F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

by the by... since you're so tapped in. All these LRIP planes - are the required retrofits paid for as a part of JSFail? Or is that an extra LockMart gouge?

Nope, all developmental aircraft, if required, will have to be upgraded at cost for the end user………hence the reasoning to utilize said LRIP aircraft in the F-35 international training plan at Eglin AFB once the full rate production aircraft are delivered.

[waldo]

Hmmm the same life support system used in the F-22 & F-35, is also used in the Hornets, Eurofighter and Gripen..........

relevance? I thought you were babbling about vests?

[Guest Derek L]

relevance? I thought you were babbling about vests?

I am babbling about vests………The .01% mission fail found in the F-22 fleet is not related to the aircraft life support system, since the same inherent problems associated with the Raptor fleet would also be found in the other aircraft types that have used said system since the initial deployment in the 80s…………….

[waldo]

Nope, all developmental aircraft, if required, will have to be upgraded at cost for the end user………hence the reasoning to utilize said LRIP aircraft in the F-35 international training plan at Eglin AFB once the full rate production aircraft are delivered.

yes - having you actually admit it is gold/gravy. What's that lil' problem the U.S. GAO has highlighted? What's it called again... uhhh... oh, ya! Concurrency! When testing is so far behind it buts right up into the production schedule. Ya, that's it!

"US military branches: "Since 2002, the total procurement quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365".

which is the same thing for all partner nations, hey? But hey now - look at that bottleneck forming up! What was Canada's sweet spot again? 2021?... 2022?... 2023?...???

[waldo]

I am babbling about vests………The .01% mission fail found in the F-22 fleet is not related to the aircraft life support system, since the same inherent problems associated with the Raptor fleet would also be found in the other aircraft types that have used said system since the initial deployment in the 80s…………….

I do believe you're the only one here to specifically mention the life-support system... are you distracting again?

[Guest Derek L]

yes - having you actually admit it is gold/gravy. What's that lil' problem the U.S. GAO has highlighted? What's it called again... uhhh... oh, ya! Concurrency! When testing is so far behind it buts right up into the production schedule. Ya, that's it!

"US military branches: "Since 2002, the total procurement quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365".

which is the same thing for all partner nations, hey? But hey now - look at that bottleneck forming up! What was Canada's sweet spot again? 2021?... 2022?... 2023?...???

As I’ve said, several years after we sign the deal………..

[Guest Derek L]

I do believe you're the only one here to specifically mention the life-support system... are you distracting again?

Gosthacked a dozen or so pages back in reference to the 60 minutes piece from a few months back………In a failed effort to draw media fuelled correlation between the F-22 and F-35.……..Failed since Canadian pilots have been using the same system in our Hornets since the early 80s, and in our Hawk trainers since the 90s without incident.

[waldo]

As I’ve said, several years after we sign the deal………..

and when you similarly trotted out that lil song and dance I do believe I followed with... e-v-a-s-i-v-e!

[Guest Derek L]

and when you similarly trotted out that lil song and dance I do believe I followed with... e-v-a-s-i-v-e!

You tell me, when will the Government make the deal? I'd love to know.

[dre]

Hahah you guys have too much time on your hands.

I get the feeling that if Waldo would think the F35 was a ripoff even if it cost ten dollars per plane. And I get the feeling that Derek would still be pushing to buy it even if it cost 2 billion per plane.

The scary thing is our politicians operate in roughly the same manner.

[waldo]

Hahah you guys have too much time on your hands.

I get the feeling that if Waldo would think the F35 was a ripoff even if it cost ten dollars per plane. And I get the feeling that Derek would still be pushing to buy it even if it cost 2 billion per plane.

The scary thing is our politicians operate in roughly the same manner.

the matter of cost is a non-starter... the proponents don't care! It costs... what it costs! When I purposely slag over costs... one of the trio of 'F-35 overs' (over budget, overdue, over-hyped), it's to simply reinforce their hypocrisy. These guys could care less what it costs. You captured it quite succinctly in an earlier post:

So appealing to them on the basis of cost is rather useless. The tune would be the same thing if it was going to cost 50 billion or 100 billion, or 200 billion.

the, as you say, ripoff aspect, reflects upon the historical failings of the program balanced against a measure of inordinate costs, failed promises and non-delivery. That ripoff aspect also reflects upon the proponents forever talking up the vapourware that is the current F-35.

[gunrutz]

the matter of cost is a non-starter... the proponents don't care! It costs... what it costs! When I purposely slag over costs... one of the trio of 'F-35 overs' (over budget, overdue, over-hyped), it's to simply reinforce their hypocrisy. These guys could care less what it costs. You captured it quite succinctly in an earlier post:

the, as you say, ripoff aspect, reflects upon the historical failings of the program balanced against a measure of inordinate costs, failed promises and non-delivery. That ripoff aspect also reflects upon the proponents forever talking up the vapourware that is the current F-35.

If the f35 works and only costs what it was originally supposed to would you be happy that we were spending those billions on it or are you just against military spending? What are you really arguing against, because if you are demanding that military hardware have no cost increases and be perfect before you will purchase then you will never purchase. Your arguments seem to be a back door attack on military spending more so than a concern that we get a good deal.

[waldo]

If the f35 works and only costs what it was originally supposed to would you be happy that we were spending those billions on it or are you just against military spending? What are you really arguing against, because if you are demanding that military hardware have no cost increases and be perfect before you will purchase then you will never purchase. Your arguments seem to be a back door attack on military spending more so than a concern that we get a good deal.

granted, this is a 'largish thread'; granted there have been many, many other F-35 related threads, but... if you're going to drop in out of the blue, you shouldn't make such presumptive assessments:

...I've already stated we don't need this albatross or anything like it; again, target Search & Rescue needs, beef up the Coast Guard, deliver icebreakers for scientific pursuit (and sovereignty posturing) and position Canadian Forces to properly deliver to the best traditions within Canada's storied peace-keeping role, etc.

a favourite alternate play is to suggest Canada become a leader in transport... someone has to do it. Alternate monies "freed up" could go towards the ice-breakers, the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue, UAV reconnaissance, modernizing the Navy, modernizing the Army, etc. Or do you subscribe to a belief that there is an unlimited military budget? Whatever it takes! Is that it? Whatever it costs... is what it costs? Is that your sound fiscal pronouncement? Cause, like... what about the prisons... there will be no money for prisons!!!

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.

now, with a MLW board moniker like, 'gunrutz', should I, as you, make a broad generalized assessment that you're one of those proponents that believes there is an unlimited military budget... one to allow you to get your 'gunrutz' on, at any cost? Equally, what's the point of your fairy tail hypothetical presuming on, as you say, "If the f35 works and only costs what it was originally supposed to"... after a decade+ we know it hasn't 'worked' even with the massive over expenditures - "over budget, overdue, over-hyped". Now, you could actually step-up and make... your case... hey?

[Shady]

after a decade+ we know it hasn't 'worked' even with the massive over expenditures - "over budget, overdue, over-hyped".

Kinda like green energy eh?

[waldo]

Kinda like green energy eh?

take it to a related thread... substantiate your assertion - sure you can!

Edited July 7, 2012 by waldo

[waldo]

my assertion? Buddy, I simply relayed political analysis that's playing out through many U.S. media channels... analysis that's pretty easy given LockMart's posturing and the practical extension of that posturing butted up against the start of sequestration (Jan 1, 2013) and the lead time for layoff notices to go out (3 months prior)... well hey, lookee there! That's right before the U.S. election. Wow, that's a heavy-hand being played out by LockMart... don't you think?

as for your expected simplistic red-blue state drivel, do you know if there are any madHatter T-Party types in Texas? You know... the ones driving the GOP bus over the cliff? But, hey now... let's stick with your simplistic take: just where are the many LockMart subcontractors located - I understand Northrup Grumman is big in such places as California and Maryland... I think those are blue, right? Would you like more?

now, MLW 'Derek L'... as you couldn't, under any circumstances, entertain thought that JSFail might be subject to cuts within sequestration, along comes the 'Council on Foreign Relations' doing an analysis on the U.S. Pentagon's latest budget projections; i.e., the Pentagon's projected budgets for the next five fiscal years (2013-2017), that correspond with the savings requirements prescribed under the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011 => showing that U.S. military procurement of the JSFail F-35 faces additional delays: with the previously scheduled purchase of 42 in 2013 scaled back to just 29. And this is even before considerations of sequestration hit!

speaking of concerns in Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth backyard, we see some of that mainstream media attention being given to the recent LockMart CEO's posturing: Planned defense cuts threaten Fort Worth-area economy... but, as you say/insist, there will be no affect on the F-35, right?

[Shady]

take it to a related thread... substantiate your assertion - sure you can!

I already have, many times. *cough* Solynddra *cough*

[waldo]

I already have, many times. *cough* Solynddra *cough*

like I said, take it to a related thread... you could attempt to calm your coughing hack with this lil' tighty-whitey Solyndra reminder, hey? Just one of several that took care of your "complete nonsense™"

[Shady]

like I said, take it to a related thread... you could attempt to calm your coughing hack with this lil' tighty-whitey Solyndra reminder, hey? Just one of several that took care of your "complete nonsense™"

Sweet, so that means Solyndra didn't go bankrupt? Does that also mean that several of the other green companies, that have been over-hyped, and over-budget didn't go bankrupt as well?

Howver, I'm not suprised that you're still flogging hypothetical costs of F-35s, while at the same time, excusing all of the money flushed down the toilet of the over-hyped, over-budget, over-subsidized so-called green energy industry. It's typical though.

[waldo]

Sweet, so that means Solyndra didn't go bankrupt? Does that also mean that several of the other green companies, that have been over-hyped, and over-budget didn't go bankrupt as well?

like I said, take it to a related thread... sure you can/will! We could have some real fun - at your expense, hey?

[Shady]

like I said, take it to a related thread... sure you can/will! We could have some real fun - at your expense, hey?

Like I said, I have and will continue to do so.

[Guest Derek L]

now, MLW 'Derek L'... as you couldn't, under any circumstances, entertain thought that JSFail might be subject to cuts within sequestration, along comes the 'Council on Foreign Relations' doing an analysis on the U.S. Pentagon's latest budget projections; i.e., the Pentagon's projected budgets for the next five fiscal years (2013-2017), that correspond with the savings requirements prescribed under the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011 => showing that U.S. military procurement of the JSFail F-35 faces additional delays: with the previously scheduled purchase of 42 in 2013 scaled back to just 29. And this is even before considerations of sequestration hit!

speaking of concerns in Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth backyard, we see some of that mainstream media attention being given to the recent LockMart CEO's posturing: Planned defense cuts threaten Fort Worth-area economy... but, as you say/insist, there will be no affect on the F-35, right?

I’ve got 45 reasons (plus Puerto Rico) why the F-35 won’t be cancelled………

AN ECONOMIC ENGINE

As I’ve said prior, the MSM allusion of Lockheed “entering the Presidential Race” over defence cuts, though I feel pure hyperbole, is not a well thought-out conspiracy, for if one were to play along, one would assume Lockheed would target production facilities with job losses in potential “battleground states” where the threat might put them in the GOP column………The States that benefit the most from the F-35 program are Texas and California, but relatively safe States for each party…….hence little to be won or lost……….

As I pointed out though, playing along with tin-foil strapped on tight, Lockheed could threaten job losses, for the most political impact, in “Purple States”…….Now if one looks at said purple states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Colorado, then corresponds with the Lockheed facilities in those states combined with threatened job losses, one can see these would effect Lockheed programs like the LCS, JLTV, Missile Defence satellites and the Orion space vehicles……….Lockheed is so much more then the F-35.……

[bush_cheney2004]

...As I pointed out though, playing along with tin-foil strapped on tight, Lockheed could threaten job losses, for the most political impact, in “Purple States”…….Now if one looks at said purple states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Colorado, then corresponds with the Lockheed facilities in those states combined with threatened job losses, one can see these would effect Lockheed programs like the LCS, JLTV, Missile Defence satellites and the Orion space vehicles……….Lockheed is so much more then the F-35.……

Good analysis....but the US ain't Canada wherein a national election can teeter on the outcome of federal contracts and slush money to politicians.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

Could the following jet be the answer to the F-35? http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

Could the following jet be the answer to the F-35? http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm

No...it's too...American. Great for Australians!