Guest Derek L Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 no - your quoted portions were the article's lead; i.e., the premise to which the rest of the article brings scrutiny/discussion against/forward. yes, you are correct in re-quoting that... David Pugliese's (apparent) 'DefenseNews' referenced article specifically states those words. Along with these quotes, which you quite conveniently downplay: you are most willing to accept the quoted delivery schedule statements from the, 'Air Force's F-35 deputy program executive officer'... you know, that program so maligned for being, "overdue, over-budget and over-hyped"... ya, that one! [/size] I expect because just a few blog posts earlier, Pugliese had much to write about F-35 costs, countering those very numbers you (and Harper Conservatives) so want to continue to fallaciously trumpet... and from that same, just released, U.S. Pentagon Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), dated Dec. 31, 2011: as I said, as I quoted from above, Pugliese had much to say about F-35 costs in a blog entry just a few earlier from the one reference linked... however, I note most of that same blog entry is about the F-35 program cost-overruns. We could go there, if you'd like - your choice. So it alright to use David Pugliese's cherry picked information, obtained from another article in which he’d cherry picked, to support your (his) agenda……….Why didn’t he (you) simply link to the original?………Clearly mentioned per plane figures in the 70-80 million dollar range would be off message no? Hey? And, by and by, reference to the US production numbers being effected by the delivery of the other JSF partners aircraft in the 2017-2021 timeframe……..clearly that fact would run counter to his blog’s commentary, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 as I said, as I quoted from above, Pugliese had much to say about F-35 costs in a blog entry just a few earlier from the one reference linked... however, I note most of that same blog entry is about the F-35 program cost-overruns. We could go there, if you'd like - your choice. To add: The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) is a reflection of the cost Canada would pay. In this SAR it is $137.41 for 2012. Last year it was $132.81. While this figure is an average of the 3 variants, it provides a useful benchmark. So a “useful” average, based on the inclusion of the two other costlier versions that we’re not purchasing, based on costing of LRIP aircraft (Of which we’re not purchasing) this year and last is a valid comparison for aircraft that we’re purchasing later this decade? I don’t doubt he’d skip over the parts in the Defence New article, since they’d run counter to his earlier musings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 These do not exactly fit the hallmarks of a totalitarian leftist society you claim is the bogeyman... They are the bogeyman just not the one you think they are...Black shirts and stick wrapped axes is the modern Chinese game... You are quibbling over minor details. The fact modern day China violates any number of the ideological aims of Communism is irrelevant. The point is it's a huge, brutal, totalitarian regime which has never shrunk from employing force to get its way. It also takes the long view of things. I'm sure its adherents still believe in Communism's aims, but tell themselves that compromises have to be made for now. In the meantime, it gains wealth from those compromises, wealth which has gone into enormous technological improvements in the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Really , Man has been at this for thousands of years and still can not resolve anything without violence...do you think a few hungry kids are going to make a difference, shit you can't turn on a channel now with out seeing it for a full 30 seconds images of starving kids desparate for any food...does it make a difference in your life...have you heard anyone say thats it, screw it i m giving up violence so that kids can grow up with out knowing hunger....good luck with that...Man is man and will not be changing his ways anytime soon....until we blow each other off the planet we will continue develope tools for war, until we get it right ... Fun with numbers eh? Let’s include, for a conservative estimate, the stated average of all three aircraft (two of which are more costlier and we’re not buying) of ~109 million, coupled with an additional 15 aircraft for attrition that we might not need and we have: $ 109 million x 80 aircraft = ? Remember the Government budgeted for procurement 9 billion……… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 I just want to point out while we are here talking about buying Billion dollar fighter planes to stop the growing Chinese power the Chinese just bought themselves more power. Remember that IMF bail out fund we refused to kick in on? Well the Chinese said they would kick in but it comes with the strings that the EU countries view China and accept its opinions on equal footing as other Developed countries just like Canada. We are playing a Short game while the Chinese play the long game and use money instead of a Military for its conquests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Fun with numbers eh? Let’s include, for a conservative estimate, the stated average of all three aircraft (two of which are more costlier and we’re not buying) of ~109 million, coupled with an additional 15 aircraft for attrition that we might not need and we have: $ 109 million x 80 aircraft = ? Remember the Government budgeted for procurement 9 billion……… Yah I love buying a plane with no Weapons systems and with out an engine. Stop using numbers you know aren't real and don't include all the parts. Edited April 21, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 In the meantime, it gains wealth from those compromises, wealth which has gone into enormous technological improvements in the military. Wealth has also gone into the hands of the people in power. As AG says; ...Man is man and will not be changing his ways anytime soon....until we blow each other off the planet we will continue develope tools for war, until we get it right ... As I see it the 1% or whatever you want to call them in all ideologies is what's compromising humanity and leading everyone into the same dead end spiral of intense resource consumption largely for the sake of fighting for the last of the resources while concentrating the most power and wealth into as few hands as possible. The only thing humans have never tried is to get a real handle on the 1%. The capitalists have failed, the commies have too. The 1% who of course are only human certainly can't be expected to help themselves. Blowing them away will never change anything but turning the paradigm upside down might. I still think the only solution is souveillance - aim the Telescreens in the other direction and monitor the 1% to an extent that would make Orwell blush. As for China, I think we have to stop trading with them and let the discontent the economic dislocation that causes there to move people to change their system from the bottom up. On the other side we have to contain our discontent. This might be comparable I think, to the much vaunted sacrifices that previous generations of Canadians who fought tyranny made to win our freedom. Failing this I see little reason not to think we'll simply destroy ourselves if we follow the path we're being led down. Ever heard of island biogeography? What's happening on Earth is pretty much exactly what happened on Easter Island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 The average procurement unit cost of all versions, including contractor services, publications, training and support equipment and other items, comes in at about $109 million per jet. and from that same, just released, U.S. Pentagon Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), dated Dec. 31, 2011: The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) is a reflection of the cost Canada would pay. In this SAR it is $137.41 for 2012. Last year it was $132.81 . While this figure is an average of the 3 variants, it provides a useful benchmark. So a “useful” average, based on the inclusion of the two other costlier versions that we’re not purchasing, based on costing of LRIP aircraft (Of which we’re not purchasing) this year and last is a valid comparison for aircraft that we’re purchasing later this decade? you ***-clown! If you have concerns over the APUC... then you shouldn't have mentioned it, hey? I'm simply responding to your initial reference, to your APUC costing reference! I'm simply providing you the real numbers from the Pentagon's own, just released, SAR. You must have thought the APUC had some significance, some bearing... you quoted it! In fact you quoted it, you bold-highlighted it, you underlined it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 ....Failing this I see little reason not to think we'll simply destroy ourselves if we follow the path we're being led down. Ever heard of island biogeography? What's happening on Earth is pretty much exactly what happened on Easter Island. That's fine just as long as "we" can watch it on "our" huge wide screen televisions in Hi Def. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 That's fine just as long as "we" can watch it on "our" huge wide screen televisions in Hi Def. Meh...3 Billion or so when we we young(er). Seven billion now...we don't need no Mr Eyeballs to tell us that the plan to civilize the planet has gone somewhat awry. Do you recall when certain aid groups used to give out transistor radios to men in various 3rd World countries in exchange for a vasectomy? Didn't work...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 .... Do you recall when certain aid groups used to give out transistor radios to men in various 3rd World countries in exchange for a vasectomy? Didn't work...lol. Damn...all I ever got were parts for a crystal radio set and I had to wind the coil myself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Damn...all I ever got were parts for a crystal radio set and I had to wind the coil myself! Hey...I could pick up Seattle on one of those back in the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 So it alright to use David Pugliese's cherry picked information, obtained from another article in which he’d cherry picked, to support your (his) agenda……….Why didn’t he (you) simply link to the original?………Clearly mentioned per plane figures in the 70-80 million dollar range would be off message no? Hey? link to the original and reference untrue/dated per-plane costing? You already asked this... I already answered... here, have it again: I expect because just a few blog posts earlier, Pugliese had much to write about F-35 costs, countering those very numbers you (and Harper Conservatives) so want to continue to fallaciously trumpet... New cost information has just been made available regarding the F-35. The Pentagon has just released its Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, 2011 . The Canadian government continues to quote a figure of $75 million per F-35A. This figure is the “unit recurring flyaway cost” (URFC) of the aircraft. However, the URFC only represents a component of the full cost Canada will pay to acquire this aircraft. The price Canada will pay to acquire the F-35A also includes additional items such as ancillary equipment (e.g. fuel tanks, weapon pylons, targeting pods), training and support equipment, tech data, publications, contractor services, initial spares, and facility construction. Nevertheless, it is useful to ascertain how reasonable is the government’s $75 million dollar figure. The just released SAR provides a perspective. It shows that the US Airforce’s planned expenditures for the unit recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A version are as follows (these figures include the costs for the aircraft and the engines): 2016 – $93.38 2017 – $91.43 2018 – $83.13 2019 – $83.95 2020 – $87.36 2021 – $95.16 2022 – $87.14 2023 – $88.08 Clearly, the government continues to understate the URFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Hey...I could pick up Seattle on one of those back in the day. Look Ma...no batteries required! Very green..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Look Ma...no batteries required! Very green..... Kids these days....expecting to pick the right high tech fighter aero-craft without having made an electric motor or a radio in high school. Tsk, tsk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Kids these days....expecting to pick the right high tech fighter aero-craft without having made an electric motor or a radio in high school. Tsk, tsk... ....and then they want it to be invisible to radar! Probably want free condoms too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 ....and then they want it to be invisible to radar! Probably want free condoms too. Plane Salesman: You see, you rub this special 'vanishing cream' onto the fuselage and wings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Plane Salesman: You see, you rub this special 'vanishing cream' onto the fuselage and wings... <insert crude but very funny girlfriend joke of your choice> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 <insert crude but very funny girlfriend joke of your choice> Female MP: Are the AMRAAMs supposed to swell-up like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Plane Salesman: You see, you rub this special 'vanishing cream' onto the fuselage and wings... well DOP, since it's such a hyped/touted aspect of the F-35... just how good is the "stealthiness"... and your "truthiness"? Any problems/concerns? Any F-35 'stealth killers' out there, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 well DOP, since it's such a hyped/touted aspect of the F-35... just how good is the "stealthiness"... and your "truthiness"? Any problems/concerns? Any F-35 'stealth killers' out there, hey? Ask your wife why it swells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Ask your wife why it swells. not quite the response I expected from such a self-proclaimed air-aficionado! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 You are quibbling over minor details. The fact modern day China violates any number of the ideological aims of Communism is irrelevant. The point is it's a huge, brutal, totalitarian regime which has never shrunk from employing force to get its way. It also takes the long view of things. I'm sure its adherents still believe in Communism's aims, but tell themselves that compromises have to be made for now. In the meantime, it gains wealth from those compromises, wealth which has gone into enormous technological improvements in the military. I agree with the first part... Modern China is a totalitarian/authoritarian state that uses subversive and openly brutal force to crush any and all dissent within it's borders...And it has taken a long view of things (approximately 20 years,to date)... Where you,and a few others who should know better because they are knowledgable about history,are wrong is that modern China resembles anything a Maoist "adherent" would blindly follow... I'm sure you are correct that some of these "adherent" within China justify the Marxist/Fascist 20 year flipparoo as "comprimises"... This simply does not change the facts... There are three (3) key components that differentiate a Marxist/extreme leftist state from a Fascist/extreme right wing state: 1.The private property ownership issue... Do citzens of the PRC own homes now?? Yuppers!! In fact,we have all heared about the potential of a Chinese housing bubble and that causing huge problems for the global economy... 2.There is some sort of quasi market in terms of the economy of that state... Yuppers..Stock exchanges in Hong Kong (inherited) and Shang Hai... Market based economies would not be seen under Chairman Mao...The Marxist aversion to the "bourgoisie and the petit bourgoisie"... 3.Strident nationalism... If you don't think this is on the rise,and by that I mean the belief in the superiority of the "Made in China" model for economic growth going forward,you're living in a dream world. Why do you think so many "developing countries" look to China instead of the The West for assistance now? What this tells me is that modren China has very little in comon with Mao's China or Lenin/Stalin's Soviet Union or anything out of the Communist Manifesto..In fact,all of those things describe: Salazar's Portugal Franco's Spain Mussolini's Italy Hitler's Germany Not exactly the bastions of Marxism,eh? Ask yourself this.... People like Kevin O'Leary,a hardline Free Market Capitalist if there ever was one,feel that democracy and freedom only come from entrepreneurship and MORE Capitalism,why is it they look to the Authoritarian Capitalism of China as the perfect model for the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 not quite the response I expected from such a self-proclaimed air-aficionado! DoP... Ya gotta admit... That's a zinger and it's pretty funny.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) But, to address your question: Any defence has a counter. But, it's all about survivability these days. Planes and pilots are massively expensive so you don't want to lose even one. Anything that improves survivability is a good thing. In the modern combat environment, speed and maneuverability don't mean nearly as much as they did in the past. That SAM or AAM will go faster no matter your aircraft. So what's left? Not being seen. Edited April 21, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.