, stating the General is trying to drum up political support isn’t true, unless the French spend their military budget for pride. General Lanata didn’t say they are outclassed by potential adversaries, he said they were being outclassed by equivalent partners. Surely you don’t expect French politicians to approve the spending of vast sums of money so their equipment is better than allies?
the Rafale developers didn’t wait for the F-35 to develop means to get by the radars or include data fusion not only inside the aircraft itself but between several of them. Fact is that you have to go that route, communicate always more, defeat radars by any mean as long as it is effective, and it is also a fact that every aircraft has to be improved all the time, but at some point needs to be replaced, and that replacement has to be planned long before, and the delays get longer and longer as developments are more and more complex, it’s no secret
Xman has highlighted a couple of very valid points though, how much further development will there be if Rafale has to compete with a future European fighter, which will likely cost somewhere between US$20-30 billion to develop in todays dollars. If Germany does invest in F-35, and clearly General Lanata sees this as a possibility else he wouldn’t have mentioned it, even if just as a short term gap filler until a new project comes into service will reduce their haste to bring any new airframe into service, potentially increasing development time and subsequently cost.
OzairGet well spud but thought I would bring this back to the topic.
Haven’t seen this posted here. Interesting comments made by General Lanata, Chief of Staff of the French Air Force, to French law makers recently.
http://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defense/f-35-preoccupe-l-armee-l-air-131972
Google translated version below. Please point out any corrections if Google has not got the context correct.
“The F-35 will quickly become a benchmark standard in the world’s air force, not just in the United States, but also in our major partners. Whether one is outclassed by the United States is not surprising; That one begins to be by equivalent partners is another matter, ” said General Lanata, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, at his recent hearing in the National Assembly . Among these “equivalent partners” , he cited the United Kingdom and Australia among others.”I see very significant pressure from the US aerospace industry in Europe, with the gradual deployment of a new generation F-35 combat aircraft. The latter is changing the operational capabilities due mainly to its discretion – not detected by current radars – and its connectivity capabilities: it massively connects information with other devices in the Air combat. If I speak of an air combat system, it is that we should not consider each airplane taken in isolation, but should conceive the system as a whole: it is this system that produces effects, thanks to the connection we reach To establish between the various mobiles of the air combat device , “he added.
Without addressing it directly – at least in the revised and corrected version in his hearing – General Lanata addressed the question of Germany, which is interested in the F-35 to replace the Tornados, although no decision is taken Expected next year.”It seems to me interesting to take an initiative with Germany to engage in a dialogue, to explore the possibilities for cooperation to replace our fleets of combat aircraft together. In the first approach we may have needs similar to those of Germany in this field. We are still two countries in Europe that have investment capacities, Germany demonstrates the will, with the significant increase in its defense budgets. Germany could be a partner on the condition, however, of finding the balanced industrial architectures which will allow the realization of these cooperations. We will have to put forward our strengths in this area. “
Thought I would post the quote here compared to the F-35 thread based on the context of the article being about potential cooperation between France and Germany on a future fighter. Interesting comments by the French General in the context of F-35 capabilities and the F-35 with equivalent partners outclassing French equipment. Also how France sees future cooperation with Germany as a means to equal or surpass equivalent partners.
OzairIt is difficult to understand whether the source can be trusted? The F-35 program is imbued with lies, especially in the financial sphere.
A baseless and unsupported claim. Can you name a single other fighter development program that has been as open with financial, development and industrial information?
Sign In
