F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

But what about your Google-Fu?

oh... it only gets better! Did I say poser? The following is you with a lil' MADL teaser... where you mention it being produced by, as you stated, "a company that’s name starts with an “L” and ends with a “ockheed Martin”, based and developed namely in California and Texas, which last I checked, weren’t overly French.? "

Don't give in though Hey, you got the "M" and the "D" right, and I'll give you one more little hint, it's produced by a company that’s name starts with an “L” and ends with a “ockheed Martin”, based and developed namely in California and Texas, which last I checked, weren’t overly French.?

I guess your own Google-Fu actually clued you in as to what company is actually producing MADL... Harris Corp... not your stated Lockheed Martin, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

oh... it only gets better! Did I say poser? The following is you with a lil' MADL teaser... where you mention it being produced by, as you stated, "a company that’s name starts with an “L” and ends with a “ockheed Martin”, based and developed namely in California and Texas, which last I checked, weren’t overly French.? "

I guess your own Google-Fu actually clued you in as to what company is actually producing MADL... Harris Corp... not your stated Lockheed Martin, hey?

Who developed the radar that Harris is placing their antennas upon?

[waldo]

As I said, the reference to Link 16 was in response to your question about current NATO interoperability standards relating to coalition air forces……….As for the continued use and refinement of Link 16 to Link 22 standards, that’s quite obvious, to communicate with forces lacking MADL in the interim.

no - your "ta da Link 16" reference was in regards to you responding to the repeated taunts to counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... where I challenged you to counter his statements and produce the NATO single fighter jet interoperability standard. Of course you couldn't come up with anything to counter the NATO Commander, anything to show there actually is a standards policy on purchasing/flying a single only type fighter jet within NATO... you couldn't produce such a thing because it's a figment of your/Harper Conservatives false narrative. So... your (only) recourse was to speak to data communications interoperability... across multiple varied types of fighter jets and AWACS/ground/ship support.

you jumping forward with a MADL reference is simply another of your distractions... notwithstanding it has absolutely nothing to do with a single (only) fighter jet operating within NATO.

[waldo]

Who developed the radar that Harris is placing their antennas upon?

who cares? That's not what you said. Would you like me to repeat the quotes again?

[Guest Derek L]

who cares? That's not what you said. Would you like me to repeat the quotes again?

Harris is a sub contractor of Northrop, who’s a principle sub-contractor of the JSF industry team led by LockMart……….

[Guest Derek L]

no - your "ta da Link 16" reference was in regards to you responding to the repeated taunts to counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... where I challenged you to counter his statements and produce the NATO single fighter jet interoperability standard. Of course you couldn't come up with anything to counter the NATO Commander, anything to show there actually is a standards policy on purchasing/flying a single only type fighter jet within NATO... you couldn't produce such a thing because it's a figment of your/Harper Conservatives false narrative. So... your (only) recourse was to speak to data communications interoperability... across multiple varied types of fighter jets and AWACS/ground/ship support.

you jumping forward with a MADL reference is simply another of your distractions... notwithstanding it has absolutely nothing to do with a single (only) fighter jet operating within NATO.

Ahhhh no, I’ve stated the exact opposite, as of yet, there is no standard pertaining to the F-35 & the MADL, since neither are in service as of yet….

[waldo]

Harris is a sub contractor of Northrop, who’s a principle sub-contractor of the JSF industry team led by LockMart……….

buddy, no matter how hard you dig, you're not going to make Harris Corporation become Lockheed Martin!

here... try again, have another:

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]

buddy, no matter how hard you dig, you're not going to make Harris Corporation become Lockheed Martin!

here... try again, have another:

Where's your quote suggesting the French were involved?

[waldo]

Ahhhh no, I’ve stated the exact opposite, as of yet, there is no standard pertaining to the F-35 & the MADL, since neither are in service as of yet….

you're the only one talking about MADL... it's just you and your imaginary friend sitting on your shoulder!

[Guest Derek L]

you're the only one talking about MADL... it's just you and your imaginary friend sitting on your shoulder!

Explain your incorrect reference to MIDS?

[waldo]

Where's your quote suggesting the French were involved?

try to keep up... involved in MIDS. You know MIDS? That's the reference I offered in regards to your "ta da Link 16"... the reference you presumed to call me out on. The one where I pressed you to actually cite/counter it... the one where you've silent. Is there a problem?

[Guest Derek L]

try to keep up... involved in MIDS. You know MIDS? That's the reference I offered in regards to your "ta da Link 16"... the reference you presumed to call me out on. The one where I pressed you to actually cite/counter it... the one where you've silent. Is there a problem?

Your reference to MIDS was stretch to no avail, garnered by your own ignorance.

[waldo]

Explain your incorrect reference to MIDS?

I'm quite content with what I said about MIDS... the onus is on you to counter it. You don't get to just label it as an "incorrect reference" - certainly not just on your say.

[waldo]

Your reference to MIDS was stretch to no avail, garnered by your own ignorance.

is there a translation for this in the house?

[Guest Derek L]

I'm quite content with what I said about MIDS... the onus is on you to counter it. You don't get to just label it as an "incorrect reference" - certainly not just on your say.

MIDS is not a unique component for the JSF program………the very program we’ve been discussing no?

[Guest Derek L]

is there a translation for this in the house?

You don't know what you're talking about? How's that?

[waldo]

MIDS is not a unique component for the JSF program………the very program we’ve been discussing no?

after all your blustering and dissing of the NATO Commander... because he's French... I find it quite fitting to highlight the two countries contributing the most money to fund MIDS (the international program that puts those small compact Link 16 data comm terminal thingees on

multiple jet variants

), were the U.S. and...

the French

... and that by international agreement, the deputy program manager MIDS is a French military officer

you're too easy, buddy... too easy!

like I said... you're too easy!

[Guest Derek L]

like I said... you're too easy!

You reference a system used by fourth generation aircraft, amongst other land and sea systems, that will also be incorporated (along with Link 22) into the F-35.…….hardly a groundbreaking revelation……They’ll likely also have the ability to use much the same weapons and fuel stores…..Again, your point?

Also, how does this disprove the incorporation of the MADL into the F-35 (B-2 and Future UCAV) but not into older legacy airframes?

Do you have one wheel in the sand?

[Guest Derek L]

And Explain your blind reference to the CTV story from last year, that is referring to MADL?

[waldo]

oh my! Finally... performance based contract awards... you knew it just had to be coming.

Lockheed's Next F-35 Contracts tied to Actual Real Performance... Delivered!

The next contracts for Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 jet, the U.S.’s costliest weapons program, will be tied more closely than previous ones to testing, assembly and software progress, the Pentagon’s program manager for the fighter said today.

Six of the 31 aircraft in the next round won’t be awarded until Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest defense contractor, meets at least five criteria, including successful review this year of the latest software release, Vice Admiral David Venlet told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s airpower panel, according to a prepared statement.

The steps are the latest efforts to control costs for the $395.7 billion acquisition program. The first four contracts for 63 jets are exceeding their combined target cost by $1 billion, according to congressional auditors.

The F-35’s total acquisition cost has increased 70 percent, to $395.7 billion last month from $233 billion in late 2001 when the development phase began. The costs are calculated in comparable, inflation-adjusted “then-year dollars.”

The program’s projected “life cycle cost” -- including development since 1994, production of 2,443 jets and 55 years of support -- increased to $1.51 trillion from $1.38 trillion in 2010, Pentagon officials told reporters March 30.

[Guest Derek L]

oh my! Finally... performance based contract awards... you knew it just had to be coming.

Lockheed's Next F-35 Contracts tied to Actual Real Performance... Delivered!

You say that like it’s a bad thing, I’d think you’d champion such a performance based model……..And when Lockheed jumps through these hurdles, like they did with the prior “B” version probation, your concerns will diminish?

[waldo]

Again, your point?

the point was/is staring you in the face... in the quote. Your only resort, your only counter to the NATO Commander was to diss the guy... because he's French. You made repeated post references to it. It was bizarre - quite bizarre... but not unexpected since you invariably resort to the absurd when cornered. My MIDS reference (in line with your "ta da Link 16", was nothing more than a humourous anecdote to your French dissing... a program funded significantly by the French, where the MIDS program manager (by international agreement) must be a French military officer. Heelarious. Of course, it apparently went right over your head and you went all jingoistic!

[Guest Derek L]

the point was/is staring you in the face... in the quote. Your only resort, your only counter to the NATO Commander was to diss the guy... because he's French. You made repeated post references to it. It was bizarre - quite bizarre... but not unexpected since you invariably resort to the absurd when cornered. My MIDS reference (in line with your "ta da Link 16", was nothing more than a humourous anecdote to your French dissing... a program funded significantly by the French, where the MIDS program manager (by international agreement) must be a French military officer. Heelarious. Of course, it apparently went right over your head and you went all jingoistic!

Waldo, have you stopped beating your French wife yet?

[waldo]

You say that like it’s a bad thing, I’d think you’d champion such a performance based model……..And when Lockheed jumps through these hurdles, like they did with the prior “B” version probation, your concerns will diminish?

long overdue... based on past performance, it seems highly unlikely Lockheed Martin will be able to turn things around... on a dime, hey? In any case, cost is the last thing on your mind... you could care less. Whatever it costs, it costs - right?

[waldo]

Waldo, have you stopped beating your French wife yet?

I will gladly replay all your juvenile posts where your only resort in being unable to counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... is to denigrate the NATO Commander and his statements... because he's French. Do you really want those posts played back for you?