Guest Derek L Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 hey Derek L, about your much touted/hyped 2 airplane purchase by Norway... the Norway preconditions... and just how desperate Lockheed Martin, the U.S. DoD and Pentagon are: A blog referencing the JSM & F-35? I brought up the subject here several months ago…….Where’s the yawn emotion thingy? Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 A blog referencing the JSM & F-35? I brought up the subject here several months ago…….Where’s the yawn emotion thingy? oh... another 'blog slag', hey? Of course, the same JSM references appear in any of the mainstream news articles that speak to your Norway puffery. in any case, the point you're purposely ignoring is the Norway precondition aspect to the "sale"... something you conveniently left out. Notwithstanding the highlighted GAO concerns over concurrency - certainly, in your self-serving myopic view, JSFail will quite easily absorb another major development shift - no problemo, says expert 'Derek L'! Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 oh... another 'blog slag', hey? Of course, the same JSM references appear in any of the mainstream news articles that speak to your Norway puffery. in any case, the point you're purposely ignoring is the Norway precondition aspect to the "sale"... something you conveniently left out. Notwithstanding the highlighted GAO concerns over concurrency - certainly, in your self-serving myopic view, JSFail will quite easily absorb another major development shift - no problemo, says expert 'Derek L'! Still a no on the math problem eh? Quote
Argus Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 Still a no on the math problem eh? Still a no on an alternative, eh? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 Still a no on the math problem eh? no, no math problem... as before, costs mean nothing to you - "whatever it costs, it costs", right? Why not address all those cost issues/concerns within the U.S. GAO report... if you really want to talk costs. Why not answer what year Canada can expect to receive the imaginary F-35 - 2021, 2022, 2023??? When... and at what cost? Harper Conservatives now even refuse to give you a date and cost number - and you presume to play your silly-assed math problem BS? in any case, you just refuse to read... while ignoring full life-cycle costs... while ignoring the Norway preconditions... while ignoring the Pentagon/DoD/Lockheed Martin desperation in meeting those preconditions... while ignoring any impact on the JSFail program to integrate those Norway preconditions into the program... while ignoring the U.S. GAO reports concurrency concerns while throwing yet another concurrency issue into the mix. No problem for 'Derek L' as he presumes to, "talk costs"! Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Still a no on an alternative, eh? still a no on you addressing the legitimate criticisms within the Pentagon F-35 SAR reports... from within the U.S. GAO reports? Just what are you throwing up for comparison purposes? An imaginary plane that isn't even in the air yet? One that has barely been tested in terms of development to date? One that can't even bring a plane forward for potential customers to even fly... is that what your reference comparison is - vapourware? A plane that has never exhibited any suggestion that it's supposed "5th gen" capabilities even exists in current development... has never shown them to exist within the planes development to date. Is that your kind of reference - a paperwork reference? is this your reference - the one from the just days ago released U.S. GAO report... where the report states, "to date, only 4 percent of the mission systems required for full capability have been verified". 4%... is that your kind of reference, hey? in any case, I've expressed my alternative preferences many times over. It doesn't include so-called 'first-strike' capabilities... or the nothingness that F-35 "stealth" means... or will mean. Or the pumped up vagueness that "5th gen" means. It doesn't align with imaginary boogeyman invasions of Canada... or the convenient Arctic sovereignty buzzword politicization - one Harper Conservatives have even bailed on now. Edited June 17, 2012 by waldo Quote
Argus Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 no, no math problem... as before, costs mean nothing to you - "whatever it costs, it costs", right? Why not address all those cost issues/concerns within the U.S. GAO report... if you really want to talk costs. Why not answer what year Canada can expect to receive the imaginary F-35 - 2021, 2022, 2023??? When... and at what cost? Harper Conservatives now even refuse to give you a date and cost number - and you presume to play your silly-assed math problem BS? in any case, you just refuse to read... while ignoring full life-cycle costs... while ignoring the Norway preconditions... while ignoring the Pentagon/DoD/Lockheed Martin desperation in meeting those preconditions... while ignoring any impact on the JSFail program to integrate those Norway preconditions into the program... while ignoring the U.S. GAO reports concurrency concerns while throwing yet another concurrency issue into the mix. No problem for 'Derek L' as he presumes to, "talk costs"! So once again, you refuse to provide an alternative. All the bluster above does little to disguise that. Apparently you HAVE no alternative. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 So once again, you refuse to provide an alternative. All the bluster above does little to disguise that. Apparently you HAVE no alternative. apparently you can't read... or even quote the right reply... you were given a reply - why not quote it? My alternatives run from no jets are needed... to... if you must have a jet, why can't you find a jet within existing 4th gen aircraft? Which, of course, forces you to pony up exactly what role and needs you... you Argus... think Canada's military should play/have. Quote
Argus Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 apparently you can't read... or even quote the right reply... you were given a reply - why not quote it? My alternatives run from no jets are needed... to... if you must have a jet, why can't you find a jet within existing 4th gen aircraft? Which, of course, forces you to pony up exactly what role and needs you... you Argus... think Canada's military should play/have. Well, no jets is not a legitimate answer, and you never made it in the post to which I replied. Nor, in fact, did you actually address the question. Btw, "find another' is not an answer. Provide me with the alternative, please. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest Derek L Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 Well, no jets is not a legitimate answer, and you never made it in the post to which I replied. Nor, in fact, did you actually address the question. Btw, "find another' is not an answer. Provide me with the alternative, please. I'll second that, there's: Australia’s 24 Super Hornets for 6.6 billion The Eurofighter at about 155 million per copy And India’s purchase of 126 Dassault Rafale’s for $20 billion plus And he’d prefer purchasing another, older aircraft type for similar money as the F-35? Why purchase a 2012 Chevy for 20k, when you can purchase a 2000 Chevy for 18k? Clearly, esteemed member Waldo’s only interest in “stealth”, is in the form of a cut in capability for our armed forces. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 18, 2012 Report Posted June 18, 2012 Since blogs are often used as trusted sources of information, here’s a couple of points of interest: Pentagon's Best-Kept Secret: F-35 Fighter Is Progressing Nicely The reality is that for the third straight year flight tests are ahead of schedule, the cost to build each plane is falling fast, and international partners are so enthused that new customers are getting in line for the F-35 on a regular basis (South Korea will be next). So how come you don’t know any of this? The reason you don’t know it is that political appointees have decided they can score points with Congress by attacking their own program, and national media always lead with the most sensational information. For instance, Pentagon officials recently disclosed that the cost of building and operating the F-35 had risen to $1.5 trillion — without mentioning that a third of that total is unprovable estimates of future inflation and two-thirds of supposed increases from the program baseline reflect changes in how costs are calculated rather than real increases. Officials also didn’t mention it would cost two or three times more to stick with the current fleet of fighters, given the cost of maintaining aging aircraft. Most news accounts just cited the trillion-dollar price-tag, preferring to stick with the “troubled program” theme. Easy to write, no thinking required. Hmmm, almost sounds familiar Let’s start with the flight tests that are steadily verifying all the performance features of the aircraft. The program has surpassed its goals for flight testing in each of the last three years, doing 15 percent better than planned in 2011 and 20 percent better than planned so far in 2012. Collectively, the three versions of the F-35 have now flown well over 2,000 times, accomplishing more than a quarter of the planned tasks in a comprehensive testing regime. By the end of this year, the most common version of the plane — the one that will be used by the Air Force and exported to most foreign customers — will be 45 percent of the way through all its flight tests. What we'll be getting (F-35A) Obviously, any money that already has been spent can’t be recovered. However, when you look at the cost going forward to build each new plane, that’s coming down — and fast. The “unit recurring flyaway” cost for the most common variant of F-35 fell below $150 million each in the third low-rate production lot and will fall below $100 million in the fifth lot currently being negotiated. By the time its gets to the tenth production lot, the recurring flyaway cost of the most common variant will be approaching what legacy F-16 and F/A-18 fighters sell for today. Granted, that’s just what it costs to “drive it off the lot,” and doesn’t include items like training and spare parts. On the other hand, the price-tag on legacy fighters doesn’t include all the equipment they will need in combat (the F-35 price-tag does), and older fighters don’t have the F-35′s stealth. Could PM Harper/CPC have been right? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 18, 2012 Report Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) Leaving opinion aside, let’s move onto another Government’s press release……The Dutch Translation of a statement by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence: Calculated over the entire production period, the average unit cost of the F-35A, the version which the Netherlands intends to buy, has remained reasonably stable compared to last year. The average unit cost as of June 2012 is EUR 61,5 million. This year’s annual report again mentions cost increases, particularly for the operational costs of the F-35 during its entire service life (thirty years). The estimated capital investment as of 31 December 2011 is EUR 7.5 billion if the Netherlands were to buy a total of 85 aircraft. This is similar to the estimate of one year before (EUR 7.6 billion). As of last year, the Defence organisation is using a lower dollar exchange rate. This is partly offset by increased costs resulting from the decision by the United States and a number of other countries, including the Netherlands, to move back the order of a total of 242 aircraft to later years. For the time being, a sum of EUR 4.5 billion has been earmarked for the successor to the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s F-16. A subsequent government will decide on the successor to the F-16, the number of aircraft to be purchased and the budget needed for that. Since the F-35 is a new aircraft, there is only little user experience available. This makes it difficult to calculate the operating costs. The restructuring of the F-35 programme is based on a very conservative estimate. The estimated operating costs for the Netherlands amount to EUR 13.6 billion over thirty years. This amount could turn out to be EUR 1 billion higher after the latest pricing information from the US has been quantified. Who’s up for some Math problems? Let’s see, we’ll have to convert the Euro to the Canadian dollar, figure out the Dutch per plane cost based on their budgeted sum and 85 plane purchase and contrast it with our budgeted sum and 65 plane purchase……..Would including Norway be considered a distraction to this little math exercise? Forgot to add the link: F-35 Programme Back to Full Steam Ahead Edited June 18, 2012 by Derek L Quote
waldo Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 Since blogs are often used as trusted sources of information, here’s a couple of points of interest:Pentagon's Best-Kept Secret: F-35 Fighter Is Progressing Nicely oh... blog output you can really get behind now, hey? Does this mean you won't forever slag everything/anything blog related that's critical of JSFail? in any case, your referenced article author, one "Dr. Loren B. Thompson" has taken on the moniker "Dr. Feelgood" for his past writings on the JSFail's F-35... you know, the guy labeled as a "defense industry analyst" (at best) or an outright Lockheed Martin consultant (per recent NYT & Washington Post articles). One can only chuckle at one of his other similar gems that got the standard mileage run printed everywhere LockMart garners support/allegiance from its fanboys, like you! funny how his writings don't align with the U.S. GAO reports, hey? You know... the U.S. GAO reports I'm continually drawing reference to... the reports you won't touch with the proverbial '10 foot pole' - right? Quote
waldo Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 hey now, Derek L... is this back to your... "full speed"? a most significant design defect within the JSFail F-35, as outlined in the most recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report - unreadable "symbology." The problem exists inside a small item at the heart of what makes the F-35 the world's most sophisticated aircraft -- if only it could be made to work. Namely, the pilot's helmet visor. The visor is, according to the Government Accountability Office's latest annual report on the F-35's development, "integral to the mission systems architecture." In other words, the plane was more or less designed around the unique capabilities of that fancy helmet appendage. Just one problem: It doesn't work. In flight tests, the visor's "symbology" has evidently been unreadable, because the plane itself has been bouncing up and down in the air more than expected. "Display jitter," the GAO report says in a footnote, "is the undesired shaking of display, making symbology unreadable ... [due to] worse than expected vibrations, known as aircraft buffet." Unfortunately for the plane's designers, jitter and buffeting are only part of the problems undermining the visor's use. The others are a persistent delay in displaying key sensor data -- making the visor symbols outdated as the aircraft streaks through the air at speeds up to 1,200 mph -- and an inability to show night vision readings properly. So what's the big deal? It's just a visor. Well, the GAO report says "these shortfalls may lead to a helmet unable to fully meet warfighter requirements -- unsuitable for flight tasks and weapons delivery, as well as creating an unmanageable pilot workload, and may place limitations on the [F-35's] operational environment." In short, if the visor doesn't work, the plane may not be able to do all the impressive things that the Pentagon is spending more than $1.5 trillion -- over the next 30 or so years -- to make it do. so severe a design problem that LockMart has been working feverishly on an alternate design approach, one described as "less capable". Back to "full speed" hey? Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 How is it that the red-blooded military fetishists among us are unaware of these interesting little facts? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
waldo Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 not only did Harper Conservatives renege on their promise to bring forward an independent review within the promised time period... it now appears the review will be nothing more than another piece of suspect window-dressing: Outside experts called in to verify reliability of F-35 stealth fighter costs to be denied original information provided to DND An outside review at the centre of the government’s promise to verify the reliability of F-35 stealth fighter jet costs produced by the Department of National Defence will be denied access to the original information that National Defence is using to come up with the figures, according to an obscure footnote in the plan Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose released last week. Quote
Smallc Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 Those are some pretty serious allegations you keep making. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 How is it that the red-blooded military fetishists among us are unaware of these interesting little facts? Now we know who the true "fetishists" are. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 oh... blog output you can really get behind now, hey? Does this mean you won't forever slag everything/anything blog related that's critical of JSFail? in any case, your referenced article author, one "Dr. Loren B. Thompson" has taken on the moniker "Dr. Feelgood" for his past writings on the JSFail's F-35... you know, the guy labeled as a "defense industry analyst" (at best) or an outright Lockheed Martin consultant (per recent NYT & Washington Post articles). One can only chuckle at one of his other similar gems that got the standard mileage run printed everywhere LockMart garners support/allegiance from its fanboys, like you! funny how his writings don't align with the U.S. GAO reports, hey? You know... the U.S. GAO reports I'm continually drawing reference to... the reports you won't touch with the proverbial '10 foot pole' - right? The same GAO report with suspect accounting methods as mentioned in the “blog” including "unprovable estimates of future inflation" and " changes in how costs are calculated"? That report? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 hey now, Derek L... is this back to your... "full speed"? a most significant design defect within the JSFail F-35, as outlined in the most recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report - unreadable "symbology." so severe a design problem that LockMart has been working feverishly on an alternate design approach, one described as "less capable". Back to "full speed" hey? Are you going senile? Perhaps I am, I thought we went over the helmet last year? The same helmet that isn’t effecting the flight testing? So that’s a no on addressing the recent Norwegian and Dutch deals/announcements right? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Airbus Affair. Do you have evidence of corruption similar to the Airbus Affair or is this just a hunch? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 ...So that’s a no on addressing the recent Norwegian and Dutch deals/announcements right? Apparently not...how dare they place firm orders for the F-35! It ruins everything....but wait...maybe a diversion with last years HMD development issues can win the day? That will certainly stop more F-35 sales, right? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 Apparently not...how dare they place firm orders for the F-35! It ruins everything....but wait...maybe a diversion with last years HMD development issues can win the day? That will certainly stop more F-35 sales, right? Indeed……..I almost wonder if esteemed member Waldo is a corporate stooge for Lockheed’s competitors Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 in any case, your referenced article author, one "Dr. Loren B. Thompson" has taken on the moniker "Dr. Feelgood" for his past writings on the JSFail's F-35... you know, the guy labeled as a "defense industry analyst" (at best) or an outright Lockheed Martin consultant (per recent NYT & Washington Post articles). One can only chuckle at one of his other similar gems that got the standard mileage run printed everywhere LockMart garners support/allegiance from its fanboys, like you!funny how his writings don't align with the U.S. GAO reports, hey? You know... the U.S. GAO reports I'm continually drawing reference to... the reports you won't touch with the proverbial '10 foot pole' - right? The same GAO report with suspect accounting methods as mentioned in the “blog” including "unprovable estimates of future inflation" and " changes in how costs are calculated"? That report? look, I appreciate LockMart fanboys like you would automatically reach for and accept, verbatim, something written by a LockMart consultant... that you would accept it over an official United States government report as written by the official audit, evaluation and investigative arm of the U.S. Congress - a report from the United States Government Accountability Office. Quote
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.