F-35 Purchase

[bush_cheney2004]

But there's life insurance policies...and then there's vastly more expensive ones whose costs are just too high.

Hence Sea Kings...forever.

[Guest Derek L]

But there's life insurance policies...and then there's vastly more expensive ones whose costs are just too high.

Ahhh, but there’s policies that offer superior coverage, for a similar amount as their competitor’s policies…….We’ve got a long term policy through Sun Life………Your money goes way further then Term life Insurance…. In the 2030-2050 timeframe, the premiums of the F-35 will be considerably less then a 4th generation fighter.

[bleeding heart]

I was only replying logically to someone else's analogy.

[Guest Derek L]

Hence Sea Kings...forever.

Indeed.....The Term life Premiums associated with such an advanced age and declining health are real "killers"

[Guest Derek L]

Though not directly relating to the F-35, an instance today of the RCAF requirements under NORAD………

Two Canadian CF-18s Intercept Civilian Airliner Near Quebec City

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. – Two Canadian CF-18 fighters under the direction of North American Aerospace Defense Command intercepted a commercial airliner near Quebec City, Quebec today at approximately 11:50 a.m. MDT.

The fighters intercepted the airliner, which was on a transatlantic route, after it was not responsive to radio communication. The jet fighters were able to assist the civilian airliner in re-establishing radio communications with air traffic control and the airliner proceeded without incident to its destination.

NORAD’s mission – in close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners – is to prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America. NORAD may be required to monitor, shadow, divert from flight path, direct to land and/or destroy platforms deemed a potential threat to North America.

……….With no fighter force, I’m sure the Americans will take care of us and our sovereignty.

Again, fast-forward twenty years into the future, a reasonable person can see the benefits of our air force operating the same aircraft as our NORAD partner, to say nothing of having a modern aircraft for the “next Libya”.

[waldo]

Though not directly relating to the F-35, an instance today of the RCAF requirements under NORAD………

Two Canadian CF-18s Intercept Civilian Airliner Near Quebec City

……….With no fighter force, I’m sure the Americans will take care of us and our sovereignty.

and in April, under the same Norad auspices, 2 U.S. fighters had to be relied upon to escort a commercial airliner to CFB Comox on Vancouver Island. Oh my... sovereignty encroachment!!!

as with NATO needing to 'reinvent' itself, this NORAD target emphasis on commercial airliners is sure a step-up from it's own 'reinvention' in regards illegal drug trafficking surveillance! Damn, that end to the Cold War sure put a damper on things, hey? By the by... which jets scramble to deal with those ICBM threats, anyway?

Again, fast-forward twenty years into the future, a reasonable person can see the benefits of our air force operating the same aircraft as our NORAD partner, to say nothing of having a modern aircraft for the “next Libya”.

nice - you played that same hand with a NATO emphasis... until we danced around just how diverse the jet fighter complement is between the various NATO member countries.

[waldo]

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns

I already did........In said links, coupled to the link to the conference, the same conference you originally provided, addressing those very concerns from the experiences of the operators of said platforms, with perspective from both sides of the argument, expressing as to why UAV/UCAVs won’t be a replacement for manned aircraft, but a complement to, for the foreseeable future.

whaaa! "in said links"!!! Oh my... you're asking someone to read through your multiple links to attempt to glean out your supposed points... to make your argument... beauty!

Did you not offer a similar go fetch routine just the other day? To add, did you not offer such routine with the initial video you posted, from the same conference in which I provided said reference?

no! Not at all, not on any level. I offered the video, suggested it was long but worth the review... and then provided you a mark-time within the video for particular association to what had been the discussion at hand - and then I proceeded to quote specifics that reflected upon that specific mark-time within the video.

you, on the other hand, simply threw up links and said - "go fetch... try to find what I'm asserting... try to make my argument for me". That's what you did! Of course, it really highlights another of your distraction efforts when cornered. You're simply throwing up another smokescreen to avoid answering the repeated questions... to even acknowledge the questions! Again:

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns. While you're doing that answer the two questions you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge; Again:

... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

But again, about your security and bandwidth lament - with all your fevered expertise, are you asserting that the WGS and AEHF satellite systems are unsecure? Yes or No? Equally, again, are you asserting there is a current 'bandwidth' constraint/limitation? Yes or No?

[Guest Derek L]

and in April, under the same Norad auspices, 2 U.S. fighters had to be relied upon to escort a commercial airliner to CFB Comox on Vancouver Island. Oh my... sovereignty encroachment!!!

as with NATO needing to 'reinvent' itself, this NORAD target emphasis on commercial airliners is sure a step-up from it's own 'reinvention' in regards illegal drug trafficking surveillance! Damn, that end to the Cold War sure put a damper on things, hey? By the by... which jets scramble to deal with those ICBM threats, anyway?

You’re suggesting we enter into a relationship with the United States in which they protect us?

nice - you played that same hand with a NATO emphasis... until we danced around just how diverse the jet fighter complement is between the various NATO member countries.

How diverse will our NORAD and NATO partners be in ~20 years?

[Guest Derek L]

no! Not at all, not on any level. I offered the video, suggested it was long but worth the review... and then provided you a mark-time within the video for particular association to what had been the discussion at hand - and then I proceeded to quote specifics that reflected upon that specific mark-time within the video.

you, on the other hand, simply threw up links and said - "go fetch... try to find what I'm asserting... try to make my argument for me". That's what you did! Of course, it really highlights another of your distraction efforts when cornered. You're simply throwing up another smokescreen to avoid answering the repeated questions... to even acknowledge the questions! Again:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20677&st=3345

would you really like me to fire you up a lmgtfy link?

Your retort when asked to provide a source.

[waldo]

……….With no fighter force, I’m sure the Americans will take care of us and our sovereignty.

and in April, under the same Norad auspices, 2 U.S. fighters had to be relied upon to escort a commercial airliner to CFB Comox on Vancouver Island. Oh my... sovereignty encroachment!!!

as with NATO needing to 'reinvent' itself, this NORAD target emphasis on commercial airliners is sure a step-up from it's own 'reinvention' in regards illegal drug trafficking surveillance! Damn, that end to the Cold War sure put a damper on things, hey? By the by... which jets scramble to deal with those ICBM threats, anyway?

You’re suggesting we enter into a relationship with the United States in which they protect us?

you were the one that puffed up over a couple of CF-18s escorting a commercial airliner and then offering the cutesy American sovereignty touch. I simply replayed you an earlier example (not the first like example) of Canada being "forced" to rely upon U.S. jets. Wasn't it you that acknowledged Canada currently doesn't have the presence, the capability, to equip bases to cover all of Canada... and with even a smaller complement of your vapourware F-35s, what then?????

we've already touched upon another of the Cold-War anachronisms - NATO. Much of the same applies to any discussion of NORAD. Clearly, if not for the Arctic, NORAD wouldn't have originated... it was the U.S. that had concerns about Arctic "encroachment" from the Russians and pressed for those initial 'early warning systems' - and NORAD sprung forward. Long ago, technology advances precluded the need, from a U.S. perspective, for NORAD. Why, it's almost as if the U.S. leverages NORAD to keep it's lil' poodle properly engaged and "in line", hey? In one breath, you keep touting these boogeyman invaders you're so terrified of as the rationale for your JSFail F-35... while in the next breath, speaking of "the next Libya"!

maybe you should try another angle and try to hype NORAD from a Canadian perspective... just why does Canada need NORAD? Lay it out for us - sure you can. But be careful of that overall 'partnership' sovereignty encroachment angle - those Americans are wascally in their ways, hey?

nice - you played that same hand with a NATO emphasis... until we danced around just how diverse the jet fighter complement is between the various NATO member countries.

How diverse will our NORAD and NATO partners be in ~20 years?

even if your nightly JSFail F-35 dreams come to fruition... are you saying the rest of the world's manufacturers will disappear? How does NATO survive today - given all that diversity? Even in your F-35 dreams, which NATO partners will still be... diverse - name them... sure you can.

[waldo]

Did you not offer a similar go fetch routine just the other day? To add, did you not offer such routine with the initial video you posted, from the same conference in which I provided said reference?

no - neither of these match your particular "go fetch" routine... the one where you threw down links without extract quotes. I've just now bothered to toss one of these 2 distracting smokescreens you threw up with a re-quote playback detailing no match to your "go fetch" routine. Again, your distracting smokescreens to continue to avoid answering the repeated questions... you're now running away from.

your second distracting smokescreen, which you now properly identify, again, has nothing in common with your "go fetch" routine where you provide links but force a read of those links to confirm your assertions, where you conveniently don't bother to actually quote from the multiple links.

but another 'Derek L' mission accomplished! Another round of distractions without you answering the questions you're now running from.

[Guest Derek L]

you were the one that puffed up over a couple of CF-18s escorting a commercial airliner and then offering the cutesy American sovereignty touch. I simply replayed you an earlier example (not the first like example) of Canada being "forced" to rely upon U.S. jets. Wasn't it you that acknowledged Canada currently doesn't have the presence, the capability, to equip bases to cover all of Canada... and with even a smaller complement of your vapourware F-35s, what then?????

we've already touched upon another of the Cold-War anachronisms - NATO. Much of the same applies to any discussion of NORAD. Clearly, if not for the Arctic, NORAD wouldn't have originated... it was the U.S. that had concerns about Arctic "encroachment" from the Russians and pressed for those initial 'early warning systems' - and NORAD sprung forward. Long ago, technology advances precluded the need, from a U.S. perspective, for NORAD. Why, it's almost as if the U.S. leverages NORAD to keep it's lil' poodle properly engaged and "in line", hey? In one breath, you keep touting these boogeyman invaders you're so terrified of as the rationale for your JSFail F-35... while in the next breath, speaking of "the next Libya"!

maybe you should try another angle and try to hype NORAD from a Canadian perspective... just why does Canada need NORAD? Lay it out for us - sure you can. But be careful of that overall 'partnership' sovereignty encroachment angle - those Americans are wascally in their ways, hey?

So to clarify, you wish for Canada to not only pull out of NATO (as I do), but also NORAD and retire our fighter force? Your’s is no longer a position of get rid of fighters or get “cheap” fighters…………As I said, trying to understand your position(s)?

[Guest Derek L]

no - neither of these match your particular "go fetch" routine... the one where you threw down links without extract quotes. I've just now bothered to toss one of these 2 distracting smokescreens you threw up with a re-quote playback detailing no match to your "go fetch" routine. Again, your distracting smokescreens to continue to avoid answering the repeated questions... you're now running away from.

your second distracting smokescreen, which you now properly identify, again, has nothing in common with your "go fetch" routine where you provide links but force a read of those links to confirm your assertions, where you conveniently don't bother to actually quote from the multiple links.

but another 'Derek L' mission accomplished! Another round of distractions without you answering the questions you're now running from.

What, I'm not afforded the same privilege as esteemed member Waldo, in that I too can “not be bothered”?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

F-35 completes first airborne weapons separation

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The F-35 Lightning II accomplished a significant test milestone Aug. 8 when the aircraft successfully released a weapon in flight.

BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, released an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet.

[Moonbox]

Derek why is this news? Dropping a bomb from a plane might have been news 100 years ago, but not today.

[Wild Bill]

Derek why is this news? Dropping a bomb from a plane might have been news 100 years ago, but not today.

MB, that's not the point. Some critics here have been claiming that the F-35 will never work as designed and therefore is a waste of time and money.

Meanwhile, every time they have a test of some capability or other it always seems to pass! Sometimes some bugs have shown up but so far they seem to have been ironed out without too much trouble.

Derek posts these things to refute the claims of those critical posters.

[waldo]

MB, that's not the point. Some critics here have been claiming that the F-35 will never work as designed and therefore is a waste of time and money.

Meanwhile, every time they have a test of some capability or other it always seems to pass! Sometimes some bugs have shown up but so far they seem to have been ironed out without too much trouble.

Derek posts these things to refute the claims of those critical posters.

and you haven't a clue about the overall program testing progress... but don't let that stop you from carrying the water, hey? 11 years+ into the program and... wow... dropped an inert projectile. A real critique, if you were actually interested in doing something other than cheer-leading, would be for you to look at planned versus actual testing, the overall lack of testing, the history of testing failures - and more pointedly, the state of testing balanced against ongoing production (i.e. the concurrency problem I've alluded to several times now). I've posted several critical U.S. GAO report iterations of the lack of testing/program progress... notwithstanding this overall lack of testing, in certain regards, the actual testing plans have been repeatedly revised with particular testing criteria levels (test point categories) lowered several times now to allow the F-35 to actually pass particular tests it had been failing. Another insightful document on testing progress comes from the DOD itself - here: the relevant, most recent 2011 report from the U.S. DOT&E

of particular interest to this actual test is a critique of the planned versus actual internal 'bomb/missile' capabilities... internal tied to maintaining stealth capabilities (as bogus/questionable as the F-35 stealth will ultimately be). I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment but one crucial aspect tied to this F-35B variant has the United Kingdom severally compromised on the missile system types that the F-35 will support through the SDD phase. Perhaps esteemed MLW member, 'Derek L' would like to extend upon your glowing comments, step up and speak to the actual progress of overall testing, the concurrency problem, the discrepancies between planned and actual 'bomb/missile' capability (both internal and external)... and the current state of F-35B variant 'bomb/missile' capability to match/support what the UK has today. He could do that... or he could continue to glow in the miraculous achievement of dropping an inert projectile after 11+ years! You might also ask him if he's now officially accepting to others also talking about other variants of the F-35 (other than the A variant)... he's been a bit "testy" whenever others have offered comment on B/C variants issues/concerns, but, in this particular case, seemed fine with actually addressing a non-A variant himself - go figure!

[Wild Bill]

and you haven't a clue about the overall program testing progress... but don't let that stop you from carrying the water, hey? 11 years+ into the program and... wow... dropped an inert projectile. A real critique, if you were actually interested in doing something other than cheer-leading, would be for you to look at planned versus actual testing, the overall lack of testing, the history of testing failures - and more pointedly, the state of testing balanced against ongoing production (i.e. the concurrency problem I've alluded to several times now).

Well Waldo, you have your viewpoint and you are entitled to it. Allow me to be perhaps overly patriotic however to mention that the only aircraft that flew virtually perfectly right off the drafting table was the Avro Arrow.

Everything constructed needs bugs worked out. Except for MicroSoft software, of course. I had occasion to complain to one once about a bug and he explained to me that it was really a feature!

[Guest Derek L]

Derek why is this news? Dropping a bomb from a plane might have been news 100 years ago, but not today.

Simply put, it’s another “first/hurdle” pasted by the F-35, in this case in particular the F-35B (That a year ago was on probation and on the verge of being cancelled) and this plane in particular (BF-03, one of the original “B” versions, still outfitted with the original avionics). This “B” was chosen to illustrate, with a “steeper learning curve” when contrasted with the “A” and “C”, that all the computer aerodynamic modeling and pit testing results were correct…………Dropping ordnance from a modern aircraft, with flyby wire, is “news” in that the avionics are able to adjust instantly when the aircraft “sheds” ~2% of it’s weight in under a second……………Surely if the aircraft “lagged” in it’s adjustments, it would be news…..

[waldo]

CPC late on independently-verified price estimates that they promised to have in 60 days.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/13/pol-cp-f-35-ambrose-mackay-late-cost-figures.html

Even though Ambrose wouldn't commit to a timeline, indications are it will likely be the fall when a full analysis of Canada's participation in the troubled program is expected to be final.

What a waste of time and money. The PBO's numbers were already independently verified and confirmed by 3 different groups. Now Ambrose says she won't release the numbers until they are "right."

Harper Conservative avoidance101! Is there a... problem?

F-35 review still in need of auditor 2 months after deadline

The Harper government has yet to hire an independent auditor to crunch the numbers on the F-35 deal, more than two months after its self-imposed deadline to clean up the stealth fighter fiasco.

New Democrat procurement critic Matthew Kellway was mystified by the delays and suggested that Canadians will not see the review until almost the end of the year — or maybe even early next year.

It is absurd, he said.

"This is a process that is out of control," Kellway said. "The government has gone to great lengths and jumped over a lot of hurdles, likely at tremendous cost to Canadians, to avoid releasing numbers that are being produced by the Joint Strike Fighter Program office."

"The answer, I think, is very simple: Reveal those numbers as you promised to reveal in the House of Commons — the numbers that come out of the Joint Strike Fighter Program office— to Canadians, attach whatever qualifications you want to attach to those numbers, discredit them all you want," said Kellway.

"But you made a commitment to reveal them to Canadians. So put them out there."

[waldo]

……………Surely if the aircraft “lagged” in it’s adjustments, it would be news…..

just that you won't read about it in one of your LockMart 'feel good' press releases, hey?

[kairos]

The F35s are a joke, the whole thing is a giant boondoggle. We have no real use for them. If we wanted to use that money productively we could for example replace the old seakings with second hand helicopters that require less maintenance and that could be used to enhance the coastguard for a price a fraction of the vastly overpriced figures for the F35s.

Edited August 15, 2012 by kairos

[Guest Derek L]

the election 'thingy'? You mean the 'thingy' I directly spoke to in the same post you're now replying to, but failed to quote me on... that 'thingy'? As I said, everything points to the current Dutch government being tossed - the current government that signed up for JSFail. In any case, again, a majority of Dutch parliamentarians have now officially voted to halt the purchase of the F-35. Even as it stands, the current government paired the procurement numbers in half - from ~85 to ~40... and on top of that, the Dutch Defense Minister, reeling under intense opposition parties pressure, stated that number would even lower if they retained government. Tick tock, tick tock...

Tick-tock, tick-tock..............

The first Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter built for the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) has been spotted flying near the company's plant in Fort Worth, Texas.

The aircraft, marked F-001, first flew on 6 August and has flown several company check flights subsequently. Known internally as AN-1, it flew again on 10 August and 13 August, indicating an imminent delivery.

However, Lockheed is not able to comment on the matter and referred all inquiries to the Dutch Ministry of Defence. The Netherlands government did not respond to inquiries.

And in other F-35 news:

Yuma gets a Sneak Peek at the future F-35 JSF

As we approached the first aircraft under construction, the guide pointed out a sign that displayed an American flag with the label, "BF - Yuma." Wow, this is really happening. After several years of seeing this aircraft in videos, articles and photos and hearing the Department of the Navy make a decision to make MCAS Yuma the first F-35B operational squadron in the Marine Corps, it's now marked for Yuma and on the assembly line!

We continued to pass many F-35Bs slated for Yuma in all levels of construction as well as U.S. Air Force F-35As and U.S. Navy F-35Cs. From afar they look similar because of the lime green and white paper skins covering the aircraft but we soon discovered on the flightline what sets these aircraft apart.

The first operational Marine Squadron will be VMFA-332, a former Hornet Squadron………And the first three USAF operational F-35A squadrons will start standing up latter this year/early next year, also in Arizona, at Luke AFB………..Well the Navy will continue on with VF-101 currently at Eglin Air Force as a joint service squadron, then reverting back to it’s former role as a fleet replacement squadron, being the first operational squadron to operate USN F-4’s then F-14’s…………

Edited August 17, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Tick-tock, tick-tock..............

what's so funny? It's already paid for - right? In any case, there is quite the muted response from LockMart... typically, it blows it's horn so loudly over these "first of's" - at least a press release! This time... nada! Wonder why?

goggly translate on a Dutch blog says it all!

Remarkably, no publicity

Perhaps the reason lies in the political sensitivity of the JSF file four weeks prior to the elections.

political sensitivity!... as in voting to drop the JSFail program, hey? Tick tock, tick tock!

[Guest Derek L]

what's so funny? It's already paid for - right? In any case, there is quite the muted response from LockMart... typically, it blows it's horn so loudly over these "first of's" - at least a press release! This time... nada! Wonder why?

goggly translate on a Dutch blog says it all!

political sensitivity!... as in voting to drop the JSFail program, hey? Tick tock, tick tock!

Look out!!!! It’s a conspiracy!!!!!!!

Yet, the first Dutch F-35 is flying