F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

no, sorry - not interested in further enabling your distractions within this particular JSFail F-35 thread.

But you referenced both “distractions” well asking a question……….And now you withdrawal when asked for clarification? That’s alright Waldo…….Get a good rest, come back fresh and clarify when you can.

[waldo]

it just gets better... from this initial post highlighting South Korea's concerns about being scammed by Lockheed Martin...

...and now along comes raised South Korean concerns over forced simulator level evaluation of the F-35... simulator only?

Controversy erupts over simulation test of F-35 in fighter jet purchase

we now read the controversy is heating up... and... it seems simulators were the least of concern for Israel and Japan - who made their decisions entirely based on 'paperwork promises'! Oh my!

Controversy Continues in Korea Over F-35 – Israel and Japan Selected F-35 Based on Data And Not Actual Tests of Their Own

just what is Lockheed Martin hiding? First, Korea was denied direct access to the F-35 and was relegated to having to evaluate the F-35 strictly from simulators Lockheed Martin offered. Korea adjusted it's request twice, with Lockheed Martin refusing to comply while causing a 2 month delay in the Korean evaluation process. First Korea sought an ability to fly a 'chase plane' during F-35 tests... in a second non-invasive request, Korea then sought to remotely monitor/review the F-35 telemetry data! Just what is Lockheed Martin hiding? Seoul threatens to disqualify F-35

Edited July 9, 2012 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

just what is Lockheed Martin hiding? First, Korea was denied direct access to the F-35 and was relegated to having to evaluate the F-35 strictly from simulators Lockheed Martin offered. Korea adjusted it's request twice and was further rebuffed by Lockheed Martin, each successive time/request. First Korea was denied an ability to fly a 'chase plane' during F-35 tests... in a second non-invasive request, Korea was also denied a request to remotely monitor/review the F-35 telemetry data! Just what is Lockheed Martin hiding? Seoul threatens to disqualify F-35

That’s quite simple, the South Koreans aren’t part of the JSF partnership, nor have they become Security Cooperative partners………….

[Guest Derek L]

I will add this though:

South Korea Announces Evaluation of F-X Fighter Bids to Begin Next Week

Beginning in late July, following the technical evaluation, an elite team of 45 Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) experts will conduct flight tests designed to evaluate 500 performance features of the three competitors. These tests will further evaluate each aircraft’s performance and will measure how well they fit into the existing South Korean military framework and add measurable value to the nation’s warfighting capability.

DAPA announced in June that some evaluations would be performed on simulators since the F-35 Lightning II is still in development. EADS and Boeing are also working on enhancements to the Typhoon and the F-15SE as well.

So some testing of all three aircraft will be in simulators?

DAPA claims that the competition was delayed until this month because Lockheed Martin could not provide a functional aircraft for flight testing and failed to provide the Korean-language documentation required before bid evaluations could begin. Lockheed Martin has been quoted as saying “the F-35 fleet of 36 flying aircraft is fully occupied with test, training, and delivery activities” and not a single aircraft can be readied for flight testing by potential customers at present.

EADS, also in contention for the multi-billion dollar deal, failed to provide the necessary Korean-language bid documents in support of its contender, the Eurofighter Typhoon. Only Boeing, touting its F-15SE Silent Eagle, delivered the required bid documents on time.

Clearly, based on Boeing’s ability to translate documents into Korean, the F-15 is the most capable aircraft

[waldo]

That’s quite simple, the South Koreans aren’t part of the JSF partnership, nor have they become Security Cooperative partners………….

would you like me to resurrect those posts of yours where you stumbled over Korea, repeatedly claiming it had made a commitment to buy the F-35? I appreciate you stopped doing it once I called you out on it... but really, c'mon... when you presumed to include Korea those partnerships didn't mean much, hey?

so what you're really saying is that so long as Korea stepped up and followed the blind lead of Japan... blindly accepting the promises/vapourware, no problemo! Uhhh, you do know that Japan isn't a JSF partner, nor a SC partner either, right? You do know that, right?

[Guest Derek L]

would you like me to resurrect those posts of yours where you stumbled over Korea, repeatedly claiming it had made a commitment to buy the F-35? I appreciate you stopped doing it once I called you out on it... but really, c'mon... when you presumed to include Korea those partnerships didn't mean much, hey?

so what you're really saying is that so long as Korea stepped up and followed the blind lead of Japan... blindly accepting the promises/vapourware, no problemo! Uhhh, you do know that Japan isn't a JSF partner, nor a SC partner either, right? You do know that, right?

Go for it, I've never said as such, I've stated that they will buy the F-35, and I'll still stand by said prediction....Though Boeing superiority in Korean translation has shaken my confidence some

[waldo]

I will add this though:

So some testing of all three aircraft will be in simulators?

Clearly, based on Boeing’s ability to translate documents into Korean, the F-15 is the most capable aircraft

emphasis added by the waldo

man you're desperate... and too easy! That's right... some simulator testing by all... and all simulator testing by one, Lockheed Martin!

in your rush to over-emphasize translated documentation you somehow... somehow... managed to miss this lil' ditty within your own quote:

DAPA claims that the competition was delayed until this month because

Lockheed Martin could not provide a functional aircraft for flight testing

emphasis added by the waldo

[waldo]

Go for it, I've never said as such, I've stated that they will buy the F-35, and I'll still stand by said prediction....Though Boeing superiority in Korean translation has shaken my confidence some

BS - multiple times you claimed Korea intended to buy. In any case, your now back-pedaled personal prediction means nothing... you'll stand by it! Let me give you one of your own WOWs! By the by, what's Lockheed Martin hiding? Simulator only, no chase plane and no remote telemetry monitoring.

[waldo]

ah yes, another new article from Wheeler... the guy who actually worked for a decade in the U.S. Government Accountability Office... the guy well versed in actually writing U.S. GAO oversight reports:

How the F-35 Nearly Doubled In Price (And Why You Didn’t Know)

re: the June 14 U.S. GAO oversight report on the F-35, 'Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Actions Needed to Further Enhance Restructuring and Address Affordability Risks.'

The cost of the program has almost doubled over the original (2001) baseline

Now, you know why DOD loves the rubber baseline. Reset the baseline, and you can pretend a catastrophe is half its actual size.

re: costs per flying hour

The F-35’s fundamentally complicated (“5th generation”) design makes its comparison to the F-16 inappropriate in any effort to understand F-35 operating costs. It should be compared to the F-22 where the similarities abound, for the most part. To better predict unknown F-35 costs, we should start with known F-22 operating costs.

There were no F-22 groundings or other significant flight limitations in 2010; the data for that year reflect known sustainment costs, per hour, after five years of deployability, thereby reflecting any learning curve in F-22 maintenance and support. The Air Force’s “ownership” cost per flying hour for the F-22 in 2010 was $63,929

Assuming that 20% cost per-flying-hour improvement over the F-22,

the F-35 would cost $51,143 per hour to fly

The cost growth inherent in the F-35 program is huge and still growing: far more than to “enhance restructuring” and “address affordability” is needed.

The F-35 should now be officially called “unaffordable and simply unacceptable.” All that is lacking is a management that will accept — and act — on that finding.

[Guest Derek L]

emphasis added by the waldo

man you're desperate... and too easy! That's right... some simulator testing by all... and all simulator testing by one, Lockheed Martin!

in your rush to over-emphasize translated documentation you somehow... somehow... managed to miss this lil' ditty within your own quote:

emphasis added by the waldo

Are you so sure Waldo? You do know, unlike the currently flying F-35, that Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Tranche 3 have yet to fly right?

[Guest Derek L]

BS - multiple times you claimed Korea intended to buy. In any case, your now back-pedaled personal prediction means nothing... you'll stand by it! Let me give you one of your own WOWs! By the by, what's Lockheed Martin hiding? Simulator only, no chase plane and no remote telemetry monitoring.

Already answered that.

[Guest Derek L]

ah yes, another new article from Wheeler... the guy who actually worked for a decade in the U.S. Government Accountability Office... the guy well versed in actually writing U.S. GAO oversight reports:

How the F-35 Nearly Doubled In Price (And Why You Didn’t Know)

More of Wheeler's Agitprop eh?

[waldo]

More of Wheeler's Agitprop eh?

I get it... I get you have a long established difficulty with facts whenever F-35 cost factors are spoken of/to. In this case, we simply have the factual baseline reference back to the original 2001 used, rather than the 2007 reset. Wouldn't you think going back to the original cost projections is an appropriate gauge when attempting to speak to the complete F-35 program cost escalation? Sure you would, right? Speaking to the cost of the JSFail F-35 program as having almost doubled over the original (2001) baseline... is a factual claim, right?

as for the, 'per flying hour cost' comparison, you could attempt to counter the assertion that the F-22 is a more representative comparison reference. I mean, really, c'mon... we even have Harper Conservatives accepting the $32,500 per hour figure for the F-35, with an unrepresentative comparison to the F-16/F-18. Shifting that comparison to the F-22 and applying a differential cost factor of 20% would seem apropos, yes? Yes, I appreciate you have extreme difficulty with a F-35, 'fly per hour' cost of $51,000. But you want a representative accounting, don't you?

[Shady]

Props (pun intended) to Derek for laying out a beating on waldo of monumental proportions. I've thoroughly enojyed reading the last few pages of this thread.

[waldo]

Are you so sure Waldo? You do know, unlike the currently flying F-35, that Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter have yet to fly right?

and yet South Korea is only raising concerns about Lockheed Martin's testing compliance. Are you going to (once again) play your, 'Boeing favoritism and why is everyone picking on Lockheed Martin', card'?

[waldo]

Props (pun intended) to Derek for laying out a beating on waldo of monumental proportions. I've thoroughly enojyed reading the last few pages of this thread.

nice informed drive-by, hey lil' buddy! Hey, I thought you were going to mightily squeak forward with a 'green/clean energy' slag post/thread... is your crack (British tabloid) research team still refining it?

[Shady]

nice informed drive-by, hey lil' buddy! Hey, I thought you were going to mightily squeak forward with a 'green/clean energy' slag post/thread... is your crack (British tabloid) research team still refining it?

It was hard not to look at such a beat down and not comment on it. Anyways, I'm hoping that at some point you'll be concerned about cost per kilowatt, and not just cost per flying hour.

Carry on though, your concern is amusing.

[waldo]

It was hard not to look at such a beat down and not comment on it. Anyways, I'm hoping that at some point you'll be concerned about cost per kilowatt, and not just cost per flying hour.

Carry on though, your concern is amusing.

in your usual nothingness offerings, you clearly offered nothing... other than another of your standard/typical uninformed drive-by swipes. Of course, many previous MLW posts have spoken to energy cost per kilowatt discussions... in full context of subsidies, taxation, maturity, etc. Is your posturing related to you being pumped over a fresh British tabloid gem? Bring it on, lil' buddy, bring it on... uhhh, in an appropriate thread, right?

[Guest Derek L]

and yet South Korea is only raising concerns about Lockheed Martin's testing compliance. Are you going to (once again) play your, 'Boeing favoritism and why is everyone picking on Lockheed Martin', card'?

No, as mentioned in the article linked by myself, neither Boeing or EADS offered aircraft are flying to date….…………And EADS, like Lockheed, did not comply by the required deadline with Korean translation of documents………….I find it funny that articles chastise Lockheed, but the other two competitors are “guilty” of the same criticism………

[waldo]

I find it funny that articles chastise Lockheed, but the other two competitors are “guilty” of the same criticism………

forget about whatever you or I can 'glean' from articles... self-serving and all that, hey? ... and forget about the nothingness of translated docs. Why has South Korea only raised concerns over Lockheed Martin's testing compliance? What is Lockheed Martin hiding in not even allowing the South Koreans a 'chase plane'... or to remotely monitor/review telemetry? What is LockMart hiding?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Why has South Korea only raised concerns over Lockheed Martin's testing compliance? What is Lockheed Martin hiding in not even allowing the South Koreans a 'chase plane'... or to remotely monitor/review telemetry? What is LockMart hiding?

Jingo porn?

[Moonbox]

It was hard not to look at such a beat down and not comment on it.

It was a pretty pointless post Shady, and I'm not really seeing any beatdown happening. All I'm seeing really is waldo trying way harder than he should to convince people who have already made up their minds and aren't listening.

I agree with waldo on very very little, but I have to agree with him that the F-35's a disaster and anyone who can follow the original intention of the project to today's reality should have trouble denying it.

[Guest Derek L]

forget about whatever you or I can 'glean' from articles... self-serving and all that, hey? ... and forget about the nothingness of translated docs. Why has South Korea only raised concerns over Lockheed Martin's testing compliance? What is Lockheed Martin hiding in not even allowing the South Koreans a 'chase plane'... or to remotely monitor/review telemetry? What is LockMart hiding?

Simple, technical data and performance levels that won’t be shared with non partner nations and nations that have not signed a security cooperative, hence a nation not being legally required to not “share” said data/figures.........You know, that thingy Mr Williams signed back in '02

[Guest Derek L]

It was a pretty pointless post Shady, and I'm not really seeing any beatdown happening. All I'm seeing really is waldo trying way harder than he should to convince people who have already made up their minds and aren't listening.

I agree with waldo on very very little, but I have to agree with him that the F-35's a disaster and anyone who can follow the original intention of the project to today's reality should have trouble denying it.

I’ve asked already, why have none of the partners left, and why have the Japanese signed onto said “disaster”?

[bush_cheney2004]

....I agree with waldo on very very little, but I have to agree with him that the F-35's a disaster and anyone who can follow the original intention of the project to today's reality should have trouble denying it.

That's OK...many such "disasters" are flying missions from bases around the world.