Derek 2.0

As I said, no fighters in this mandate........look at the Canadian-Euro exchange..........the Riff-Raff is going over ~$110 million per tail.

Indeed, over 60 aircraft a year (granted some are to be foreign sales)......LRIP 10 could be finalized by the end of the year, and its expected to include over 80 aircraft.

The Blue Angles are clearly being forced fed the aircraft. Dishonest? I clearly stated both averages contained more expensive variants, in addition, the flyaway cost often cited (and by you) in the ~$50-65 million range..............The 2013 fiscal year figure of course includes AN/ASQ-288 targeting pod, ECM, decoys etc.......the Blue Angels of course have no need for such items (or a gun)

Thought, as a contrast, today's DoD spending Bill should be included..........noting said DoD figures are in USD and not CDN: With today's exchange rates, that would translate into ~$25 billion Canadian, or about what was budgeted for the RCN's warship replacements.......digging further, the DDG 51 destroyer multiyear contract for ten of the most modern destroyers currently in service: or ~$6.1 billion USD (~$8.4 billion CDN) for 9+1 AEGIS destroyers.....if one was to double the contract size to account for additional vessels required by the RCN (15 total), and more than addressing inflation since 2012, that would still be under ~$20 billion CDN, or ~$7-8 billion less than the previous Government budgeted for the frigate replacement.........and then, granting the remaining ~$7-8 billion going towards new training establishments on both coasts, additional munitions, alterations to the vessels hangers etc......... Irving doesn't have a leg to stand on suggesting they need double the money to fulfill the RCN's requirements (American yards are not cheap, nor that efficient contrasted with overseas yards), nor does the Trudeau Government have a justification to meet the RCN's requirements with the previous estimated funding requirements......the RCN's destroyer/frigate replacements will come down to political will.

An update of said "budget crunch": Note the average per aircraft cost trajectory, well being cognisant both averages contain more expensive versions of each aircraft.......the vaunted baseline Super Hornet, well getting a one year reprieve, just increased in cost ~15-25%......and DoD is buying additional F-35s. And before the repeated meme of why the USN is buying additional Super Hornets rears it head, it should be noted the actual end user of said Super Hornets..............maybe the new smoke machine had lead to the drastic Super Hornet price increase

Trump aside, who was "jumping on the hate speech bandwagon"? Jeb Bush clearly stated Trump's proposal was "unhinged" and "unrealistic", and that he won't get into the White House by insulting people, further more, that the United States needs to engage the Muslim World (like his brother did after 9/11) to counter radial Islam. Marco Rubio has clearly stated, numerous times, that Trump's plan is clearly unconstitutional. Most of the candidates agreed that the settlement of Syrian refugees shouldn't be rushed, as the head of the FBI admitted they couldn't screen the proposed 10000 refugees in the time line outlined by the Obama administration......but that's hardly "hate speech" though. Rand Paul stated "banning Islam" will result in a win for the terrorists......Cruz offered a clear distinction between radical Islamic terrorists and the vast majority of Muslims (which surprised me).........I can't think of anything offensive said by the others.... Where was the "hate speech".......aside from Trump?

I agree, but I was surprised with his approach to Islam/Trump. The proverbial line in the sand has been drawn by most past Presidents, what is idiotic is drawing said line and not following through like Obama.......Hussein is the surname of the Jordanian royal family, the current King is a "Hussein" and his son is a "Hussein"........ And Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie, Pataki and Graham (in the prior debate with the later two)

I tend to agree, but his performance (like Christie) could have bought him a little bit of traction...........it will all come down (for the establishment Republicans) to the New Hampshire primary, where I'd expect the field to be narrowed after........ Cruz could/will be hurt by the others bringing up his past voting records, which will clearly show he is all over the map.

I have no idea, and if I did know I wouldn't likely be able to tell you.............none the less, the crux of the recent stories is to suggest that hackers could hack the F-35 in flight which is laughable. As addressed years ago, and discussed in previous threads, hackers can't send commands upstream a downlink used by the F-35's ALIS......not going to happen. The concern, as demonstrated several years ago by alleged Chinese state sponsored hackers, is obtaining information transferred through commercial networks, downstream from insecure civilian suppliers. Of course this no different then any system, used by any Government, that exchanges data through the "internets"...........and is one of the main limiting factors with the use of UAV's, which due to bandwidth constraints within military networks, did require the use of commercial systems, and likely resulted in operational UAV's in Iraq (in ~2007) having their live video feeds (not control of up/downlinks) hacked/eavesdropped.

The Wasp trials were pre IOC, hence, not "combat ready".

The same report that clearly stated all programs would be reviewed and that the F-35 offered the most combat capability for money spent?

No, the Politico story is based off an over 1 month old story first "reported" in Korean media..........and its laughable, SKYNET is further grounded in reality then the prospect it suggested.........

Another "summation" of an actual report I already addressed several posts ago? Waldo, in the face of the actual reports being available, why would you waste time (or expect me to waste mine) discussing "summations" of said reports? I can appreciate that for many, certain subjects require a "translation" to layman's terms..........but I have no requirement (in this field), and though you may not have direct knowledge of specifics and nuances, I would assume you're more than capable of rising above a media slanted dumbing down........ What you propose to waste time on is akin to discussing the merits of a given movie based on reviews verses actually seeing it in person and forming ones own opinion.

No, I won't, as I cited and addressed the actual concerns from the actual report........not the "summation" post Wheeler spin-cycle

Concerns brought up and addressed several years ago, brought up again by a "report" from a Korean English media company that suggested hackers could obtain control of the fleet in mid flight............what, no reports from TMZ or ET?

Nah, I'm sure Wheeler is at arms length

Far be it for me to defend Cruz, but his counter to Trump's "Muslim ban" seemed far more "nuanced"

And confirmed by Trump in tonight's debate:

And imagine you using a source with ties to Winslow Wheeler in an attempt to further your anti-F-35 agenda. Why would I discuss the "POGO summation" when the entire report is available to discuss? I've no issue with discussing the actual subject mater verses a biased "summation" from a group with an anti-F-35 agenda........ And as confirmed with the previous Pentagon statement, absent a Republican administration with increased funding, the option to defer other programs (see LRS- are present. From your cite: So the precedent is already set to fund the next generation bomber outside the USAF budget, as will be done with the USN's new boomers (The British are also taking a similar approach with their nuclear deterrent), as such, said issues would be alleviated, both the impact on the next ~4 years R&D budget, and the post ~2020 procurement budget. As further noted in your cite: In other words, funding the next generation bomber outside of the USAF budget, well retiring the B-1B (which the USAF has already tried to reduce its fleet of) combined with a slower rate production LRS-B/ B-3 bomber replacing it..........and keep buggering on with the B-52s which, despite their age, still have one of the highest availability rates of any Western military aircraft (just over 80%) and a desert full of spare parts bought and paid for........if they were really ambitious, the could give the fleet yet another service life extension to push it past its ~2040 retirement out towards the 2060s........

Obfuscation? I read and cited the concerns from the actual report, not the "summation" of POGO......... Again, I'm using the actual report, not a "summation" from an anti Pentagon/defense group that clearly has an axe to grind.........the lack of F-35 stationary from POGO's summation is noted!!!

Of the several articles linked to in this thread, I never realized the actual report was embedded. From reading it, the major areas of concern are the following: So this concern would be addressed by the full deployment of the ACE aboard a LHD. With that, space would be a factor, inversely though, there would be far more personal available for air ops and maintenance. Clearly a reflection of the actual aircraft deployed, in this example, the previous test aircraft sans the operational missions systems. To resolve this issue, the aircraft used post IOC with the latest software would have to be utilized, and in turn, Navy/Marine technicians would have to be able to service it........that clearly will be TBD with the first operational deployment aboard ship. Again a reflection of the test absent the entire ACE, which includes trained munitions handlers for the aircraft.......clearly this issue would be addressed by having said personal present and munitions on the ship. This issue, again, is attributed by the entire ACE not being deployed. The ability to "troubleshoot" issues will be addressed by experience gained from confronting said issues in the field..........senior NCM technicians aren't going to have years of experience on the type until they've had years of experience on the type clearly. Not a big deal, as a deployment with an operational ACE, on an operational LHD, will have its own organic support equipment. Again this comes down to Navy/Marine logistics, and a realization that the entire ALGS system won't be fully implemented until the transition from the Harrier to the F-35 is complete, clearly until such a time, the USN/USMC will have to support both aircraft types from the existing supply networks. Further more, with regards to predetermined loaded spares, as the law of Murphy dictates, the needed part will never be on hand or will run out faster. This of course is reflected in the USN's carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft (C-2 Greyhound and the CV-22 Osprey) being required to carry internally all fleet wide aircraft parts, up to an entire aircraft engine...... In conclusion: The USS Wasp ARG is to deploy in the Summer in a fully operational capacity, including F-35s as part of its operational ACE. ------------- One concern from said report that I found truly condemning on the status of the F-35: Not enough whiteboards and markers during the deployment? Clearly the F-35 program should be canceled, since it will be more capable than existing aircraft and will require a dramatic increase in stationary products

To this, you're assuming any stated deficiencies from the USS Wasp trials report weren't already known to NAVAIR/USMC/USN/Lockheed etc. If you have an actual link to the report itself, by all means provide it........simply put, it would cut down on the spin from the media retelling and get down to the finite points of the report. For example, as its been repeated several times in this thread, one point was that the trials weren't conducted in "real world conditions" due to the lack of helicopters deployed and the use of contractors (opposed to USMC techs) during the trails period. Or that the trials didn't include the use of practice or live munitions. These points are mooted by an actual real world deployment of a USMC Aviation Combat Element aboard a deployed vessel like the Wasp (and supporting vessels), the unit level that provides the helicopters, tiltrotors and fixed-wing aircraft for a deployed Marine unit (Marine Air-Ground task force/MAGTF). In such a deployment, the 6-8 Harriers/F-35Bs become but a cog in a much larger unit with all the entailing support personal, including (Navy/Marine) aircraft technicians, logistics personal and munitions handlers....... As such, an operational deployment of 6-8 F-35s aboard an LHD, as part of an ACE, will see such concerns addressed naturally by the fact that said aircraft will be deployed with a combined units measured in the hundreds (close to 1000) of additional personal........hence no changes required to the aircraft, but changes to how and with whom its deployed. As to why the trials didn't include an entire MAGTF, I would assume several factors, one being the cost of deploying several thousand Marines for a one week trials cruise (not cheap). Second, and probably the most important, operational demands, in that said Marines are likely to be deployed, preparing for deployment or just returned from a deployment overseas. Third the differing jurisdictions of the units involved* and finally, the actual (then) status of the Wasp itself, which hasn't been on an operational deployment (aside short training cruises and a disaster relief mission) for over a decade.........hence the trails wouldn't be considered operational, and said concerns would be addressed by deploying an operational squadron, with an operational air wing on an operational ship.......... *The USMC is divided into three regular force divisions (plus one reserve division), the 1st Div is on the West Coast, the 2nd on the US East Coast and the 3rd in Japan, but the Marine Air Wings are 1st/Japan, 2nd East Coast and 3rd West Coast........The USS Wasp is assigned to the East Coast, but will be going to the Pacific to replace one of her sister going into refit...... The F-35B squadron (VMFA-121) was a Japan based squadron, moved to the West Coast and not a operational squadron(Yuma Arizona is under West Coast Command), deployed to an East Coast ship (that just became operational again itself) without an entire air wing and the support that entails.....clear as mud?

I don't, but then AFAIK, there isn't an established network of beer dealers downtown.

I must admit I haven't followed this issue too much, but it does remind me of the softwood lumber dispute that devastated communities here in British Columbia: So, if the the Senate doesn't repeal said legislation, does the Trudeau Government have it in them to go to bat for Canadian cattle ranchers? The previous Liberal Government left BC's forestry sector in the wind over softwood lumber, not being resolved until the Harper Tories reached a deal in '06 (a deal that expired a month or so ago)......the current Liberal Government doesn't appear to be doing anything for the O&G industries, so will they get into a trade war with our largest trading partner over beef?

I've wondered about that to, if there is already a "tax free distribution network", that I assume works, why would most choose to forgo this and pay taxes on it in Government stores?