Guest Derek L Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 after all your bluster, it is most heartening to read you relegated to nothing more than a continued blather about, 'nations leaving'. As I said, notwithstanding the most recent $7 Billion cost hit to JSFail given U.S. military and partner nation procurement delay/reductions: do the math, damnit! Do the math! Which nations have left the program again? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 It should be clear to Derek now that waldo simply will not answer questions. Once upon a time, Lockheed built about 40 copies of a particular aircraft. It leaked jet fuel and had radical engines that took $50,000 1965 dollars just to turn on. It couldn't carry weapons and was built mostly of titanium which still is VERY expensive. Must have been a dud. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Derek L Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 puuurfect! Is that all ya got? Like I said, after more than decade, finally... finally... Lockheed Martin has been tied to a contract with real performance criteria it must meet. You presumed to beak-off over this contract... you really should have done your homework. In any case, like I challenged you to do - bring those contract pre-conditions forward... let's see just how much concern there really is within the SASC, hey? Chop, chop... times a wasting - bring em forward, hey? oh wait... are you grasping on to this conditional contract as something to champion... something over and above the SASC actually killing the JSFail program? Oh my... to even read you entertaining the "kill option" speaks volumes... speaks volumes, sir! Why would the US Government award another contract to Lockheed if they’re that concerned with their performance? Simple questions Waldo , but it’s telling why you refuse to answer them…………..Math and actions, math and actions that run contrary to your stated opinion.... Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 It should be clear to Derek now that waldo simply will not answer questions. Once upon a time, Lockheed built about 40 copies of a particular aircraft. It leaked jet fuel and had radical engines that took $50,000 1965 dollars just to turn on. It couldn't carry weapons and was built mostly of titanium which still is VERY expensive. Must have been a dud. As I’ve been saying to the esteemed member Waldo, actions speak louder then opinions words Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 As I’ve been saying to the esteemed member Waldo, actions speak louder then opinions words As Mark Steyn says: We live in the age where facts are opinions and opinions are facts. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Which nations have left the program again? What does this prove though Derek? An equally revealing question would be which nations have locked themselves into contracts and/or received any planes so far? Answer met that please. It should be clear to Derek now that waldo simply will not answer questions. He addressed the question for what it was - completely irrelevant and a pretty lame attempt to misdirect the discussion from the very real problems the JSF program is facing. As I’ve been saying to the esteemed member Waldo, actions speak louder then opinions words Well then why are you asking dumb rhetorical questions and then insisting that the obvious answer somehow disproves waldo's point, when in fact it means absolutely nothing? Edited June 25, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Guest Derek L Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 What does this prove though Derek? An equally revealing question would be which nations have locked themselves into contracts yet and/or received any planes yet? Everything………..Clearly if the F-35 was in it’s final death throes as indicated by Waldo, the partner nations would divest themselves of this millstone and look to the cornucopia of cheaper alternatives as outlined by esteemed member Waldo…………Wouldn’t that make sense? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Tomorrow’s news today, down under ADVANCED composites firm Quickstep appears to have dodged the manufacturing blues and expects to increase employment at its newly opened plant near Sydney's Bankstown Airport.The company celebrated the opening of the site yesterday, announcing it had secured a second long-term agreement with US aerospace giant Northrop Grumman to supply F-35 Joint Strike Fighter components. Quickstep is about halfway through relocating its composite manufacturing and development facilities from Western Australia to the World War II-vintage building at Bankstown, the site of flight tests for the Mosquito fighter bomber and other aviation milestones. The agreement to supply more complex group two components -- including parts of the F-35 structure and supports -- is in addition to an agreement last year for group one components already in production. The company expects work on the JSF to generate up to $700 million over 20 years. Quick, those folks Down Under require Waldo’s expert opinion on how the F-35 is bound to fail….. Quote
punked Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Are they locked into anything yet? No? So who cares. If you need me to I can link you all sorts of articles about how upset the US government, Pentagon and basically everyone is about how the JSF has progressed - WAYY late, grossly overbudget and with few solutions in sight. I think your forget to mention the strike. I guess the strike is ok because LM says now they can put their engineers on the assembly line and they are going "learn" so much they will be able to make a better plane. That is the line LM is giving about the strike could it get any more ridiculous? Quote
Argus Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 I used to be all in favour of the program, but not anymore. I have completely different reasons from waldo, because his are based on his expert opinion that manned fighters are already obsolete, but I think he and I would both agree that the program is an unmitigated disaster at this point and will go down as one of the biggest fiascos in US military procurement history. So what's your 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
dre Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 So what's your alternative? Id do the same thing you do around your house when you are considering a large purchase. First of all save up the money, and then once you have it shop around. The F-35 still may be the best plane for us, but we definately shouldnt commit to it at this point. I would watch and wait and see what develops, and start scraping and saving so that when it does come time to purchase something we dont have to borrow money to do it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 So you view the defence of Canada the same as buying a luxury item. Interesting. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 .... but I think he and I would both agree that the program is an unmitigated disaster at this point and will go down as one of the biggest fiascos in US military procurement history. A very good point, as Canadians certainly know the most (or should that be the least) about military procurement "fiascos" ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 A very good point, as Canadians certainly know the most (or should that be the least) about military procurement "fiascos" ? I'm thinking of using one of the Upholders as a large flower planter when they're tossed. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 So you view the defence of Canada the same as buying a luxury item. Interesting. No I said "purchase". You said luxury item. But regardless of WHAT you are buying you are gonna need some money! So it seems like that would be a good place to start. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 No I said "purchase". You said luxury item. But regardless of WHAT you are buying you are gonna need some money! So it seems like that would be a good place to start. Yes...purchase of a luxury item. We had to save, right? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 Yes...purchase of a luxury item. We had to save, right? I didnt say anything about any luxury item. I said purchase. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 I didnt say anything about any luxury item. I said purchase. But you also said save. This implies a wait for one's desired purchase. Is this your approach to a necessity as well? Say...eyeglasses? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Derek L Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 I think your forget to mention the strike. I guess the strike is ok because LM says now they can put their engineers on the assembly line and they are going "learn" so much they will be able to make a better plane. That is the line LM is giving about the strike could it get any more ridiculous? Lockheed Martin, machinists union reach tentative agreement; end of 2-month strike in sight Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 A very good point, as Canadians certainly know the most (or should that be the least) about military procurement "fiascos" ? You should have seen the battles going on when PET selected the Hornets……..The then Quebec separatist leader decried the decision as an affront to Quebec since General Dynamics made F-16 parts there………..Don’t even get me started on the MHP Quote
dre Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 Is this your approach to a necessity as well? Say...eyeglasses? Paying for them with money? Yes. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 Paying for them with money? Yes. But, you wouldn't wait. Or would you? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 But, you wouldn't wait. Or would you? I dont know about Dre, but I would and in fact am waiting to come up with enough money to purchase eyeglasses. Mind I am still using my old ones in the meantime. Back to the point: There is no immediate threat that needs responding to. CF18's bombed quite nicely in Libya, or so I'm told. Whats the damn rush? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 You should have seen the battles going on when PET selected the Hornets……..The then Quebec separatist leader decried the decision as an affront to Quebec since General Dynamics made F-16 parts there………..Don’t even get me started on the MHP I have searched for the history of what must have been an equivalent procurement circle jerk, but it just isn't the same as today with internet forum comedy. I assume that there would be less resistance if the aircraft were built under license in Canada, eh? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 Whats the damn rush? Aircraft wear out. Like eyeglasses. But, when they wear out, folks die. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
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.