Derek 2.0

On the flip side, the Luftwaffe's Intelligence Directorate found a great rate of success interrogating Allied aircrews by a softer and gentler approach, treating their prisoners with a level of decorum and respect, giving them their Red Cross parcels etc……Of course more resilient prisoners were threatened with being turned over to the SS/Gestapo, so the potential for a threat of violence was present, but mostly not needed with Allied airmen.

Is Redeye still on? I don't mind Gutfeld on "The Five"......the program that replaced Beck.

Not at all…...Your simplistic approach here does not recognise the purchasing roadmap of the various partners, which will see the bulk of said purchases take place once the aircraft begins full rate production in several years……….. It should be simple for you to revisit prior pages if you deem this important. With the inclusion of developmental funding, that is correct…….nobody will pay the same share as the Americans. There will be no “end to development”, for the program from the onset was intent on continual developments and incorporations of new technologies. The funding share is divided amongst the end users; with the percentage assigned by fleet size…..clearly the Americans will pay the bulk of development costing through the life of the program.

Oil/energy must be a close number two.........Efforts simply follow the money and importance....... Perhaps the Greenies should take note...

So called “actual sales” won’t take place until just prior to FRP begins……….So as to leverage economy of scales etc etc Both tier membership commitments and recent contracts have already been referenced and discussed………As I’ve said before, I feel no obligation to revisit several hundred pages of posts to retrieve citations from conversations that we’ve already had.

Still awaiting the Trudeau Liberals response on the proposed new gun laws.........and gun control in general. Till then, Liberal MP Wayne Easter sums up the parties views, from a few months back at the Liberal policy convention nicely: Translation: The Liberal only care about "gun control" when they think they can get a few votes from it............I await Trudeau's response with joy!!

What's wrong if it's legal? Does the Green industry not partake in influence peddling lobbying?

Under the framework of the program........not 2 for 1 as you suggested. Canada, like Australia, is a tier III partner........The Americans are a tier I partner.........You can pick whatever benchmark you want.

Not at all when within the law…….Lockheed’s competitors exert influence in much the same manner……In the end, the X-35 beat the (Boeing) X-32 on merit.

Not as you suggest......... Has been provided many time through the various threads over the years.....

Are you implying a level of “apparent corruption” or legal lobbying as defined by US laws associated with campaign financing?

I still await you to substantiate your claimed “fire sale”………..as was already said, a benchmark for Canada is transfixed to what other tier III partners pay.....like the RAAF.

If you have uncovered systemic corruption within Lockheed Martin, might I suggest reporting it here: [email protected] They might even give you a secret decoder ring as reward!!!

Outside of a reduction in Carriers, I don’t see any indication of the USN backing away from their F-35C requirement……..carrier trials begin in the next several months aboard the USS Nimitz…. The differing quoted prices have been provided over the last several pages……….for a proper contrast, one would need the finite details of the recent RAAF deal contrasted with the latest DoD contracts……as I’ve been repeating with the other member. As to financial commitments, that has been covered here numerous times when discussing the differing membership tiers.

That’s a no on highlighting your claimed “apparent corruption” found within the F-35 program I guess……and I thought you were some sort of internet tough guy……..oh well, your reversal of your declaration is the smart play.

Exactly.......ordering a zillion rounds of 5.56 ball is one thing.......developing the next generation fighter, with a learning curve to mimic the Apollo program, is clearly another thing....

Exactly…The cost plus approach to defense programs and procurement, for both the purchaser and manufacturer, is the most successful and efficient method………Fixed pricing has always been the least flexible, and due to inherent “mission creep” that plagues most programs, leads to an overpriced, substandard product for the end user, and can put the manufacturer in financial peril... {see A-12 Avenger and McDonnell Douglas }

Perhaps it is irrelevant to you, but when discussing two differing prices, knowing contract details is only logical. I heard the F-35 causes cancer, male pattern baldness, diabetes and climate change……. What does the LRIP production total mater? FRP for all three F-35 variants is slated in the next several years….. Red Herring and irrelevant? Diversification……and of course stock speculation takes into account the future... People that actually understand how the industry works, know that the F-35 (amongst other LockMart programs) are blue chips…….money follows success, smart money follows future success. Can you highlight the “apparent corruption”? Don’t be shy, name names……..I’ll strap on my tin-foil hat and watch you exude maturity with your unfounded conspiracy theory

Exactly.....

It doesn't mater? I thought we were trying to figure why they paid less for their aircraft then the Americans....I suggested because the Americans are paying for development and future upgrades, and you, the RAAF given a "special deal" by Lockheed.......one of us is clearly correct. Everything was effected by budget cuts, but wholesale budget cuts to all the armed services are not a result of the F-35... What was the price of the LRIP Super Hornet? At the time, a LRIP Super Hornet cost twice that of FRP Super Hornet cost later, and over three times the cost of a F/A-18C.........of course once you adjusted for inflation, both legacy and Super Hornets cost over 70 million, without ECM, targeting pods etc, today......... But of course rate of production and inflation play little into the overall price of an aircraft.... Actually it's not.....The RAAF ensured a portion of their Super Hornet buy was fitted for, but not with, the additional equipment to upgrade their Hornets to Growlers if required in the future for a marginal increase.......the big difference in price was omitting the ECM, avionics and targeting pods........ I'm well aware of the daily stock prices......but thanks Your libelous charge of "apparent corruption" is utterly baseless.........and should be edited unless you can provide proof.

How do you know? As I asked, what do both deals entail? What is foolish is to believe that US Government budgetary woes, and in turn sequestration, are attributed to the F-35……….Did the F-35 also cause the financial crisis? The most recent LRIP of F-35s are still not full production.........If you want to compare apples to apples, look at the difference in price difference between LRIP and production Super Hornet...... Are you suggesting the reason for the stark price difference is targeting pods, ECM and upgrades to baseline avionics? Like I was saying……… And yes, the F-35 will have an extensive ECM suite, so much so, the USMC won’t be replacing their current Prowlers with a dedicated type like the Growler and will stick with a mixed F-35B/C fleet. I've no doubt all three F-35s, once in full production, will be under 100 million (The F-35A, sans an engine is already), nor do I doubt the baseline F-35A will be somewhere between 85-75 million...... And frankly, I don't care that the American taxpayer underwrote the program, fore without international partners they would still have built a 5th gen aircraft on their on hook... But as I said, time will tell who is right on costing.......

That is correct. The RCAF’s approach to fleet management and usage entails working some airframes harder than others, as opposed to equal usage spread across the fleet. This ensures that a portion of the fleet will have a greater serviceability rate for emergency deployments. Of course, even with this method of usage, airframe life will reach an eventual end.

6k flight hours was the designed lifespan, but of course said figure is attributed to usage by the USN.......carrier usage is harder on the airframes...With that said, our Hornets, like the RAAF, USMC and Spanish are approaching the end of their lives....We have already retired Hornets based on airframe fatigue.

The difference in costs. Ahh...no, spending cuts to DoD, including the F-35, are a reflection of US Government spending as a whole. Do you feel the current production Super Hornet price was the same as the Super Hornet LRIP price? I never said that it did. It can. Why is there a stark difference in production prices between a baseline Super Hornet and a Growler? I, like those nations that will purchase it, based on historic precedent of defence programs, have no doubt that costs will drop once full production has started.

No......The 72 aircraft figure is the requirement to replace their legacy Hornets.......the additional ~28 aircraft, bringing the total to 100, will include the Super Hornet replacements in the later part of next decade, which at one point were planned to be F-35As, but will now likely entail an earlier purchase of F-35Bs to be shared by both the RAAF and the RAN FAA.