F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

What is the purpose of the STANAG magazine again?

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

.

[DogOnPorch]

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?

Maybe the Russians will be so kind as to supply Il-78s to NATO to make these craft useful beyond training/Polish air defence. Russian aircraft use different fluids...different voltages...different pressures in the tires. Not to mention there's no English (or German) version of the cockpit avionics. So your 'Canadian MiG-29' will be telling you to...

Тяга вверх. Тяга вверх.

But sure...the MiG-29 is an aircraft like the F-4 Phantom. That the Poles wanted the F-16 is a no brainer. A fine aircraft with a superb record.

[Topaz]

The National Post has print a letter of about the F-35. Some readers think this could a legit. letter,I can't see Ian making things up and I'm sure if its is not legit, we will hear about it. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/04/john-ivison-decodes-the-letter-approving-the-f-35/

[punked]

The National Post has print a letter of about the F-35. Some readers think this could a legit. letter,I can't see Ian making things up and I'm sure if its is not legit, we will hear about it. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/04/john-ivison-decodes-the-letter-approving-the-f-35/

Globe and mail is reporting on the same letter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dnds-case-for-buying-f-35s-summed-up-in-terse-letter/article2423797/

[Guest Derek L]

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.

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.

So, of the hundreds of Soviet aircraft operated by East Germany, Reunified German kept ~20 to play the role of a dissimilar trainer, or in other words, to play the part of the Soviets………..So why’d the Germans retire those ~20 Migs and still run on Phantoms that where nearly 20 years their senior?

[Guest Derek L]

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:

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???

My prediction? Was based on ~30+ years of support and included manufactures upgrades……But not additional nor attrition replacements for two reasons: I won’t try to guess how many wars/conflicts we’ll be involved in out to ~2050, thus how many weapons we’ll expend or how many aircraft we’ll lose over that timeframe……….When we initially purchased the Hornets we had an option for attrition replacement but we never excised it.

[punked]

So, of the hundreds of Soviet aircraft operated by East Germany, Reunified German kept ~20 to play the role of a dissimilar trainer, or in other words, to play the part of the Soviets………..So why’d the Germans retire those ~20 Migs and still run on Phantoms that where nearly 20 years their senior?

I don't know the answer to this Derek but this thread has spiked my interest in jet fighters for sure. I am going to ask an nonpartisan question because I am truly interested so if you can inform me please do. After the reunification was Germany in NATO? If so would it even be able to get parts for their Migs from the Soviets or what would have been Russia by the time all the Reunification had trickled into the Luftwaffe? It just seems to me once you pick your team there is no going back during the cold war. If you go with Nato why would Russia continue to help you operate your aircraft which NATO was using to train their pilots to beat. It seems they would be forced to stop operating them.

[Guest Derek L]

Nice dodge

So no answer on "the purpose of the STANAG magazine again".........What the 5.56x45mm (5.56 NATO) cartridge used inside it? Why would NATO agree on standard cartridges to fit inside standard magazines?

Wouldn't this counter this:

"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.

SO why the same rifle cartridge?

[Guest Derek L]

I don't know the answer to this Derek but this thread has spiked my interest in jet fighters for sure. I am going to ask an nonpartisan question because I am truly interested so if you can inform me please do. After the reunification was Germany in NATO? If so would it even be able to get parts for their Migs from the Soviets or what would have been Russia by the time all the Reunification had trickled into the Luftwaffe? It just seems to me once you pick your team there is no going back during the cold war. If you go with Nato why would Russia continue to help you operate your aircraft which NATO was using to train their pilots to beat. It seems they would be forced to stop operating them.

The Germans were very much in NATO and yes, after a decades usage playing the role of ~Soviet forces for NATO, the Luftwaffe’s Migs very much began to run out of spares parts, but it is not so much a case as the Russians not allowing the German’s parts because of their NATO membership, but more of the reality of Russian equipment and suppliers, to say nothing of the actual situation in Russia itself during the 90s and early 2000s.

The Russian military itself had/has problems sourcing equipment.

[punked]

The Germans were very much in NATO and yes, after a decades usage playing the role of ~Soviet forces for NATO, the Luftwaffe’s Migs very much began to run out of spares parts, but it is not so much a case as the Russians not allowing the German’s parts because of their NATO membership, but more of the reality of Russian equipment and suppliers, to say nothing of the actual situation in Russia itself during the 90s and early 2000s.

The Russian military itself had/has problems sourcing equipment.

So it wasn't really that the Migs were an worse plane (although they might have been) it was that the Russians were in a state of disarray after the Soviet Union fell apart and their old friends the Germans joined up with their old enemy the Americans?

[waldo]

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???

My prediction?

what? You're just going to skip on over your claimed reference to the AGs report... the non-existent reference you so puffed up over? That your "prediction" has no attachment to reality... to the latest U.S. estimates... to whatever the ultimate cost of the F-35 might be! You're just going to gloss right over that? Of course you are.

[waldo]

What is the purpose of the STANAG magazine again?

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

.

Nice dodge

no dodge - I came straight at you. Perhaps you should actually look up 'NATO Transformation'... it might give you a better understanding and appreciation of who just spoke before the HOC Defence committee - the "NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation". Tell you what... you take that Janes subscription of yours (/snarc) and come on back with something to counter the NATO Commander's statements about interoperability... until then... per norm, you're simply blowing smoke. But hey now, as an alternative, why don't you draw up a list of all the jet fighters belonging to NATO member countries... and then, with a straight face, continue your nonsense about a NATO single plane "STANAG" standards policy.

[cybercoma]

Globe and mail is reporting on the same letter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dnds-case-for-buying-f-35s-summed-up-in-terse-letter/article2423797/

Does the "flying computer" F-35 jet come with a spellchecker? That letter is a mess.

[waldo]

Does the "flying computer" F-35 jet come with a spellchecker? That letter is a mess.

that 160 word letter is truly a marvel, an absolute gem... a true testament to the completeness, to the thoroughness, to the level and degree of due diligence Harper Conservatives have applied all through this JSFail charade.

[eyeball]

that 160 word letter is truly a marvel, an absolute gem... a true testament to the completeness, to the thoroughness, to the level and degree of due diligence Harper Conservatives have applied all through this JSFail charade.

I wonder if these people lay awake at night worrying about losing our nation's precious bodily fluids?

[cybercoma]

I wonder if these people lay awake at night worrying about losing our nation's precious bodily fluids?

Post of the week, Doctor!

[DogOnPorch]

So it wasn't really that the Migs were an worse plane (although they might have been) it was that the Russians were in a state of disarray after the Soviet Union fell apart and their old friends the Germans joined up with their old enemy the Americans?

Remember, Germany was two nations back then. West and East. The F-4 is perhaps one of the 10 best aircraft of all time. Circa 1965, there was nothing in the Russian VVS comparable to the Phantom. Iran still uses them from the Shah days. Other than the 3 dozen or so MiG-29s which are a match for the F-4, Poland's collection of MiGs and Sukhois were retired with the exception of some Su-22* ground attack machines.

*Basically, a beefed-up Su-7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-22

Nice vid of some Japanese F-4s

[Guest Derek L]

what? You're just going to skip on over your claimed reference to the AGs report... the non-existent reference you so puffed up over? That your "prediction" has no attachment to reality... to the latest U.S. estimates... to whatever the ultimate cost of the F-35 might be! You're just going to gloss right over that? Of course you are.

What was the AG's report tally for the JSF, support and the scotch guard for 20 years? 25 Billion no? And, per my prediction, what would ~460 million (Per plane total cost) x 65 = ? And based on my year earlier prediction, 30 billion for 30+ years, sans weapons and any attrition replacements, would seem to naturally align with the AG’s figure of 25 billion for twenty years no?

[Guest Derek L]

[/indent]

no dodge - I came straight at you. Perhaps you should actually look up 'NATO Transformation'... it might give you a better understanding and appreciation of who just spoke before the HOC Defence committee - the "NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation". Tell you what... you take that Janes subscription of yours (/snarc) and come on back with something to counter the NATO Commander's statements about interoperability... until then... per norm, you're simply blowing smoke. But hey now, as an alternative, why don't you draw up a list of all the jet fighters belonging to NATO member countries... and then, with a straight face, continue your nonsense about a NATO single plane "STANAG" standards policy.

Per the NATO website:

Chapter 17: Standardization and Interoperability

Materiel standards are those standards which affect the characteristics of future and/or current materiel to include telecommunications, data processing and distribution. They may cover production codes of practice as well as materiel specifications. Materiel includes complete systems, including command, control and communications systems, weapons systems, sub-systems, assemblies, components, spare parts and materials and consumables (including ammunition, fuel, supplies, stores and consumable spares).

And further:

1716. Operational standardization strives for the use of common concepts, doctrines, procedures, practices or formats to enhance operational interoperability of Alliance and PfP forces. Objectives for materiel standardization strive for the development and procurement of compatible, interoperable, interchangeable or common materiel for Alliance and PfP forces, as required.

Notice said document was released in ‘97 and shortly after NATO started allowing former Warsaw Pact nations membership….Since France only formerly rejoined NATO several years ago, I’d assume said French General’s appointment was one of politics and during the 90s he was too busy flogging Dassault Mirages to notice….

Edited May 6, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

So it wasn't really that the Migs were an worse plane (although they might have been) it was that the Russians were in a state of disarray after the Soviet Union fell apart and their old friends the Germans joined up with their old enemy the Americans?

They would have been about just under par (in most categories) with the upgraded German Phantoms, but as evident, it was not fiscally sustainable maintaining such a small bastard fleet……And this is not so much the case that the Germans and Russians were at odds with each other (The Russians always love western money) but as mentioned the disarray of the all things Russian………

[Guest Derek L]

I wonder if these people lay awake at night worrying about losing our nation's precious bodily fluids?

Oh, and don't forget the mine-shaft gap.....

[waldo]

what? You're just going to skip on over your claimed reference to the AGs report... the non-existent reference you so puffed up over? That your "prediction" has no attachment to reality... to the latest U.S. estimates... to whatever the ultimate cost of the F-35 might be! You're just going to gloss right over that? Of course you are.

What was the AG's report tally for the JSF, support and the scotch guard for 20 years? 25 Billion no? And, per my prediction, what would ~460 million (Per plane total cost) x 65 = ? And based on my year earlier prediction, 30 billion for 30+ years, sans weapons and any attrition replacements, would seem to naturally align with the AG’s figure of 25 billion for twenty years no?

other than you throwing out continued distractions, this means diddly squat... but let's play through, hey? It is rather pathetic of you to now throw attention on life-cycle costing when you've challenged any ability to estimate over extended periods - notwithstanding, for what it's worth, I don't seem to recall reading you actually qualify your cycle period. Of course, you shift gears away from your typical acquisition cost focus now that I've pointed out your glaring error in referencing the AG report... as in, again:

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.

somehow... you've taken to (now) ignoring your "prediction" of a $87million/plane acquisition cost... surely it has nothing to do with the ever increasing estimates from the U.S. Government/Pentagon, right? That $137million/per plane (an ever increasing number) has a bit of a sting, hey?

in any case, you really need to take some time and actually read that AG report you keep stumbling over. That $25 billion over 20 years is the DND number, hey? The AG is actually the guy scrutinizing that number... right? Scrutinizing it in terms of a non-realistic life-cycle period (20 years versus a more appropriate 36 years)... and as significant, the AG is challenging DND's $25 billion figure - challenging its completeness, its lack of supporting detail and its validation.

[waldo]

no dodge - I came straight at you. Perhaps you should actually look up 'NATO Transformation'... it might give you a better understanding and appreciation of who just spoke before the HOC Defence committee - the "NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation". Tell you what... you take that Janes subscription of yours (/snarc) and come on back with something to counter the NATO Commander's statements about interoperability... until then... per norm, you're simply blowing smoke. But hey now, as an alternative, why don't you draw up a list of all the jet fighters belonging to NATO member countries... and then, with a straight face, continue your nonsense about a NATO single plane "STANAG" standards policy.

Per the NATO website:

Chapter 17: Standardization and Interoperability

Materiel standards are those standards which affect the characteristics of future and/or current materiel to include telecommunications, data processing and distribution. They may cover production codes of practice as well as materiel specifications. Materiel includes complete systems, including command, control and communications systems, weapons systems, sub-systems, assemblies, components, spare parts and materials and consumables (including ammunition, fuel, supplies, stores and consumable spares).

And further:

1716. Operational standardization strives for the use of common concepts, doctrines, procedures, practices or formats to enhance operational interoperability of Alliance and PfP forces. Objectives for materiel standardization strive for the development and procurement of compatible, interoperable, interchangeable or common materiel for Alliance and PfP forces, as required.

Notice said document was released in ‘97 and shortly after NATO started allowing former Warsaw Pact nations membership….Since France only formerly rejoined NATO several years ago, I’d assume said French General’s appointment was one of politics and during the 90s he was too busy flogging Dassault Mirages to notice….

do you really need me to point out your link and quotes say nothing... nothing... about a NATO single fighter jet interoperability standards policy. Like I said, do a tally of all the assorted types of jet fighters across the NATO member countries... how's that single fighter jet standard working out for ya, hey?

is there a reason you've been unable to quote an actual NATO "STANAG" that supports your, uhhh... claim? Here, read the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statement excerpt, once again:

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]

other than you throwing out continued distractions, this means diddly squat... but let's play through, hey? It is rather pathetic of you to now throw attention on life-cycle costing when you've challenged any ability to estimate over extended periods - notwithstanding, for what it's worth, I don't seem to recall reading you actually qualify your cycle period. Of course, you shift gears away from your typical acquisition cost focus now that I've pointed out your glaring error in referencing the AG report... as in, again:

somehow... you've taken to (now) ignoring your "prediction" of a $87million/plane acquisition cost... surely it has nothing to do with the ever increasing estimates from the U.S. Government/Pentagon, right? That $137million/per plane (an ever increasing number) has a bit of a sting, hey?

in any case, you really need to take some time and actually read that AG report you keep stumbling over. That $25 billion over 20 years is the DND number, hey? The AG is actually the guy scrutinizing that number... right? Scrutinizing it in terms of a non-realistic life-cycle period (20 years versus a more appropriate 36 years)... and as significant, the AG is challenging DND's $25 billion figure - challenging its completeness, its lack of supporting detail and its validation.

Qualification of my estimate? I made that clear, everything sans weapons expenditures and attrition losses/replacements……..

You Suggest the numbers are in “flux” and keep basing your assertion on an average that includes two aircraft we’re not purchasing and development costs we‘re not paying……..Explain the reported 10 billion dollar reported deal with the Japanese that includes lifetime support for 42 aircraft contrasted with our deal of 14.7 billion for 65....

[Guest Derek L]

do you really need me to point out your link and quotes say nothing... nothing... about a NATO single fighter jet interoperability standards policy. Like I said, do a tally of all the assorted types of jet fighters across the NATO member countries... how's that single fighter jet standard working out for ya, hey?

is there a reason you've been unable to quote an actual NATO "STANAG" that supports your, uhhh... claim? Here, read the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statement excerpt, once again:

We have NATO standardization policies from the NATO website versus your edited text of the General’s statement from the MSM……….I suppose you can’t provide the entire unedited text yet hey?

So what about those NATO standard magazines and ammunition? Why would they go to all that trouble for something made of plastic, aluminium and then brass/steel?