F-35 Purchase

[bleeding heart]

make up your mind. Either it's intended to counter Iran or it's intended to target Russia... oh, wait... you're actually acknowledging the U.S. "defense shield" initiative is intended to target Russia. And you wonder why the Russians might be a bit perturbed about having newly installed missiles pointed towards them, hey?

I see you're well aware that "defense" shield is as much a euphemism as the phallic "body massagers" you can buy at the local Walmart.

[DogOnPorch]

make up your mind. Either it's intended to counter Iran or it's intended to target Russia... oh, wait... you're actually acknowledging the U.S. "defense shield" initiative is intended to target Russia. And you wonder why the Russians might be a bit perturbed about having newly installed missiles pointed towards them, hey?

Liar. You're free to point out where I claimed missile defence was about Iran. However, I, unlike you, do not deny that Iran is ALSO building ICBMs.

but let's bring this thread back on track. How about you draw the relationship/ties between the F-35 and your fears of Russian ICBMs!

Gee...they had all sorts of aircraft back during the so-called Cold War dayz...even though the ICBM was apparently King.

Howz about you give us your Kumbaya version of the future where Canada need not have any defences?

[DogOnPorch]

I see you're well aware that "defense" shield is as much a euphemism as the phallic "body massagers" you can buy at the local Walmart.

So, in your opinion, things like Iron Dome and the Patriot are offensive weapons? How about land mines?

[Guest Derek L]

link/cite the NATO STANAG that counters the comment of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation... that counters his comment concerning, 'interoperability and advocating for a single type of aircraft'.

At present, there is none since the F-35 isn’t in squadron service, but there will have to be changes (Read new edition of said agreement(s)) to both STANAG 2014 (Administrative/logistic orders), STANAG 3736 (Offensive air operations), STANAG 3350 (aircraft system applications), STANAG 3880 (Counter air operations) and STANAG (Precision approach and landing) and I’m certain a dozen more relating to further logistics, communications and electronics…………This is demonstrated by new said agreements incorporating new aircraft into NATO with the last such (fighter) aircraft being the EuroFighter……..

Now you can read the exact wording of each agreement here, but you have to pay, or like myself, have a Subscription to Janes (Not to mention actual paper copies of said agreements, pertaining to more specifically aviation and maritime operations circa 1986-1995):

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Or you could true from the horses mouth:

Standardization Agreements / Accords de normalisation

NATO has standardization & interoperability down to rifle magazines……….They will have such agreements relating to differing aircraft…………….Thought the French General is technically correct that the F-35 doesn’t specifically have such agreements as yet, he is being intellectually dishonest, but this doesn't Surprise me coming from an officer that has helped further his own nation’s aerospace products (Dassault Mirages to Hellenic air force) and would no doubt Benefit to some degree (I’ve no evidence to suggest financially) with seeing the Dassault Rafale procured by other air forces thus helping reduce the per plane cost so as allowing his own nation to purchase more of their national aircraft.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Though the French General is technically correct that the F-35 doesn’t specifically have such agreements as yet, he is being intellectually dishonest

he didn't say anything F-35 specific... he was most generalized in speaking to interoperability and NATO (not) advocating for a single type of aircraft.

NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee Thursday.

"We do not advocate a single type of aircraft, single type of ships, single type of rifles," Abrial said. "We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal."

Abrial said interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield.

your alphabet soup name dropping... means nothing.

[Guest Derek L]

I think it was the same guy who told the Americans to remove all their soldiers from France, to which Dean Rusk responded, "Does that include the dead Americans in military cemeteries as well?"

Indeed, and I think it was Churchill that said, well referencing said General's "Free French" : "The hardest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lorraine"

Incidentally, said French General has an aircraft carrier named after him that namely operates Dassault Rafales......things that make you go Hmmmmmm

[Guest Derek L]

he didn't say anything F-35 specific... he was most generalized in speaking to interoperability and NATO (not) advocating for a single type of aircraft.

your alphabet soup name dropping... means nothing.

I’d be interested to see the transcripts of his entire testimony to better frame his context……..I’ve tried searching to no avail, have you seen them? Or are we just going on snippets from the media? From the portion quoted it would seem his reference to be vague……..Clearly there are standards of equipment, why else would the then newly reunified German Luftwaffe retire Russian Migs, some being only a few years old, as opposed to decades old F-4s?

Would you concede that a French General, that has directly helped French aircraft maker Dassault market & deliver their products in the past to other nations, would trumpet an American aircraft’s capability over his own nations? You don’t think there might be a smidge of bias? Who’s up next? James McNerney?

[waldo]

I’d be interested to see the transcripts of his entire testimony to better frame his context……..I’ve tried searching to no avail, have you seen them? Or are we just going on snippets from the media? From the portion quoted it would seem his reference to be vague……..

I await you bringing forward a full transcript... until then you'll just have to accept the generalized statements... the ones that don't support your (and the Harper Conservatives) expressed NATO interoperability basis for the F-35.

Clearly there are standards of equipment, why else would the then newly reunified German Luftwaffe retire Russian Migs, some being only a few years old, as opposed to decades old F-4s?

an easy googly would suggest you don't know what you're talking about:

After East and West Germany were unified in October 1990, the aircraft of the NVA were taken over by the Federal Republic of Germany, and their GDR markings were replaced by the Iron Cross, the first time Soviet-built aircraft had served in a NATO air force. Most of these were taken out of service, in many cases being sold or given to the new Eastern European members of NATO, such as Poland and the Baltic states.

An exception to this was the [[Jagdgeschwader 73 Steinhoff]] (Fighter Wing 73 "Steinhoff") stationed in Laage. The pilots of the JG 73 flew MiG-29s acquired during the reunification and were some of the most experienced MiG-29 pilots in the world. One of their primary duties was to serve as aggressor pilots, training other pilots in dissimilar combat tactics. The United States sent a group of fighter pilots to Germany during the Red October exercise to practice tactics against the aircraft they were most likely to meet in real combat. The MiG-29s of JG 73 were fully integrated into the Luftwaffe's air defence structure and, from February 1995 became the first Soviet Bloc aircraft to be declared operational within NATO. In 2004, with the introduction of the Eurofighter Typhoon imminent, the decision was taken to withdraw the MiG-29. JG 73's aircraft were withdrawn in August 2004, following which they were sold to the Polish Air Force.

[DogOnPorch]

The Poles also fly F-16s....hmmmmm.

[waldo]

The Poles also fly F-16s....hmmmmm.

April 26, 2012: NATO-sponsored Baltic Air Police mission - Polish air force MiG-29 fighters land in Lithuania to assume the NATO-sponsored Baltic Air Police mission, replacing German Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms.

now... that's NATO interoperability, hey?

[DogOnPorch]

April 26, 2012: NATO-sponsored Baltic Air Police mission - Polish air force MiG-29 fighters land in Lithuania to assume the NATO-sponsored Baltic Air Police mission, replacing German Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms.

now... that's NATO interoperability, hey?

That the MiG-29 can replace an aircraft made in the late 1950s? Guess so...

[Guest Derek L]

I await you bringing forward a full transcript... until then you'll just have to accept the generalized statements... the ones that don't support your (and the Harper Conservatives) expressed NATO interoperability basis for the F-35.

an easy googly would suggest you don't know what you're talking about:

You understand, that aside from the said squadron of Mig-29s (The Americans and Israelis also operate Soviet Bloc equipment for the same purposes), the then East German air force had numerous other Soviet Aircraft in service right? And The Germans retired them with reunification and kept the F-4s going into the 2000s………I can list the aircraft by type and quantity if you like and wish to (borrow from yourself) “double down”……..

So you’ve now citied a retired General’s (Retired prior to the F-35 even existing) opinion, a former Liberal member of Parliament (Left Government in 2005), numerous anti defence bloggers and journalists and now a French General, of whom indirectly supported Dassault’s foreign sale of aircraft…….But yet, no partner nations has left the program and the Japanese, with their own domestic ability to produce and supplement US designed aircraft are buying into the program…………

Perhaps those you cite really do offer keen insight on a program that they been on the outside looking in on…….Myself, I’ll hang my proverbial hat on the partner nations/air forces/manufacture’s hook.

[Guest Derek L]

Was just looking back at a post of mine from almost exactly a year ago and A prediction on the F-35 Costs:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18899&st=30

I'll predict that after we look at the costs of “Canadianizing” them (Drag chutes and Probe & drogue refuelling) we’ll end up buying the F-35C (carrier version) tacked on to the USN order, only to find out after the fact when we replace our Airbus tankers, the Boeing KC-46 “boom” tanker is the cheapest option……..

Per plane cost = 87 million

Cost per plane with lifetime support = ~ 460 million

So let it be written, so it shall be done.

I wasn't sure if I'd posted that here or not.......Hmmm and what do those numbers, displayed one year ago suggest………….Either I can predict the future, or my guesstimate was based on figures in the public(ish) domain back then………Who doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

[Topaz]

It was announced today that Mr. ? Williams, who started the Canada's role on the F-35's, is coming out with a book and he is going to say, that the costs the Tories are saying are wrong and will expose the real truth. He is also going to be on CBC's Power and Politics with Evan next week.

[Guest Derek L]

It was announced today that Mr. ? Williams, who started the Canada's role on the F-35's, is coming out with a book and he is going to say, that the costs the Tories are saying are wrong and will expose the real truth. He is also going to be on CBC's Power and Politics with Evan next week.

I’ve asked before, how would Mr Williams be versed on the current details of the program, the very one he signed the then Liberal Government up for (MoU) ten years ago, if he’s been out of Government for ~7 years………Very interesting that you mention he’s hawking a future book……..I wonder how well it would sell if it’s theme was sunshine and rainbows??????

[waldo]

April 26, 2012: NATO-sponsored Baltic Air Police mission - Polish air force MiG-29 fighters land in Lithuania to assume the NATO-sponsored Baltic Air Police mission, replacing German Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms.

now... that's NATO interoperability, hey?

That the MiG-29 can replace an aircraft made in the late 1950s? Guess so...

hardly the point... but then you know that. You highlighted the Poles flying F-16s... following up on the MIG reference, I readily chirp in with NATO member countries also flying two other types of jets... and, of course, I could add many others to the list. Kind of takes the polish off the supposed rationale of aligning with the Harper Conservative (and MLW member 'Derek L's') fictional NATO "one fighter" interoperability mandate, hey?

[waldo]

You understand, that aside from the said squadron of Mig-29s (The Americans and Israelis also operate Soviet Bloc equipment for the same purposes), the then East German air force had numerous other Soviet Aircraft in service right? And The Germans retired them with reunification and kept the F-4s going into the 2000s………I can list the aircraft by type and quantity if you like and wish to (borrow from yourself) “double down”……..

you tried... and failed, big time, attempting to posit a NATO interoperability 'one fighter' standards policy. You presumed to challenge the statements of the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation... and you also failed there, equally big time. The Germans may have retired some MIGs (actually selling some to other NATO countries... oh my!). But, as my link states, they also maintained MIGs within the Luftwaffe for 15 years after reunification.

So you’ve now citied a retired General’s (Retired prior to the F-35 even existing) opinion, a former Liberal member of Parliament (Left Government in 2005), numerous anti defence bloggers and journalists and now a French General, of whom indirectly supported Dassault’s foreign sale of aircraft…….But yet, no partner nations has left the program and the Japanese, with their own domestic ability to produce and supplement US designed aircraft are buying into the program………… Perhaps those you cite really do offer keen insight on a program that they been on the outside looking in on…….Myself, I’ll hang my proverbial hat on the partner nations/air forces/manufacture’s hook.

you simply dismiss any critical comment regardless of source... regardless of whether those sources are echoing critical review from within the U.S. Government itself... or the Pentagon. You simply choose to ignore all the problems of JSFail, the 1.5 Trillion (and growing cost), the decade (and growing) delay, the member countries downsizing and delaying orders (including the U.S. itself). This latest gem has you purposely ignoring the position of the NATO commander, with you intentionally choosing to label him as the, "French General".

as for you beating your chest over the Japanese... as yet unsigned "deal", interesting review has Lockheed Martin offering an almost unheard of enticement to the Japanese. It seems with everyone shifting out/down possible F-35 orders (the U.S., the Netherlands, Italy, Australia), and the U.S. Navy all but abandoning the F-35, Lockheed Martin is willing to do just about anything to float some form of "good news"... to the tune of wholesale shifting the actual F-35 manufacturing to Japan.

[waldo]

Was just looking back at a post of mine from almost exactly a year ago and A prediction on the F-35 Costs:

I'll predict that after we look at the costs of “Canadianizing” them (Drag chutes and Probe & drogue refuelling) we’ll end up buying the F-35C (carrier version) tacked on to the USN order, only to find out after the fact when we replace our Airbus tankers, the Boeing KC-46 “boom” tanker is the cheapest option……..

Per plane cost = 87 million

Cost per plane with lifetime support = ~ 460 million

So let it be written, so it shall be done.

I wasn't sure if I'd posted that here or not.......Hmmm and what do those numbers, displayed one year ago suggest………….Either I can predict the future, or my guesstimate was based on figures in the public(ish) domain back then………Who doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

who actually knows what this "vapour-ware" will ultimately cost... certainly not the U.S. Government, certainly not the Pentagon... certainly not you. You seem to think orders pushed out/delayed will have no impact on cost per plane. Notwithstanding over-budget, overdue and over-hyped, I asked you recently how you could continue, so boldly continue, your posturing in the face of critical performance review (with still less than 20% testing performed)... you answered with a self-professed, bald-faced, unmitigated, blind-faith allegiance to the "Military Industrial Complex". Cause... that's all ya got... blind faith!

[Guest Derek L]

hardly the point... but then you know that. You highlighted the Poles flying F-16s... following up on the MIG reference, I readily chirp in with NATO member countries also flying two other types of jets... and, of course, I could add many others to the list. Kind of takes the polish off the supposed rationale of aligning with the Harper Conservative (and MLW member 'Derek L's') fictional NATO "one fighter" interoperability mandate, hey?

And the interoperability of said NATO members flying antiquated aircraft was demonstrated how during the NATO air campaigns of the last 20 years?

*edit to add

Edited May 5, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

And the interoperability of said NATO members flying antiquated was demonstrated how during the NATO air campaigns of the last 20 years?

I appreciate you have difficulty reading the NATO commander cut into your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on "F-35 interoperability".

NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee Thursday.

"

We do not advocate a single type of aircraft

, single type of ships, single type of rifles," Abrial said. "We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal."

Abrial said

interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield

.

[Guest Derek L]

you tried... and failed, big time, attempting to posit a NATO interoperability 'one fighter' standards policy. You presumed to challenge the statements of the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation... and you also failed there, equally big time. The Germans may have retired some MIGs (actually selling some to other NATO countries... oh my!). But, as my link states, they also maintained MIGs within the Luftwaffe for 15 years after reunification.

Not at all, The East Germans had hundreds of Migs and Sukhoi fighters, of which many obtained during the 80s (Thus a decade plus newer than the F-4s) and retired them after reunification…….you cite a few dozen Migs kept for dissimilar training………..Riddle me this (With the aide of Wikipedia), why did the Germans eventually retire their Mig-29 Squadron a decade ago, well still running on near twenty year older Phantoms?

you simply dismiss any critical comment regardless of source... regardless of whether those sources are echoing critical review from within the U.S. Government itself... or the Pentagon. You simply choose to ignore all the problems of JSFail, the 1.5 Trillion (and growing cost), the decade (and growing) delay, the member countries downsizing and delaying orders (including the U.S. itself). This latest gem has you purposely ignoring the position of the NATO commander, with you intentionally choosing to label him as the, "French General".

as for you beating your chest over the Japanese... as yet unsigned "deal", interesting review has Lockheed Martin offering an almost unheard of enticement to the Japanese. It seems with everyone shifting out/down possible F-35 orders (the U.S., the Netherlands, Italy, Australia), and the U.S. Navy all but abandoning the F-35, Lockheed Martin is willing to do just about anything to float some form of "good news"... to the tune of wholesale shifting the actual F-35 manufacturing to Japan.

What JSF partner nations pulled out of the program again? What is the involvement of the French again with the JSF program?

[Guest Derek L]

who actually knows what this "vapour-ware" will ultimately cost... certainly not the U.S. Government, certainly not the Pentagon... certainly not you. You seem to think orders pushed out/delayed will have no impact on cost per plane. Notwithstanding over-budget, overdue and over-hyped, I asked you recently how you could continue, so boldly continue, your posturing in the face of critical performance review (with still less than 20% testing performed)... you answered with a self-professed, bald-faced, unmitigated, blind-faith allegiance to the "Military Industrial Complex". Cause... that's all ya got... blind faith!

Blind faith? My “prediction” of nearly a year ago seemed to coincide rather well with the “scathing numbers” associated with the AG report released recently no? Fluke you say?

Or maybe you should stop listening to the recycled inaccurate information shared amongst the blogs and MSM, and sole source your obtaining of knowledge elsewhere………My next act will be to predict the Lotto Numbers

[Guest Derek L]

I appreciate you have difficulty reading the NATO commander cut into your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on "F-35 interoperability".

What is the purpose of the STANAG magazine again?

[waldo]

you cite a few dozen Migs kept for dissimilar training………..Riddle me this (With the aide of Wikipedia), why did the Germans eventually retire their Mig-29 Squadron a decade ago, well still running on near twenty year older Phantoms?

I could care less - I'm content to highlight you were wrong about Germany, many years after reunification, (still) operating Russian fighter jets. I'm also quite content to showcase you haven't a clue concerning NATO interoperability.

What JSF partner nations pulled out of the program again? What is the involvement of the French again with the JSF program?

I expect we'll shortly begin to see some of those partner countries following the U.S. Navy lead... and begin to look for a viable alternative, one other than JSFail's F-35. Your desperation is shining through when your only resort is to (continue to) challenge the NATO commander's statement on NATO interoperability... based on him being French.

[waldo]

who actually knows what this "vapour-ware" will ultimately cost... certainly not the U.S. Government, certainly not the Pentagon... certainly not you. You seem to think orders pushed out/delayed will have no impact on cost per plane. Notwithstanding over-budget, overdue and over-hyped, I asked you recently how you could continue, so boldly continue, your posturing in the face of critical performance review (with still less than 20% testing performed)... you answered with a self-professed, bald-faced, unmitigated, blind-faith allegiance to the "Military Industrial Complex". Cause... that's all ya got... blind faith!

Blind faith? My “prediction” of nearly a year ago seemed to coincide rather well with the “scathing numbers” associated with the AG report released recently no? Fluke you say?

Or maybe you should stop listening to the recycled inaccurate information shared amongst the blogs and MSM, and sole source your obtaining of knowledge elsewhere………My next act will be to predict the Lotto Numbers

with such bravado, I would have thought you actually might have read the AG report, hey? Now certainly, full/complete life-cycle costs were a principal lacking audit finding, as well as failures in identifying attrition costs, upgrade costs, weapons costs, etc. However, it seems to me the only pertinent direct reference to acquisition was the following... not quite sure your next Lotto act will fare well against it:

In

February 2010

, National Defence received formal communication from the US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics that developing the F-35 would cost more and take longer to finish than planned and that the US Department of Defense was reassessing its cost projections.

In

July 2010

, US authorities began another comprehensive review of the JSF Program. This review is expected to affect the unit recurring flyaway cost, sustainment costs, as well as the development, production, and delivery schedule.

At the time of this audit, partner countries were awaiting the outcome of this review

These budgets have since been treated as a maximum by National Defence, yet many decisions that could affect the ultimate costs are still to be taken. Moreover, as noted in paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12,

United States’ estimates of the future purchase price of the F-35 are in flux

. Estimates for sustainment costs are not fully developed.

now, of course, we've subsequently had the U.S. GAO numbers come out... you know... that $137 million per plane figure. By the by, what life-cycle period were you using... 20 years... 30 years... 36 years? And your costs for attrition, upgrades and weapons???