F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

a trip down your memory lane is all fine... I will note/highlight it doesn't address challenges to F-35 stealth capability.

You wouldn't know a MiG-3 if it bit you on the azz.

[Guest Derek L]

why, I do believe you're now in distraction mode... I accept your unconditional surrender on the APUC costing!

as for that Pugliese blog entry... good on ya, I told you it was only a few earlier. In any case, your reading/comprehension has apparently missed the salient point that the source is... the Pentagon SAR (just released). Your want to distract with "Mr. Williams" is quite telling - as Pugliese states in his opening sentence, "DND’s former ADM Materiel Alan Williams notes this about the F-35 cost information released Friday:"

you can keep wearing your clown face, hey?

APUC costing? As demonstrated in your own link, your branded about figure was a calculation that includes two much more expensive variants to develop it’s “average”………Though fitting for a nation that is purchasing all three variants (USA) it is quite obviously not the case with Canada only purchasing the “A” version……

And again, what of the conflicting APUC figure of $109 million versus the $130+ million? Which one is it?

And, for the sake of argument, since you’ve dodged the above questions already, what is the total of this equation:

$137 million (APUC) x 65 aircraft =?

The nose looks great on you.

[bush_cheney2004]

You wouldn't know a MiG-3 if it bit you on the azz.

Apparently, such historical context only matters for global warming climate change.

[Guest Derek L]

I like it! This all or nothing dependence on whatever the hell Americans are gonna do has to stop, including reliance on American Pentagon and GAO reports.

If you like that, you should see how I'd "fix" our Navy and Army, armed with a magic wand and a Delorean

[DogOnPorch]

In this mythical debate over the latest son of Flanker versus the F-35 I’ll say this, and one doesn’t require being a student of the late John Boyd to visualize said concept, if one takes out of the equation all the inherent force enablers/multipliers that favour the F-35 operators (EW,AWACS,AAR etc), discounts the more likely scenario of a BVR engagement by the F-35, it boils down to this:

The F-35 has a greater internal fuel capacity then the Flanker has internal and external combined, and the F-35, unlike the Flanker, has the added advantage of internal weapons carriage. Though the Sukhoi, as demonstrated in air shows, is rather agile, it does such performances clean, not in a combat configuration with external fuel tanks and weapons, so though the Flanker has a much larger wing area then the F-35, and when you couple in the weight of the two aircrafts, the much heavier Russian, becomes constrained by it’s own aircraft’s wing loading, in effect, negating it’s inherent agility………This says nothing of the F-35s own agility, which for obvious reasons, has yet to be released in the public arena other then it has tolerances exceeding 9+Gs when equipped with internal fuel and weapons…….

Yes. 'Loaded' is a condition unfamiliar to most instant aircraft experts.

Expert: Loaded?? The pilot's drunk?

The MiG-25 had something like a 6G airframe (only)...no tight turns, thank-you. Same with the Su-15 and Tu-28. This was due to Russia's huge size and the need to intercept an aircraft moving at high subsonic speeds far, far away. So, while high speeds beyond Mach 2.5 are common in even older Russian machines, this came at a price...50km turn radius, etc. This tradition continues in most Russian airframes save the newer designs which try to be multi-role. Many of those fancy airshow tricks done by Russian aircraft are done with near empty fuel tanks.

Plus, don't get me going on Russian fuel tanks. Aircraft like the MiG-21...still in service...needed at least half a tank of fuel in order to trim-out properly. Once lighter, it tended to pitch-up which required heavier and heavier trimming downward. That can't be fun flying, at all.

[DogOnPorch]

Apparently, such historical context only matters for global warming climate change.

...and the birth of Israel.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes. 'Loaded' is a condition unfamiliar to most instant aircraft experts.

The MiG-25 had something like a 6G airframe (only)...no tight turns, thank-you. Same with the Su-15 and Tu-28. This was due to Russia's huge size and the need to intercept an aircraft moving at high subsonic speeds far, far away. So, while high speeds beyond Mach 2.5 are common in even older Russian machines, this came at a price...50km turn radius, etc. This tradition continues in most Russian airframes save the newer designs which try to be multi-role. Many of those fancy airshow tricks done by Russian aircraft are done with near empty fuel tanks.

Plus, don't get me going on Russian fuel tanks. Aircraft like the MiG-21...still in service...needed at least half a tank of fuel in order to trim-out properly. Once lighter, it tended to pitch-up which required heavier and heavier trimming downward. That can't be fun flying, at all.

Indeed, there is precedent to also consider comparing Russian versus Western designed aircraft……….

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed, there is precedent to also consider comparing Russian versus Western designed aircraft……….

Yes...the cockpit is comfortable in most NATO aircraft...lol. Russian aviation, like their tanks and space program, tends to favour crew under 5'8" tall.

[DogOnPorch]

It should also be pointed out in spades that Russian aircraft have never come out on top in any East vs West conflict.

Edited April 22, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Wild Bill]

Back in the 1970's before the fall of the USSR a farmer friend took me to a plowing match/trade show. There were rows and rows of combines, balers and of course, tractors.

Now at that time most of the brands were domestic, like John Deere or Massey Ferguson. There were a few Japanese units in the rows as well but what made the biggest impression on me was a Russian tractor!

All the other tractors had enclosed cabs, with air conditioning to escape the hot sun and radios for entertainment. The seats were well designed and comfortable. The upholstery and padding were better than many cars.

Then there was the Russian unit. It was a huge brute and obviously had all the brute force horsepower you could ever want or imagine.

However, the seat was a plain metal plate with two scoops for your ass cheeks, with holes so that rainwater would not collect. You sat on this monster with nothing at all between you and the open sky. No radio and this was in the days just before the Sony Walkman.

I imagined that Russian farmers must all be rather cranky individuals. If I had to endure using such equipment I know I would have been!

[waldo]

APUC costing? As demonstrated in your own link, your branded about figure was a calculation that includes two much more expensive variants to develop it’s “average”………Though fitting for a nation that is purchasing all three variants (USA) it is quite obviously not the case with Canada only purchasing the “A” version……

if you have a problem with the APUC... you probably shouldn't have brought it up, hey?

If you have concerns over the APUC... then you shouldn't have mentioned it, hey? I'm simply responding to your initial reference, to your APUC costing reference! I'm simply providing you the real numbers from the Pentagon's own, just released, SAR. You must have thought the APUC had some significance, some bearing... you quoted it!

In fact you quoted it, you bold-highlighted it, you underlined it!

And again, what of the conflicting APUC figure of $109 million versus the $130+ million? Which one is it?

c'mon... you're not even trying anymore! Here, read it again:

Those two respective numbers have the same reference point... apply to the same reference period. The distinction is your quoted $109 million APUC per jet figure reflects "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars)... my quoted $137 million APUC per jet figure reflects "TY (then-year)" dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program). You can keep your nose... Bobo! It's becoming very clear you don't know what you're talking about and... you're making it up as you go!

like I said, save yourself further embarrassment... suggest you actually reference the latest (just released) Pentagon SAR as well as the latest U.S. Government Accountability Office reports.

[Guest Derek L]

if you have a problem with the APUC... you probably shouldn't have brought it up, hey?

c'mon... you're not even trying anymore! Here, read it again:

like I said, save yourself further embarrassment... suggest you actually reference the latest (just released) Pentagon SAR as well as the latest U.S. Government Accountability Office reports.

Nice Dodge, and a rather well thought out go fetch closing………

Who initially referenced Mr Pugliese and Mr Williams? And what about said methods used to obtained that figure? Are you suggesting we’re also purchasing the (more expensive) “B” and “C” models of the F-35?

And well we're at it:

And, for the sake of argument, since you’ve dodged the above questions already, what is the total of this equation:

$137 million (APUC) x 65 aircraft =?

Reflect said total with the current budget allotment set by the Harper Government for procurement at $9 billion for 65 F-35s………

[waldo]

and we've lined up around this sorry state of affairs! Really?

re: the recent U.S. Congress oversight hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: Oversight Oversight

The last straw came when Chairman Bartlett lectured the witnesses about the “insanity” of the F-35 program and how he and others on the committee saw it coming years ago. Really? They questioned the unworkable design when? They opposed the crooked buy-before-you-fly acquisition plan when? They stopped the concurrency when? They called onto the carpet, if not demanding the firing of, officials offering wantonly unrealistic, even misleading, testimony when? If it were true they knew the program was a loser years ago, then the committee would have done something about it. Or, having not done so, they are—by their admission—complicit in the collapse of the F-35 program.

Is there a way out of this mess?

and from the recent released U.S. Pentagon SAR report for the F-35 we now receive 'suggestion' that F-35 operational testing and evaluation won't be completed "until 2019"... and when nothing/little has been on schedule so far????? So, presuming on 2019, testing completes and the full laundry list of fixes is in... and then the costing... and then the redesign/redevelopment and retrofit of any existing aircraft already pushed out. Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock... hey now, what was that about the airframe life of the CF-18? Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, Tick Tock

[waldo]

Are you suggesting we’re also purchasing the (more expensive) “B” and “C” models of the F-35?

quit your whining... next time, I'd suggest you don't quote reference to APUC. No wait, I'd suggest you don't quote it, don't bold-highlight and don't underline it! Like I said, you clearly thought it was note-worthy/significant to mention, hey? Sorry to burst your clown balloon!

[Guest Derek L]

and we've lined up around this sorry state of affairs! Really?

re: the recent U.S. Congress oversight hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: Oversight Oversight

and from the recent released U.S. Pentagon SAR report for the F-35 we now receive 'suggestion' that F-35 operational testing and evaluation won't be completed "until 2019"... and when nothing/little has been on schedule so far????? So, presuming on 2019, testing completes and the full laundry list of fixes is in... and then the costing... and then the redesign/redevelopment and retrofit of any existing aircraft already pushed out. Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock... hey now, what was that about the airframe life of the CF-18? Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, Tick Tock

Another blog Waldo?

[Guest Derek L]

quit your whining... next time, I'd suggest you don't quote reference to APUC. No wait, I'd suggest you don't quote it, don't bold-highlight and don't underline it! Like I said, you clearly thought it was note-worthy/significant to mention, hey? Sorry to burst your clown balloon!

Did you do the math yet?

So what did the inflated total result in? Contrast with the released price tag of the “A” version that we’ll be getting….

[bush_cheney2004]

Another blog Waldo?

But...but....it's an American blog, sames at the GAO, Congress, and Pentagon! Cue Star Spangled Banner in three...two...one....

[Guest Derek L]

But...but....it's an American blog, sames at the GAO, Congress, and Pentagon! Cue Star Spangled Banner in three...two...one....

But Waldo clearly doesn’t know who Mr Wheeler is………..Center of Defence information (CDI), the same organization that’s criticized everything since the 70s from the F-15/F-16, to M1A1, AEGIS, the B-1, AH-64, Tomahawks and D5 Trident as a costly waste and falling outside of defence requirements……..

Based on precedent, I’d be concerned if Mr Wheeler wasn’t critical of the F-35...

[bush_cheney2004]

...Based on precedent, I’d be concerned if Mr Wheeler wasn’t critical of the F-35...

Well, it did take two Canadians to force Michael Mann to review basic statistics, so I would expect no less when it comes to anti-F35 shills.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, it did take two Canadians to force Michael Mann to review basic statistics, so I would expect no less when it comes to anti-F35 shills.

At the end of the day, I’ve yet to see an F-35 critic that’s privy to the program’s technical inside track……..Quite clearly, those that are, namely Lockheed and the military partners, are supportive of the program and for obvious reasons, can’t release detailed information of the aircraft’s performance……..Clearly those on the outside (Myself included) have to rely on a certain amount of faith.

Ultimately it comes down to judging prior precedents for (international) military procurement programs……Much the same criticism was laid on the F-16 & F/A-18, in many cases, by the same who chastise the JSF program.

Is it possible that the Air Forces of the numerous partner nations were duped? I Suppose. Is it probable? Not a chance.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, it did take two Canadians to force Michael Mann to review basic statistics, so I would expect no less when it comes to anti-F35 shills.

Well, much like Hyman Roth in Godfather II, the strategic bomber has been dying of the same heart attack for the last 50 years. I wonder how many B-52 sorties there were today? Most anti-aviation types know sheet...Señor.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Ultimately it comes down to judging prior precedents for (international) military procurement programs……Much the same criticism was laid on the F-16 & F/A-18, in many cases, by the same who chastise the JSF program.

Those were tame compared to McNamara's whiz kids and what ultimately became the FB-111 (TFX). The Americans start and scrap more programs than Canada will ever dream about. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Is it possible that the Air Forces of the numerous partner nations were duped? I Suppose. Is it probable? Not a chance.

They can buy anything they want, but are sticking with future proof stealth for now. The commies want in too....I wonder why?

Edited April 22, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Those were tame compared to McNamara's whiz kids and what ultimately became the FB-111 (TFX). The Americans start and scrap more programs than Canada will ever dream about. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

The all singing and all dancing requirement was what ultimately killed the TFX…….but as mentioned, the Aardvark & Tomcat can attribute their successful careers to it………My point I suppose was that CDI has cried wolf numerous times and their “trumped up concerns” were ultimately proven false almost on a case by case basis……..Perhaps they need a new Shtick……

They can buy anything they want, but are sticking with future proof stealth for now. The commies want in too....I wonder why?

Exactly, and why would the pinkos be trying to steal the JSF secrets if was such a dog?

Edited April 22, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

...My point I suppose was that CDI has cried wolf numerous times and their “trumped up concerns” were ultimately proven false almost on a case by case basis……..Perhaps they need a new Shtick……

Right...we've already seen this movie...several times. Canada has it's own version that ended with chopped up CF-105's and a fallen government.

[waldo]

and we've lined up around this sorry state of affairs! Really?

re: the recent U.S. Congress oversight hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: Oversight Oversight

and from the recent released U.S. Pentagon SAR report for the F-35 we now receive 'suggestion' that F-35 operational testing and evaluation won't be completed "until 2019"... and when nothing/little has been on schedule so far????? So, presuming on 2019, testing completes and the full laundry list of fixes is in... and then the costing... and then the redesign/redevelopment and retrofit of any existing aircraft already pushed out. Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock... hey now, what was that about the airframe life of the CF-18? Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, Tick Tock

Another blog Waldo?

why... yes. Yes it is - one of a dozen associated with Time.com. In any case, its heartening to see you reduced to ignoring the content. As for your protestations over the article's author, "Winslow Wheeler"... I'm quite taken with his 30-year U.S. Government career attachments... bipartisan Senate staffer working on national security, Pentagon reform legislation, foreign policy, and oversight of the defense budget and weapons programs. And wiki also tells me he actually worked, as well, in the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Given the nature of his books and publications, I can certainly see how he would be a concern for a chickenwar-hawk, like yourself.

nothing to say about my latter comments, those that have nothing to do with "the blog"? C'mon MLW member, 'Derek L'... Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock