FBWSilence Hallow? So you make a false claim that Canada’s offset requirement does not violate partner agreement, accusing L-M of “molesting” Canada over the issue and tell me to “shut my gob” and of somehow being anti-French? One of us has shown bias and questionable judgement, and it isn’t me. BTW, if you want to read the full agreement, here’s the 2010 update:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/JSF_PSFD_MOU_-_Update_4_2010.PDF
One particular part you might want to read:
7.6 No requirement will be imposed by any Participant for work sharing or other industrial or commercial compensation in connection with this MOU that is not in accordance with this 48 MOU.
FBWThat would be correct if somehow the SU-57 ended up being a direct variant of either the Mig1.44 or the Sukhoi S-37, wich he´s not.
While Lockheed Martin C-190 JAST design from 1995 “was” (and ended up being) the F-35, there´s not much in common (if anything) between the MFI program and the SU-57. The MFI program was terminated, and a new program was launched with entirely new specifications, the JAST program on the other hand simply changed its name to “JSF” in 1996.
L-M JAST didn’t become the F-35 (though roots of the design ideas and requirements were inherited from JAST). The MFI requirements directly led to the follow on Pak-Fa after the failure of MiG, and Sukhoi used research from the S-37 in developing Pak-Fa (including internal bay design).
No they are not directly equivalent, but in essence that’s what I was trying to point out. You could use a variety of “start dates” for both the JSF and the Pak-Fa, or more to the point misuse.
FBWoffsets are mandatory in Canadian law and do not really violate the partner agreements. And yes LM (as usual) molests Canada.
Canada signed the MOU, and once again your wrong. READ THE MOU. Australia’s is online to read:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/195474.pdf
The Participants recognize that in conducting full and open competitions for the Project, full consideration will be given to all qualified sources from the other Participant’s country, to the extent consistent with the national laws, regulations, and policies of the Contracting Participant
“Full and open competitions”, means no promise of Industrial offsets. Trudeau Gov. structured the fighter competition in a way that violates the MOU that Canada signed. Period.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/240/239021.html
To realize this return-on-investment, partners expect their industry to win JSF contracts through competition a departure from other cooperative programs, which directly link contract awards to financial contributions.
n 2006, the Government of Canada signed the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Phase Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In this MOU, the partners agreed to implement a best-value approach to maximize industrial benefits and affordability of the JSF program for partner countries. Because Canada is a member country, Canadian companies are among those eligible to bid on the work packages that flow from this project. Canadian companies must continue to offer competitive technologies at competitive prices to be successful.
FBWSo if you think DA molested India, give proper argument or shut your bloody gob.
Again, DAssault and France have nothing to do here.
Here:
Why offsets aren’t paying off for India
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/offsets-fail-to-take-off-with-merely-20-completion-rate-in-a-decade/articleshow/67447007.cms
Specifically on Rafale:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rafale-modi-govt-gave-unprecedented-waivers-in-offset-agreements/article26775545.ece
How about this nugget:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/anil-ambani-firm-got-1437-mn-tax-relief-from-france-after-rafale-announcement-le-monde-report/article26828271.ece
And yet it’s o.k. for you to claim that Canada is getting “molested: by L-M for what? Canada winning 1.2 billion in contracts a F-35 partner nation (which they’ve not purchased), then structured a fighter competition with promise of industrial offsets that violate the partner agreements which Canada signed?
Right.
FBW1 billion contracts are far from 1 billion benefits. Cost/benefit analysis?
Yes, let’s consider this…
Do you think any government would turn down generating 1.2 billion in contractural work for a 540 million dollar investment? That is a jobs creator and sustainer.
FBWAbsolutely wrong and stupid. You should have a look at what happens in India before shouting enormities like that. In Nagpur, complete front sections of Falcon 2000 are now built. New very large hangar is being built. Want photos?
You are really becoming tiresome with your constant french rantings. France have nothing to do here, DAssault is not candidate anymore in Canada due to 5 eyes .
Absolutely not wrong, I posted this for a reason… part truth supported by selective shoddy journalism, what to read the articles? It is reflective of your posting style in this thread.
And I don’t rant against the French, have no issue with France or Dassault. But I do find it odd you have such thin skin considering your posting habits in this thread.
FBWI think the amount of funding provided by Canada for F-35 almost certainly exceeds profits from F-35 work. Do you recall that JSF was going to cost about the same as F-16, partly because work was going to be allocated to the most competitive partner bid? If so all partners including the US benefit.
If Canada did agree to no offsets if it bought F-35, fair enough. Puts the other contenders in a stronger position, though, doesn’t it?
Canada has contributed roughly 500 million over the course of the program and Canadian firms have won over 1 billion in awarded contracts so far. They are doing quite well as a partner nation (one reason they haven’t left and continue to pay into the program).
FBWI’m not comparing anything. Prototypes, programs, development processes, skill of designers or whatewer.
My point is simple: JSF program started in 1993, PAK-FA in 2001, kinda 8 years inbetween. So statements like: “there is over 300 F-35 and they are bombing ISIS already, but where is your Sukhoi? Only first one will bi build in 2019? – meh” – is kinda stupid.
.
There is zero point in trying to equivocate timelines between to very different programs. If your going to use 1993 JAST precursor for the F-35, then you’d have to go back to MFI program for the Su-57, contract award dates? Those don’t really work either.
So, going back to the original point, “different programs, different timelines” no direct comparison valid.
FBWLM is simply molesting Canada.
Could be worse, they could be purchasing 36 Rafale for 9 billion and receiving only vague offsets promises and JV of dubious value. Dassault is only required to fulfill half of the offsets within the first seven years. Worse, the track record of foreign firms delivering on industrial offsets is abysmal. Molested…. That is a modest description of what Dassault did to India on the Rafale deal.
Canadian industry has already been awarded over one billion in F-35 contracts. But yeah, buy French.
FBWoverplaying? Please read what i said.
Corrosion issue. Leading to unexpected costs.
Not to mention, what will happen to B and C models stationed on ships sailing in tropical waters?The french have nothing to do here.
Seriously, how disingenuous can you get? There is no corrosion issue leading to unexpected costs, there is a potential. The same one that the F-18 fleet faced when based in Aus, the same one that Kadena based fighters face, or any ship based aircraft. The RAAF F18 fleet required mitigation techniques to reduce corrosion, maintainers at Kadena have to regularly wash/paint the aircraft due to humid salty air.
if your going to operate an aircraft for 30+ years in that type of climate, your going to have to monitor corrosion and develop mitigation protocol. This is most likely a direct result of what they experienced with their F-18’s.
FBWAmazing, who would have thought that basing aircraft in a humid subtropical climate would present some unique challenges?
How dare Lockheed use a new lightweight aluminum that is also used on the 787 and A380! I suppose Lockheed should have used a different alloy to accommodate the 5% or so of F-35’s that will have long term exposure to high humidity and temps in that climate.
FYI Hallow, had you spent even 30 seconds looking at the information, you would have:
realized the issue would not be unique to the F-35
realized why that alloy was chosen for new aircraft like: F-35, A380, 787 for things such as bulkheads and longitudinal spars (much stronger and lighter than previous alloys)
FBWI cannot for the life of me understand how Norway can possible afford to service 54 of these..?
We do not have enough fighter pilots by a long shot, we lack important infrastructure like Hard Shelters and service buildings at Ørlandet Airbase.
There seems to be 2-3 new F-35 delivered each quarter now.Our F-35 acquisition will blow up in our face. We just lost one of our 5 Frigates. Our Korvettes will fall soon.
Looks like we have to cut every other arms service to afford these jets.
The CV-90 buy has been pushed back a little.
Our new MBT Leo2’s has been put on ice. Not sure about our new Korean Artillary buy..?
New Transport Helios for our army is soon none existance.
We are down to 1 1/2 Army Brigade now, Absolutly ridicules!!But where are our Defense funding going..
This is an odd rant. The F-35 acquisition had nothing to do with the loss of a frigate. Norway experienced a decade long decline in defense spending that was only reversed in the last 2-3 years (most likely due to F-35 procurement). A nation the size of Norway spending 2.3 percent of GDP on defense, ANY fighter fleet recapitalization was going to lead to cuts in other areas. There isn’t a military on earth that can meet all of its requirements in a given timespan.
The US defense budget is huge and we are struggling to pay for nuclear triad modernization and fighter recap. Other areas are going to suffer.
Even during the Cold War, NATO has glaring deficiencies in certain capabilities, Germany was still flying F-4F’s for air defense, few members maintained even the minimum 30 days of war stocks. It’s reality.
FBWSAAB claimed in their annual seminar last week that they can produce 24 aircrafts per year.
Not sure if this includes the Brazilian Factory.
The Swedish and Brazil orders can be completed in 4 years.
That would be a losing industrial strategy. Barring any firm orders beyond the 60 for Sweden and 36 Brazilian aircraft, i’d suspect SAAB to set production at the minimum economical number that can be produced per year to ensure a “hot” line and a steady stream of work for subcontractors.
I’d suspect that the rumored follow-on order for Brazil will depend greatly on a more robust economic recovery than they are currently experiencing.
FBWOh wait. In his graph FBW used RCPFH. That is the lowest possible value. And the one comaprable to Rafale costs in Lybia. Numbers are numbers, sometimes hard. F-35 is a golden queen.
Spud posted that, by the way, nice dodge on the Libya and Mali flying hours costs. Do you want to troll? i.e. come in drop questionable or controversial statements and not respond to rebuttals, or do you want to have a discussion?
Numbers are hard, especially when those coming out of DoD are transparent and released in various reports available for public access. The French Senat weapons system reports are anything but comprehensive or transparent. I have yet to see a line item breakdown for procurement, development, or O & S costs for the Rafale. Perhaps you should focus some attention to researching and providing those rather than butchering analysis of the F-35 acquisition costs.
FBWHaha Scooter, selective numbers much:highly_amused:
That in itself means Russia is Soley in the 1st place in Bang for the Buck rating.
In which surly put US Defense spending at a depressing comparison on the same note.And even if this issue has been posted many many many times before on this forum, it may come as a shock to you, but again here it is; Russia do R&D, Maintain and produce their military capability in.. wait for it..
[B]Rubles, not US dollars!!!
Now do you have the capacity to understand the implication of this fact!?
Very true, the best rebuttal and most accurate part of your post. You should have stopped here
S
ad your Pentagon PowerPoint do not address this.. As we see Russia speeding ahead on a number of fields, Hypersonic weapons, new NC platforms. Layered AD anti-air systems, new MBT platform. New multipurpose attack Subs, a Heavy class UAV, Heavy class 5th Gen multirole fighter.
We don’t see these things. Hypersonic weapons- Kinzhal is a modification of a intermediate range BM questionable if it fits in this category, many view it as a propaganda weapon rather than a useful addition. Tsirkon is more interesting… and not in service (and I’d take rumored entry date of 2020 with a large grain of salt). In truth, we don’t know who is closer to fielding either a hypersonic airbreathing cruise missile or a boost-glide weapon, for all of the research ongoing and investment it could be the Chinese.
New MBT- Armata is still basically in trials with LRIP continuing until 2025 (100 total planned in this armaments plan?)
Heavy class UAV- prototype, there is no doubt Russia is behind the other major powers in developing and fielding UAV.
New mulitpurpose attack sub- Husky is a bunch of blueprints, maybe a table model somewhere, again this is an area where Russia is clearly behind the other major powers, perhaps not in technology, but in industrial capacity. Russian shipbuilding industry had to be rebuilt from nothing, if the last 10 years has shown anything, throwing money at the problem did not speed up production or efficiency.
New Cheap NAvy Frigates Class which packs much more firepower than many NATO Destroyers has today.
Pls try to do read-up on the Kalibr’zation of Russian Navy, and what this apply as a Force Multiplier to existing and future Russian Navy Capability.
And thanks to USA brilliant withdraw from INF threaty, Kalibr will now also become a part of Russia Land Bastion inventory.
Packing large weapons in a small hull may offer an economical solution to regional influence, but severely limits endurance, sensor fit, habitability, power projection, protection of sea lanes.
And lastly on the bigger picture of things, USA decline and Russia rise on Int world order. For clues see Middle East.
Neither, questionable statement on several levels. In the Middle East? perhaps in regards to near east. Worldwide? The only major nation that consistently ranks below the US in terms of favorability and public perception is Russia. Russia’s share of world trade is minuscule, and shrinking. While the Russian response to sanctions has largely insulated and softened impact on the economy, it has further eroded Russian economic influence (which plays a large part in political influence). My suggestion would be to stop parroting those wishful thinking Russophile sites and join reality.
In other words, if scooter gets you so riled up that you can’t refute his post with an accurate, factual rebuttal, then don’t. This form doesn’t need more hyperbole.
Sign In
