F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

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."

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?

it's certainly not unexpected that you would cast this most egregious design defect aside, but this is quite the lame response...even for your standards. I don't believe I was privy to your rabid gushing over the JSFail, "last year"... you could offer up a short synopsis or link to a summary accounting post of yours, right? You know, something to lessen the concerns raised within the most recent U.S. GAO report released just a few weeks ago now.

The helmet mounted display in particular continues to have significant technical deficiencies that make it less functional than legacy equipment. The display is integral to the mission systems architecture, reducing pilot workload, and the overall JSF concept of operations—displaying key aircraft performance information as well as tactical situational awareness and weapons employment information on the pilot’s helmet visor, replacing conventional heads-up display systems. Helmet problems include integration of the night vision capability, display jitter, and latency (or delay) in transmitting sensor data. These shortfalls may lead to a helmet unable to fully meet warfighter requirements—unsuitable for flight tasks and weapon delivery, as well as creating an unmanageable pilot workload, and may place limitations on the JSF’s operational environment, according to program officials.

[waldo]

Lockheed Needs Pressure to Pare F-35 Costs

The Pentagon and Congress should press Lockheed Martin Corp. to reduce soaring costs of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said.

“We have to keep the pressure on,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview. “We’ve got to have contracts which are fixed-priced. We have to make reductions.”

The U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a review released on June 14 that the F-35 will require $12.7 billion a year on average through 2037. That’s up from $9.1 billion requested for fiscal 2013.

The program’s projected “lifecycle cost” -- including development since 1994, production of 2,443 jets and 55 years of support -- increased to $1.51 trillion from $1.38 trillion in 2010, Pentagon officials told reporters March 30.

“We’ve got to have a backup, which is what the F-18 is all about,” Levin said of the current fighter built by Boeing Co.

Asked today about the senator’s comments, Robert Stevens, Lockheed’s chairman and chief executive officer, said, “We agree with Senator Levin. We want to get this program right.”

For the fifth F-35 production contract that’s still under negotiation, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed has agreed for the first time to share costs to fix deficiencies discovered during flight tests that overlap the plane’s development.

This approach, called concurrent development, is supposed to save time. Instead, it added to costs, according to Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition. “Putting the F-35 into production years before the first flight test was

acquisition malpractice

,” Kendall said in a Feb. 6 industry presentation, according to Air Force magazine. “It should not have been done. But we did it.”

The F-35 program proceeded with the “optimistic prediction we were good enough at modeling and simulation that we would not find problems in flight test,” Kendall said. “That was wrong, and now we are paying the price.”

As part of the sixth contract for the F-35, the Pentagon plans to craft provisions forcing Lockheed to absorb a greater share of cost overruns than in the prior five contracts.

Additionally, six of the 31 aircraft in the sixth contract won’t be awarded until Lockheed meets at least five criteria, including successful review this year of the latest software release, Vice Admiral David Venlet told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s airpower panel in May.

The GAO found the F-35 program’s performance in 2011 “was mixed as the program achieved 6 of 11 important objectives. Developmental flight testing gained momentum and is now about 21 percent complete with the most challenging tasks still ahead.”

Lockheed’s manufacturing process “is still absorbing a higher than expected number of engineering changes resulting from flight testing, changes which are expected to persist at elevated levels into 2019, making it difficult to achieve efficient production rates,” the GAO wrote

.

[waldo]

F-35 stealth fighter jets’ terms of independent review vindicate AG; winning firm must include all lifetime costs

The terms of an independent review to verify full lifecycle costs for the government’s proposed acquisition of 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets vindicate Auditor General Michael Ferguson in his three-month battle with the Department of National Defence over the project’s costs, requiring the firm that wins a competition to conduct the review to include all costs— everything down to jet fuel—for the entire expected lifetime of the aircraft.

Under requirements for the review contract the federal Treasury Board Secretariat has set out for 16 selected firms to submit bids—including several of Canada’s largest and most prestigious accounting firms—the winning firm will have to assess costs for development, acquisition, upgrades, operations, and even end-of-life disposal and decommissioning, including propulsion and mission software systems “throughout the expected operational life” of the aircraft fleet.

The terms of work for the independent reviewer, which include broad requirements to investigate and analyse military costing estimates and models used by other countries, state that it will verify the latest National Defence F-35 costing estimates before they are tabled in Parliament as part of the government’s response to Mr. Ferguson’s scathing report last April 3.

[waldo]

even the expected Harper Conservative cabinet shuffle/punt of MacKay & Fantino from Defence... won't so easily sweep aside the disastrous, slow-bleed mess of the JSFail F-35 jet fighter procurement:

Commons committee investigation into F-35 fiasco hangs on by a thread

The Harper government's attempt to shut down a House of Commons committee investigation into the handling the F-35 stealth-fighter deal has failed, thanks to a filibuster by the Opposition.

As the Commons adjourned for the summer, New Democrats managed to hold up the writing of a final report into the auditor general's criticism of the multibillion-dollar program.

It has been put off until the fall when opposition members will try once again to have more witnesses called before the public accounts committee.

[bleeding heart]

Now we know who the true "fetishists" are.

Do you object to the term?

Your point is unclear.

[GostHacked]

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.

Nothing like paying lip service to authority .. right Waldo?

[waldo]

Nothing like paying lip service to authority .. right Waldo?

qualify said, 'lip service'... while you're doing that, would you care to lay out the actual authority hierarchy you're presuming upon - sure you can.

[GostHacked]

qualify said, 'lip service'... while you're doing that, would you care to lay out the actual authority hierarchy you're presuming upon - sure you can.

Ahh I read the quote wrong. My apologies.

[carepov]

I am new here, very interested in this issue but don't feel like reading through 173 pages of posts...

Can someone please sum up the arguments (or provide a link) explaining why Canada needs any fighters at all? Thanks.

[cybercoma]

I am new here, very interested in this issue but don't feel like reading through 173 pages of posts...

Can someone please sum up the arguments (or provide a link) explaining why Canada needs any fighters at all? Thanks.

The old ones will are becoming too costly to maintain and will soon be too dangerous to use in regular service. They need to be replaced. We at the very least need fighters to protect our own airspace.

[cybercoma]

Now if you want to know why we need the F-35s specifically, the answer is we don't.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Is the GAO method of accounting carried out in such a way as the Lockheed Rep mentioned? Yes or No?

These very seem “issues” seem common with our own “accounting methods”……….So is that a denial in that what was mentioned was false?

[waldo]

Is the GAO method of accounting carried out in such a way as the Lockheed Rep mentioned? Yes or No?

These very seem “issues” seem common with our own “accounting methods”……….So is that a denial in that what was mentioned was false?

buddy... I'd suggest you actually read your own linked articles and what you quote... your LockMart consultant was speaking to the Pentagon SAR F-35 report - nothing to do with the U.S. GAO. Would you like a do-over?

[Guest Derek L]

it's certainly not unexpected that you would cast this most egregious design defect aside, but this is quite the lame response...even for your standards. I don't believe I was privy to your rabid gushing over the JSFail, "last year"... you could offer up a short synopsis or link to a summary accounting post of yours, right? You know, something to lessen the concerns raised within the most recent U.S. GAO report released just a few weeks ago now.

Fair enough…As I said, I couldn’t remember if you and I discussed it last year……Must have been with another poster.

Anyways, said “troubled helmet” was mentioned by myself on this forum several months prior to the “scathing media reports”, and said helmet (and it’s latency issues measured in milliseconds) has been used, both in the daytime and night, on 2000+ flights to date without incident and without effecting the overall testing program………..The “ultimate fix” will revolve around both software and stabilizers that one could associate with a higher end digital camera.

The “plan B” is a solution provided by BAE’s already existing technology used in the Eurofighter……..The key difference between the two systems is that BAE’s projects the standard monochrome indigo Green color onto the visor, versus the new (and in use helmet) that projects “High Definition, real life” picture onto the visor………..

Clearly this “issue” hasn’t shook the end users agreeing to purchase it though.

[Guest Derek L]

buddy... I'd suggest you actually read your own linked articles and what you quote... your LockMart consultant was speaking to the Pentagon SAR F-35 report - nothing to do with the U.S. GAO. Would you like a do-over?

Who defines the accounting methods used by the Pentagon, or (US) Government in general?

[waldo]

Anyways, said “troubled helmet” was mentioned by myself on this forum several months prior to the “scathing media reports”, and said helmet (and it’s latency issues measured in milliseconds) has been used, both in the daytime and night, on 2000+ flights to date without incident and without effecting the overall testing program………..The “ultimate fix” will revolve around both software and stabilizers that one could associate with a higher end digital camera.

I expect you could substantiate your claims, right? A 'Derek L' substantiation that would counter the GAO assessment as per stated, "JSFail program officials".

The helmet mounted display in particular continues to have significant technical deficiencies that make it less functional than legacy equipment. The display is integral to the mission systems architecture, reducing pilot workload, and the overall JSF concept of operations—displaying key aircraft performance information as well as tactical situational awareness and weapons employment information on the pilot’s helmet visor, replacing conventional heads-up display systems. Helmet problems include integration of the night vision capability, display jitter, and latency (or delay) in transmitting sensor data. These shortfalls may lead to a helmet unable to fully meet warfighter requirements—unsuitable for flight tasks and weapon delivery, as well as creating an unmanageable pilot workload, and may place limitations on the JSF’s operational environment,

according to program officials

.

The “plan B” is a solution provided by BAE’s already existing technology used in the Eurofighter……..The key difference between the two systems is that BAE’s projects the standard monochrome indigo Green color onto the visor, versus the new (and in use helmet) that projects “High Definition, real life” picture onto the visor………..

your simplistic assessment does not align with the suggestions that speak to "plan B" being one that provides a much reduced capability - one that does not align with capabilities associated to the much touted F-35 "symbology" and design architecture.

[Guest Derek L]

I expect you could substantiate your claims, right? A 'Derek L' substantiation that would counter the GAO assessment as per stated, "JSFail program officials".

You question the number of test flights the various versions of the F-35 performed with said helmet?

your simplistic assessment does not align with the suggestions that speak to "plan B" being one that provides a much reduced capability - one that does not align with capabilities associated to the much touted F-35 "symbology" and design architecture.

Going from a single color to high def is a reduction in capability for visual observation by the pilot……But as mentioned, said helmet is in use and will be in use during this Summer’s live weapons trails……..

PS, Found my earlier post starting here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19792&st=195

Doubt it……..but I’m waiting for the media and in turn some posters here, to “report” on the “new’ problems associated with the JSF………(Even though I posted a few pages back, these problems are with prototypes and pre-production aircraft, that consequently, production is slowing on)………

“Brace yourself”, for news on relating to the “failure to integrate the (recycled from F-18) tail hook on the “C” version”, A fuel dump that doesn’t completely empty the tanks and problems with the pilots helmet integrated weapons cueing software.

[waldo]

buddy... I'd suggest you actually read your own linked articles and what you quote... your LockMart consultant was speaking to the Pentagon SAR F-35 report - nothing to do with the U.S. GAO. Would you like a do-over?

Who defines the accounting methods used by the Pentagon, or (US) Government in general?

is this your way of not admitting your screw-up? Now... whatever the accounting methods used by the Pentagon... or the U.S. GAO, for that matter - they are the accepted, long standing, official accounting methods of record/substance/accounting. If you have concerns over said accounting methods, I trust you could attempt to make a case... against the accepted, long standing, official accounting methods of record/substance/accounting. I have no intention of following you down another 'Derek L' rat-hole distraction... I suggest you bring your concerns forward by contacting the Pentagon... or the U.S. GAO, hey?

[cybercoma]

I have one word for both of you: minutiae.

[Guest Derek L]

is this your way of not admitting your screw-up? Now... whatever the accounting methods used by the Pentagon... or the U.S. GAO, for that matter - they are the accepted, long standing, official accounting methods of record/substance/accounting. If you have concerns over said accounting methods, I trust you could attempt to make a case... against the accepted, long standing, official accounting methods of record/substance/accounting. I have no intention of following you down another 'Derek L' rat-hole distraction... I suggest you bring your concerns forward by contacting the Pentagon... or the U.S. GAO, hey?

So is that a denial or conformation that accounting methods that include “full lifetime costing” is a “new approach” taken with the F-35/JSF programs when contrasted with prior defence programs initiated by the United States, and as such, when including a multitude of other expenses, the program will appear to have increased in cost significantly?

[waldo]

You question the number of test flights the various versions of the F-35 performed with said helmet?

you question the, "JSFail program officials" referenced within the U.S. GAO report?

[Guest Derek L]

you question the, "JSFail program officials" referenced within the U.S. GAO report?

I question both American and Canadian methods that include full life cycle costs that include such minutia (Shout out to Cybercoma) as payroll and airfield maintenance and the associated “spin” used by critics of the program to cloud the optics as such……..

You’re questioning if the aircraft has actually flown 2000+ times with said helmet? What’s next, the Moon Landings were fake?

[waldo]

So is that a denial or conformation that accounting methods that include “full lifetime costing” is a “new approach” taken with the F-35/JSF programs when contrasted with prior defence programs initiated by the United States, and as such, when including a multitude of other expenses, the program will appear to have increased in cost significantly?

it was your reference to the Pentagon... if you have a concern with Pentagon methodology I suggest you take it up the chain of command! In any case, I certainly won't just accept your LockMart consultants commentary, outright, on anything... whatever it is. You echoing a LockMart consultant, one called, "Dr. Feelgood", for his lack of critical comment on the JSFail program... is simply a telling assessment on your own critical eye.

[waldo]

You’re questioning if the aircraft has actually flown 2000+ times with said helmet? What’s next, the Moon Landings were fake?

you question the, "JSFail program officials" referenced within the U.S. GAO report?

[Guest Derek L]

it was your reference to the Pentagon... if you have a concern with Pentagon methodology I suggest you take it up the chain of command! In any case, I certainly won't just accept your LockMart consultants commentary, outright, on anything... whatever it is. You echoing a LockMart consultant, one called, "Dr. Feelgood", for his lack of critical comment on the JSFail program... is simply a telling assessment on your own critical eye.

I thought Bloggers were fair and accurate sources? At least "Dr. Feelgood" has been to Fort Worth......