F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

Good analysis....but the US ain't Canada wherein a national election can teeter on the outcome of federal contracts and slush money to politicians.

I agree, as I’ve said, trying to play the devils advocate, and to qualify, the others (Boeing, Textron, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman etc) all “play the game” just as well……….

Look at the KC-135 replacement program though and the members on the Senate Armed Services committee……..The Airbus bid initially won, then Boeing was aloud a “do over” and just happened to win with a change of requirements……..And it just so happens more of the Boeing aircraft’s sub-systems are made in the States represented by committee members……….

[bush_cheney2004]

....Look at the KC-135 replacement program though and the members on the Senate Armed Services committee……..The Airbus bid initially won, then Boeing was aloud a “do over” and just happened to win with a change of requirements……..And it just so happens more of the Boeing aircraft’s sub-systems are made in the States represented by committee members……….

Wait...it gets better....Airbus is now going to build aircraft in.....wait for it....ALABAMA! (cue Lynyrd Skynyrd music)

http://www.airbus.com/company/americas/us/alabama/

[Guest Derek L]

No...it's too...American. Great for Australians!

A slight bit of whimsy though………I also find doubtful the author of Topaz’s link knows though……..The “proposed” squadron (414 Black Knights) operating the “Canadian Growlers”, was the last operator of Canadian T-33s……Well into the early 2000s………..Fitting since the a Hornet in the 2040-50s will look as out of place as the T-33 in the 2000s…..

[Guest Derek L]

Wait...it gets better....Airbus is now going to build aircraft in.....wait for it....ALABAMA! (cue Lynyrd Skynyrd music)

http://www.airbus.com/company/americas/us/alabama/

They learn quick.......It reminds me of this:

[bush_cheney2004]

A slight bit of whimsy though………I also find doubtful the author of Topaz’s link knows though……..The “proposed” squadron (414 Black Knights) operating the “Canadian Growlers”, was the last operator of Canadian T-33s……Well into the early 2000s………..Fitting since the a Hornet in the 2040-50s will look as out of place as the T-33 in the 2000s…..

Some guys just like...ummmm....."Cougars".

[waldo]

... analysis that's pretty easy given LockMart's posturing and the practical extension of that posturing butted up against the start of sequestration (Jan 1, 2013) and the lead time for layoff notices to go out (3 months prior)... well hey, lookee there! That's right before the U.S. election. Wow, that's a heavy-hand being played out by LockMart... don't you think?

As I’ve said prior, the MSM allusion of Lockheed “entering the Presidential Race” over defence cuts, though I feel pure hyperbole, is not a well thought-out conspiracy, for if one were to play along, one would assume Lockheed would target production facilities with job losses in potential “battleground states” where the threat might put them in the GOP column………The States that benefit the most from the F-35 program are Texas and California, but relatively safe States for each party…….hence little to be won or lost……….

As I pointed out though, playing along with tin-foil strapped on tight, Lockheed could...

what's with the tin-foil conspiracy nonsense? You best reign in LockMart's CEO, as it's his threatened layoff posturing that has stirred the election timing pot. I do believe the U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman has a more tapped in feel/commentary than you could ever presume to offer:

Whether or not Congress is able to act in time to divert a $500 billion tranche of defense budget cuts set to take effect in January, the looming threat of the sequestration “meat axe” may well sway the electorate in some of the most hotly contested regions in the country.

The most recent call for alarm on sequestration has come from major defense contractors, who will be forced to lay off a significant percentage of their work force if sequestration presses the Defense Department to abandon many of their active contracts. Sequestration, is the term assigned to a slate of just over $1 trillion worth of budget cuts that will be split evenly between defense department and domestic programs over the next decade as part of an agreement reached under the 2011 Budget Control Act.

.

.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) told Human Events at a recent Heritage Foundation briefing that he doesn’t know how the prospect of sequestration and the pending barrage of pink slips can help but impact the election.

“The people that haven’t been focusing on it, haven’t been thinking about it, are going to get a real wake up call,” he said.

[waldo]

like I said, take it to a related thread... sure you can/will! We could have some real fun - at your expense, hey?

Like I said, I have and will continue to do so.

in your dreams - bring it on, lil' buddy!

[Guest Derek L]

what's with the tin-foil conspiracy nonsense? You best reign in LockMart's CEO, as it's his threatened layoff posturing that has stirred the election timing pot. I do believe the U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman has a more tapped in feel/commentary than you could ever presume to offer:

It plays into my analysis (First made a week or two ago) quite nicely…….Of note from said article:

The political battleground of Virginia Beach is expected to be devastated by sequestration. The region, home to contracting giants General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, stands to lose at least $200 million in contract revenue, or about nine percent of what it made last year, and nearly 400 defense contracts, according to research compiled by the Center for Security Policy.

Overall, the state of Virginia may lose the most of any state through sequestration: nearly $5 billion in revenue and over 60,000 private-sector jobs, according to research compiled by the center and George Mason University.

“Obama’s reelection, in my opinion, starts and ends through Virginia Beach. That’s clearly the tip of the spear in a lot of ways,” LaCivita said.

LaCivita said he has been advising the region’s Republican Congressional incumbent Scott Rigell, a House Armed Services Committee member who introduced legislation this year that would have averted the sequester. The issue will be prominent in his reelection campaign, and Rigell has already collected $22,000 in contributions from Lockheed, Boeing, GenDyn, and Northrop to reclaim the seat.

“One thing voters get is jobs, pink slips, and a bad economy,” LaCivita said. “Those are issues that are going to be clearly borne out in this election cycle.”

He is also hopeful that the issue could hold sway in more historically Democratic states like Connecticut, where $1 billion and about 18,000 jobs are on the line with the sequester.

In Virginia Beach GD facilities produce the AEGIS system for the USN, namely the Ballistic Missile Defence portion…….Well Northrop produces, at Newport News, aircraft carriers and the Virginia class SSN…..

[waldo]

It plays into my analysis (First made a week or two ago) quite nicely…….Of note from said article:

oh, really... does that mean we won't read you throwing around tin-foil conspiracy anymore? Clearly, you're in the defense contractor mindset - they're your kind of guys. You're nothing but a platform centric warrior wannabe... with F-35 being your platform du jour! Of course, the next shiny thing will have you pivot excitably towards it... with a view towards unlimited spending capability; one beholding to political posturing.

instead of you being the warrior wannabe, why not listen to this guy, James Cartwright (former vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff)... it's a lengthy talk; one well worth listening to - for particular relevance to our latest back&forth, you could zero in on the ~18:00 point, where Cartwright hits all the buttons around budgets, sequestration, strategy, manned vs. unmanned... and performance related to strategies. Maybe, just maybe, it might allow you to see/appreciate the error in your ways... maybe, just maybe, going forward you won't be such a blatant and transparent shill for Lockheed Martin (or defense contractors, at large). Maybe, just maybe, you might begin to see the fallacy of platform centric in the realities of today... you just might begin to temper your fervent F-35 hard-on! Maybe, just maybe...

James Cartwright (former vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff): "While we squeal a lot about debt reduction and about how terrible it was, we were heading in that direction anyway. That’s the reality. We do not want to talk about the next increments. We’re willing to say the word ‘sequester’ without saying we’re going to do anything different."

"You really need strategy before you spend money, and what you spend it on needs to be something you can actually afford."

"Without a coherent strategy, you just go in and plan for everything and then let the budgeteers decide what you'll actually buy, which is what you're doing today."

"This is where the reality is. We’ve got to start defining where the leverage is. The leverage is in systems that can exceed the performance of the human being – can be out there longer than the human can last in harsher environments."

"The problem is that today's procurement process still focuses on "platforms" -- jets, ships, submarines, ground vehicles -- and not on the information technology those platforms carry. But technologies like the jet aircraft and the submarine are mature ones, with marginal space for improvement, whereas rapid advances in information technology offer huge returns for investment because available computing power doubles every 18 months. When the US discovers it's developed the wrong platforms and has to physically rebuild them, it takes years and billions of dollars, but a complete update to the electronics of, for example, the Reaper unmanned air vehicle fleet took less than $300 million and less than a year of time. Sometimes you will have to buy an MRAP, but it's a sign that the enemy has out-thought you."

"There is a nexus coming between electronic warfare and cyber, between traditional electronic jamming and countermeasures and new-fangled hacking. One knocks the door down and the other goes in and does the dirty work. The current turf wars between the electronic warfare and cybersecurity communities miss the vital point. In the cyber realm, we’ve been thinking 90 percent defense, 10 percent offense. That’s bass-ackwards for us. We need to stand ready to seize the electromagnetic offensive."

"We built the F-35 with absolutely no protection for it from a cyber standpoint."

"At the end of the day, the F-35 is not ready for a world in which there is cyber, it's not ready for a world in which you have huge strategic depth, it's not ready for a world in which stealth is only computational power and that's moving faster than you can field platforms, it's not ready for a world where the weapons systems are speed of light... that's the world we're moving into."

[Guest Derek L]

oh, really... does that mean we won't read you throwing around tin-foil conspiracy anymore? Clearly, you're in the defense contractor mindset - they're your kind of guys. You're nothing but a platform centric warrior wannabe... with F-35 being your platform du jour! Of course, the next shiny thing will have you pivot excitably towards it... with a view towards unlimited spending capability; one beholding to political posturing.

instead of you being the warrior wannabe, why not listen to this guy, James Cartwright (former vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff)... it's a lengthy talk; one well worth listening to - for particular relevance to our latest back&forth, you could zero in on the ~18:00 point, where Cartwright hits all the buttons around budgets, sequestration, strategy, manned vs. unmanned... and performance related to strategies. Maybe, just maybe, it might allow you to see/appreciate the error in your ways... maybe, just maybe, going forward you won't be such a blatant and transparent shill for Lockheed Martin (or defense contractors, at large). Maybe, just maybe, you might begin to see the fallacy of platform centric in the realities of today... you just might begin to temper your fervent F-35 hard-on! Maybe, just maybe...

James E. Cartwright?Imagine, a sitting member of the board of directors of a company that specializes in smart munitions and cybersecurity, singing the praises of his companies products........

[waldo]

James E. Cartwright?Imagine, a sitting member of the board of directors of a company that specializes in smart munitions and cybersecurity, singing the praises of his companies products........

really? That's all ya got? Really? But hey now, as you just said a short while back - 'Lockheed Martin is much more than the F-35'... Raytheon is much more than cybersecurity! Clearly, your desperation is on display.

why not actually step-up and address what the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said... where he went out of his way to advise he could be an 'equal opportunity picker', that within his talk he could just as easily have targeted the other military branches and particular 'platforms'... in this case, one of his targets was the USAF/F-35. Clearly, you're flummoxed and like someone taking your favourite toy away, childishly lash out!

it certainly is quite telling that your 'allegiance' to defense contractors allows you to so easily denigrate a former U.S. military leader... to piss on his entire career with your implication. The guy is just fresh out of uniform... and now, can speak plainly, speak directly, speak without fear of repercussion.

[Guest Derek L]

really? That's all ya got? Really? But hey now, as you just said a short while back - 'Lockheed Martin is much more than the F-35'... Raytheon is much more than cybersecurity! Clearly, your desperation is on display.

why not actually step-up and address what the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said... where he went out of his way to advise he could be an 'equal opportunity picker', that within his talk he could just as easily have targeted the other military branches and particular 'platforms'... in this case, one of his targets was the USAF/F-35. Clearly, you're flummoxed and like someone taking your favourite toy away, childishly lash out!

it certainly is quite telling that your 'allegiance' to defense contractors allows you to so easily denigrate a former U.S. military leader... to piss on his entire career with your implication. The guy is just fresh out of uniform... and now, can speak plainly, speak directly, speak without fear of repercussion.

To what he speaks (from ~12 minute mark+ especially) on defining a future force structure based around high mobility versus the current “occupational, heavy force” is exactly what I’ve been calling for: A modern, Gun Boat diplomacy strategy or better put, Air-Sea battle……….You earlier spoke of the defensive A2/AD strategy being developed/implemented by future potential enemies, as such, Air-Sea Battle is designed to counter said enemies with a mobile force as opposed to today’s heavy force structure.

The use of said Air-Sea battle strategy has since proven successful in execution as demonstrated with last year’s war with Libya, in which the elements of Stealth, stand-off weaponry, electronic warfare and cyber war (etc) were all brought to bear by the Americans with their initial involvement. It’s the future Waldo, and what’s old is new again.

[bush_cheney2004]

....instead of you being the warrior wannabe, why not listen to this guy, James Cartwright (former vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff)... it's a lengthy talk; one well worth listening to - for particular relevance to our latest back&forth, you could zero in on the ~18:00 point, where Cartwright hits all the buttons around budgets, sequestration, strategy, manned vs. unmanned... and performance related to strategies. Maybe, just maybe, it might allow you to see/appreciate the error in your ways

The only wannabe in this defense scenario is you, because Canada has been in a permanent state of "sequestration" for decades when it comes to military procurements. Pretending that the scope and scale of American force structure applies to Canada is just silly.

[Guest Derek L]

To add, from the same conference linked to by Waldo:

The Future

[Guest Derek L]

And as a follow up to the above discussion, a Canadian perspective of future war that aligns with the American’s approach …….One that I’ve been advocating for rather constantly, and as such, redefining our current force structure, well paying homage to fiscal realties.

Leadmark 2020

[waldo]

To what he speaks (from ~12 minute mark+ especially) on defining a future force structure based around high mobility versus the current “occupational, heavy force” is exactly what I’ve been calling for: A modern, Gun Boat diplomacy strategy or better put, Air-Sea battle……….You earlier spoke of the defensive A2/AD strategy being developed/implemented by future potential enemies, as such, Air-Sea Battle is designed to counter said enemies with a mobile force as opposed to today’s heavy force structure.

The use of said Air-Sea battle strategy has since proven successful in execution as demonstrated with last year’s war with Libya, in which the elements of Stealth, stand-off weaponry, electronic warfare and cyber war (etc) were all brought to bear by the Americans with their initial involvement. It’s the future Waldo, and what’s old is new again.

now you're just making it up, on the fly... in the context of his talk, Cartwright most certainly speaks to 'Air-Sea Battle (ASB)' in relation to the 'Pacific Pivot', as being not 'well conceived'. Considering he was one of the Joint Chiefs instrumental in developing the ASB strategy concept, I expect he knows what he speaks.

have you finally read enough to understand the new reality of A2/AD? ... have you finally moved on from your WWII bunker mindset? I think not - clearly, Libya had little in the way of advanced A2/AD capabilities - certainly little-to-nothing in terms of what ASB was conceived around.

of course, you conveniently bypass the focus of Cartwright's talk that I'm speaking to/leveraging upon. Apparently, you just can't bring yourself to even acknowledge further criticism of F-35... of platform centrism. That would be your LockMart avoidance mechanism that's kicked in, hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

....of course, you conveniently bypass the focus of Cartwright's talk that I'm speaking to/leveraging upon. Apparently, you just can't bring yourself to even acknowledge further criticism of F-35... of platform centrism. That would be your LockMart avoidance mechanism that's kicked in, hey?

Well, if you can't beat them...join them, eh? Got any Joint Chiefs future proof "jingo porn" to share with the rest of us?

[DogOnPorch]

Well, if you can't beat them...join them, eh? Got any Joint Chiefs future proof "jingo porn" to share with the rest of us?

Well, he deserves an award for use of military acronyms...

[Guest Derek L]

now you're just making it up, on the fly... in the context of his talk, Cartwright most certainly speaks to 'Air-Sea Battle (ASB)' in relation to the 'Pacific Pivot', as being not 'well conceived'. Considering he was one of the Joint Chiefs instrumental in developing the ASB strategy concept, I expect he knows what he speaks.

have you finally read enough to understand the new reality of A2/AD? ... have you finally moved on from your WWII bunker mindset? I think not - clearly, Libya had little in the way of advanced A2/AD capabilities - certainly little-to-nothing in terms of what ASB was conceived around.

of course, you conveniently bypass the focus of Cartwright's talk that I'm speaking to/leveraging upon. Apparently, you just can't bring yourself to even acknowledge further criticism of F-35... of platform centrism. That would be your LockMart avoidance mechanism that's kicked in, hey?

Again, you have no idea of what you’re talking about, and I suggest you listen to the above linked panel on ASB……….And I will revert back to the WW II analogy, as it’s apt, and one only needs look at the two differing theatres during the war to see the divergence in the two differing force structures…….The European/North Africa theatres in which the allies relied upon large, heavy formations (Remember the General’s comments on the downshift of formations of Armies --> Divisions --> Brigade Combat Teams --> Battalions?) that had the ability to amass with no constraints versus the Pacific Theatre, in which the numerous battles were “come as you are” and were fought under the auspices of the Japanese implementing a (failed) A2/AD strategy throughout the Pacific…….Ironic that said ASB concept is revisiting former bases defended by the Japanese (with their A2/AD mantra) taken by the Americans successful implementation of ASB.

As to the General’s comments from your link, as clearly stated, the lack there of a defined strategy by civilian leadership, focused around ASB instead of preparing for the last war, is in the interest in the defence industries………

Edited July 8, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

One that I’ve been advocating for rather constantly, and as such, redefining our current force structure, while paying homage to fiscal realities.

you... paying homage to fiscal realities!!! See JSFail F-35 - bazinga!

[waldo]

Well, he deserves an award for use of military acronyms...

more... more barking, hey Dog?

[waldo]

Again, you have no idea of what you’re talking about

right... back... at... you!

[DogOnPorch]

more... more barking, hey Dog?

Nobody respects you.

[Guest Derek L]

right... back... at... you!

Again Waldo, you’re trying to define comments to your own purpose and dissuade focus on ASB, well using references from the Joint Warfighting Conference……..

[waldo]

Again Waldo, you’re trying to define comments to your own purpose and dissuade focus on ASB, well using references from the Joint Warfighting Conference……..

oh my... I thought I had covered my tracks better!

of course, you conveniently bypass the focus of Cartwright's talk that I'm speaking to/

leveraging upon

. Apparently, you just can't bring yourself to even acknowledge further criticism of F-35... of platform centrism. That would be your LockMart avoidance mechanism that's kicked in, hey?

like I said, avoid, avoid... in the face of any legitimate JSFail F-35 criticism... it's what you do!