Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 05-19-2017, 10:26 AM   #541
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 05-19-2017, 04:31 PM   #542
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Boeing Co. on Friday rushed to fix a gamble that looks to have gone wrong, with the defense unit of the U.S. plane maker seeking to fend off a Canadian threat to scrap the purchase of 18 Super Hornet jets, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

That move follows Canada’s threat on Thursday that it could ditch its plans to buy the jets if the United States backed Boeing’s claims that Canadian plane maker Bombardier Inc. dumped jetliners in the U.S. market.

Political insiders say the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is furious about Boeing’s allegations, which comes at a time when trade relations between the United States and Canada are at a low.

“Boeing made the calculation that taking this action was worth the risk,” the source said, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation. “However, Boeing military sales division is concerned and is seeking to communicate with Canadian government decision-makers to mitigate the possible impact to their Super Hornet sale.”

Boeing said the firm hoped there would be no impact on the proposed Super Hornet sale but made clear it had no regrets about challenging Bombardier.

“This action is being taken against Bombardier’s pricing practices which are illegal and aggressive. It is a very clear case of dumping,” spokesman Charlie Miller said.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle35057293/
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 06:02 PM   #543
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

cancel the Superhornet purchase, not because of this dispute, but because its stupid.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 05-23-2017, 09:18 AM   #544
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

As an addon, the German's have requested a classified briefing on the F35 as part of the requirement for nations that were not part of the development consortium. It looks like the Germans are looking at replacing their Tornado's with the F35.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...35-fighter-jet

With the Boeing fiasco ongoing, and the F-35's comeback story its likely that the Liberals are going to have to break their election promise about not buying the F-35.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...chase-in-limbo
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2017, 10:29 AM   #545
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Probably exactly what they wanted to begin with.

Because of the Boeing issue they are seen as protecting a Canadian company.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2017, 10:36 AM   #546
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Probably exactly what they wanted to begin with.

Because of the Boeing issue they are seen as protecting a Canadian company.
Probably.

Even though it always seem with Bombardier more like brushing fly's off of a corpse then protecting a Canadian Company.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 05-23-2017, 11:06 AM   #547
Zulu29
#1 Goaltender
 
Zulu29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

At this point I hope they just order an entire fleet of F-35's and be done with it. I was a huge propenent of the Rafale but that ship has sailed and if Canada is going to buy American Lockheed's option is superior. Just no more "interim fleet" talk please.
Zulu29 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-23-2017, 11:30 AM   #548
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29 View Post
At this point I hope they just order an entire fleet of F-35's and be done with it. I was a huge propenent of the Rafale but that ship has sailed and if Canada is going to buy American Lockheed's option is superior. Just no more "interim fleet" talk please.
Using the India purchase of the Rafale as an example it becomes more expensive then the F-35 at about $244 million per plane. the fly away cost of an airframe is about 70 million US, but because of the maintenance requirements and logistical requirements the price sky rockets, if Canada is looking at 65 planes, the Rafale cost if based on the India purchase would be $15.8 billion for the fleet.

However in terms of the Superhornet. The so called initial price of 2 billion per plane for 18 planes is $111 per plane, however the Feds have been pretty secretive as the costs are expected to be closer to about $6 billion for 18 planes so about $333 million per plane

The F-35 would now be about $16 billion dollars with lowering cost due to the way the costs of parting and global infrastructure would work.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2017, 11:50 AM   #549
Zulu29
#1 Goaltender
 
Zulu29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

From what I recall, the India price sky rocketed due to India's insistance that Dassault build factories, provide the tech and training for planes to be built in India. Dassault initially said no because the planes would be built in India but Dassault would be on the hook for repairs, they couldn't ensure quality control of the planes built there so it was a non-starter. For Canada Dassault simply needed to provide the blue prints and source codes, then they would be built under licence in Canada (Dassault appeared more confident in our abilities as we already manufacture aircraft).

I don't believe we'll be getting 65 F35 for 16 billion, not with exchange anyway.
Zulu29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2017, 11:58 AM   #550
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Possibly, but building the infrastructure and assembly lines to build planes is going to cost a small fortune, It would be basically starting from scratch, and likely done by Bombardier and we see how great they are in terms of on time and on budget.

There would also still be the cost of setting up the logistics and spare parts and servicing of the planes.

I think that the 244 million per copy for a limited production run of 65 would be fairly close to the marker. and exchange is kind of relevant except that I converted both of the planes to US Dollars (Rafale and F-35).

To me the idea of us building our own for a run of 65 craft for example makes no sense.

I doubt that the French are going to let us keep building and selling the rafale.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 11:54 AM   #551
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Pratt and Whitney offers a new engine for the F-35 that can be cut into the production line at no increased cost, while providing greater range and 6% thrust.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...engine-upgrade

Canada writes a $30 million dollar check to stay at the F-35 table.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35...-fee-1.4131285

Quote:
Lockheed Martin, the company behind the F-35, has remained relatively quiet about the government's plan to buy interim Super Hornets, but is now chomping at the bit for a chance to fill any potential gap.
The U.S. company "would openly welcome discussions about interim fighter solutions," spokeswoman Cindy Tessier said, adding that Lockheed has partnered with Bombardier on another military project.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2017, 12:01 PM   #552
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

More on what looks like significant delays in the Surface Combatant program

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...-delay-193943/
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 12:17 PM   #553
peter12
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
More on what looks like significant delays in the Surface Combatant program

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...-delay-193943/
Why can't we buy the Arleigh Burke hulls?
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 12:37 PM   #554
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Why can't we buy the Arleigh Burke hulls?
What would we use in place of the Aegis system? The Burke class is a serious piece of multi-role destroyer. Its really strong in terms of being an air defense platform, an offensive anti-ship and anti-ground target ship. Its pretty decent as an anti-submarine platform as well.

But without the Aegis, its going against its design.

Plus I think the Burke is a not for export class. The Japanese I think are the only other nation that successfully built a Aegis based platform in their Kongo class destroyer.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 03:20 PM   #555
Barnes
Franchise Player
 
Barnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
What would we use in place of the Aegis system? The Burke class is a serious piece of multi-role destroyer. Its really strong in terms of being an air defense platform, an offensive anti-ship and anti-ground target ship. Its pretty decent as an anti-submarine platform as well.

But without the Aegis, its going against its design.

Plus I think the Burke is a not for export class. The Japanese I think are the only other nation that successfully built a Aegis based platform in their Kongo class destroyer.
Quote:
Aegis is now used also by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, Spanish Navy, Royal Norwegian Navy, and Republic of Korea Navy. Over 100 Aegis-equipped ships have been deployed in five navies worldwide. The Royal Australian Navy selected the Aegis system for placement on its new Air Warfare Destroyers, and it is part of NATO's European missile defence system.[1]
Wikipedia.

Don't think the Burke class is for export though. It is being considered for a littoral combat module and probably would be perfect for Canada. Although that tri-hull littoral combat ship is scary looking as fata.
Barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Barnes For This Useful Post:
Old 06-02-2017, 11:02 AM   #556
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...combat-malaria

Quote:
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces announced Thursday the release of the findings from the Surgeon General’s Review on the Operational Use of Mefloquine. The review looked at available literature on mefloquine use and how it is used in an operational setting.
Thank ####.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017, 11:06 AM   #557
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I second that thank god.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2017, 10:51 AM   #558
Bigtime
Franchise Player
 
Bigtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Ottawa lays out $62-billion in new military spending over 20 years

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...click=sf_globe

Edit: Ah I see it is being discussed in the Fed Politics thread.

Last edited by Bigtime; 06-07-2017 at 10:55 AM.
Bigtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2017, 10:54 AM   #559
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime View Post
Ottawa lays out $62-billion in new military spending over 20 years



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...click=sf_globe
Yeah that sounds great and all, but I will believe it when I see it.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2017, 11:01 AM   #560
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Here's the cynic in me.

I'm betting that there are limited funding increases in the first four years so if/when Trump is defeated they can throw this out.

The increase is nice, but this is hardly a crash program to end the rust out.

The intern fighter jet program has been shown to be a bad idea, start putting out feelers for an open competition for the 88 jets including the F-35 and let the best plane win. (Though I'm betting that the F-35 will still be the plane to beat.)

This is nice and all, but lets get the actual bench marks out there and understand what the increases year by year will look like.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016