F-35 Purchase

[bush_cheney2004]

It's interesting that all air combat takes place within camera range of the ground, eh?

Jingo time!

[DogOnPorch]

Jingo all the way. (good footage there, by the way.)

That's the ticket.

[bush_cheney2004]

[DogOnPorch]

That event always reminds me of the XB-70 accident.

[bush_cheney2004]

That event always reminds me of the XB-70 accident.

Expensive day that was....that's why I tell my son to give XB-70's a wide berth on the road.

[bush_cheney2004]

[wyly]

Excuse me but, where could China ever possibly get the resources it would need to build the 1000's of J20s they intend to invade us with, not to mention all the other resources it would need for it's invasion force?

J20's with a combat range of 2000k hey ya we need to really worry about that...round trip china/canada being about 12,000K I don't think I'll lose sleep over J20's ...

there's an unexplainable paranoia that grips the right, they tremble in their beds at the thought of the chinese stealing our oil which we sell to them now at a cost infinitely less than that of a full scale invasion...even with the DND dismissing any external threats to canada the paranoid still cling to their delusions...the entire thought of invading Canada is ludicrous, an invasion of that scale would be seen years in advance, Canada is the most capable non-nuclear armed country on the planet...estimates for producing nukes have been put between 6-12 months, a nuclear armed canada makes any threat invasion moot...

[DogOnPorch]

Expensive day that was....that's why I tell my son to give XB-70's a wide berth on the road.

Indeed it was. But, its very (brief) existence led to the very aircraft flying today. XB-70 = MiG-25 = F-15 = MiG-29 = etc. All for the want of a Mach 3 bomber...

Good plan re: wide berth...those rudders are killers.

[DogOnPorch]

J20's with a combat range of 2000k hey ya we need to really worry about that...round trip china/canada being about 12,000K I don't think I'll lose sleep over J20's ...

J15s though are another matter, eh?

[CPCFTW]

J20's with a combat range of 2000k hey ya we need to really worry about that...round trip china/canada being about 12,000K I don't think I'll lose sleep over J20's ...

there's an unexplainable paranoia that grips the right, they tremble in their beds at the thought of the chinese stealing our oil which we sell to them now at a cost infinitely less than that of a full scale invasion...even with the DND dismissing any external threats to canada the paranoid still cling to their delusions...the entire thought of invading Canada is ludicrous, an invasion of that scale would be seen years in advance, Canada is the most capable non-nuclear armed country on the planet...estimates for producing nukes have been put between 6-12 months, a nuclear armed canada makes any threat invasion moot...

Why do you guys keep bringing up China as if I was suggesting an invasion is imminent? I was clearly playing along with Gosthack's hypotheticals. I am a capitalist... I support free trade with China. Get that through your heads!

Furthermore, the right in Canada is not paranoid about China. In fact, the right is trying desperately to construct a pipeline to ship oil to China. Judging by the posts in this thread, that "paranoia" is an illusion borne from the left's lack of reading comprehension.

Now lefties, get your thinking caps on and let us all review my post:

You really think we'd only have 65 f35s in the case of a war with China? If you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals to make your argument then I can use another ridiculous hypothetical: in the case of a war with China we'd buy hundreds more f35s.

Furthermore, if 65 f35s won't stand a chance against China, do you think 80-100 j20s will (assuming the j20 is up to 50% cheaper)?

Note how I said "if you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals". That ridiculous hypothetical is the following:

But if it's a case of numbers, 65 F-35s won't stand a chance against the multitude of Chinese made J-20s. Even if they are better.

Presumably GostHacked was referring to China when he was saying the F35s "won't stand a change against the multitude of Chinese made J-20s", unless there is another superpower threat I'm not aware of that could significantly overpower our F35 fleet with J-20s.

Now lefties, try to put 2 and 2 together here for once in your lives. Gosthacked brings up the hypothetical situation where our f35s are overpowered by multitudes of J20s, then I say that this is a ridiculous hypothetical. Conclusion??? I must fear an imminent Chinese invasion!!!

I hope that clarifies things for you lefties. Now keep the feigned outrage and comedic overreactions coming!

Edited May 10, 2012 by CPCFTW

[waldo]

But hey, we're not purchasing the "B" and "C" versions......

how dull are you... really?

per the previously linked (recently released) Pentagon F-35 SAR:

cost per piano-flying hour for the F-35-

A

... in "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars): a whopping, fantabulous, wait for it... wait for it...

$32,500 per hour

[waldo]

speaking of performance based funding for Lockheed Martin... as opposed to the past funding on blind faith, the following just released letter is from U.S. GOP Rep. Todd Akin - a letter to his fellow House members in preparation for an amendment he is about to bring forward... an amendment to formally restrain Lockheed Martin funding until the F-35 Program Office delivers an actual "IOC date" (an Initial Operating Capability date). The IOC date, the date that has been shifted out now 4 times, the date the F-35 Program Office now refuses to provide... where it's actually stated it doesn't know, it has no idea for a new date... it won't even provide an estimate! Now, that's performance!!!

Do you know what district Rep Akin represents? Missouri’s 2nd, which includes St Louis………..Do you know who one of the bigger employers in St Louis is? And did you know said big employer, will be ceasing production of their staple product from said plant……..So where’s your Russian?

you could address the actual lack of an IOC date, of the F-35 Program Office's failure, unwillingness and inability to provide a new date... you could do that - or, per your norm, you could slough it off by insinuating Akin is pro-Boeing. Far be it for you to actually ever address any glaring legitimate criticism of JSFail!

of course you don't want to address U.S. GOP Rep. Akin's letter... you want to ignore it and run away from it as fast as you can!

GOP Rep. Todd Akin in a letter to fellow House members:

Dear Colleague, The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, whose development has spanned three presidencies, is the Department of Defense’s most expensive acquisition program in history! On its current course, the program will cost the United States more than $1.5 trillion!

And we STILL do not know this aircraft’s Initial Operational Capability (IOC)? The IOC dates are the critical dates when the warfighter expects the capability promised by the acquisition program to be available. Compared to the current approved baseline from 2007, the total cost of this program has increased by nearly $119 billion. Full-rate production has been delayed 5 years, and IOC dates are now unsettled because of program uncertainties.

The program has changed its IOC dates four times already, but if DOD wants Congress to fund the program, they should give us an IOC. F-35 program boss Vice Adm. David Venlet told lawmakers he still does not have an estimate for when the F-35 will reach its IOC. GAO’s recent testimony gives an explanation: The program is not performing reliably enough for them to try to guess. “

Until greater clarity is provided on the program’s path forward, the military services are likely to wait to commit to new initial operational capability dates

,” the GAO said. It is not acceptable for a program the American taxpayer has already invested billions of dollars in to fail to give Congress fixed and firm IOC dates.

This is why I will be offering the following amendment during committee markup to the National Defense Authorization Act: The Akin amendment states that not more than 50 percent of procurement funds made available for a variant of such aircraft may be obligated or expended until the Secretary —

(1) establishes the initial operational capability date for such variant; and

(2) certifies to the congressional defense committees such date. This amendment will not harm the development of the program, but will only slow the actual buying of airframes if the DOD does not establish an IOC date.

Recognizing the difficulties inherent in any cutting edge program of this nature, I have personally counseled patience with the Joint Strike Fighter program in the past. But my patience has run out, and I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know when this aircraft will provide a return on our investment.

[wyly]

Why do you guys keep bringing up China as if I was suggesting an invasion is imminent? I was clearly playing along with Gosthack's hypotheticals. I am a capitalist... I support free trade with China. Get that through your heads!

Furthermore, the right in Canada is not paranoid about China. In fact, the right is trying desperately to construct a pipeline to ship oil to China. Judging by the posts in this thread, that "paranoia" is an illusion borne from the left's lack of reading comprehension.

Now lefties, get your thinking caps on and let us all review my post:

Note how I said "if you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals". That ridiculous hypothetical is the following:

Presumably GostHacked was referring to China when he was saying the F35s "won't stand a change against the multitude of Chinese made J-20s", unless there is another superpower threat I'm not aware of that could significantly overpower our F35 fleet with J-20s.

Now lefties, try to put 2 and 2 together here for once in your lives. Gosthacked brings up the hypothetical situation where our f35s are overpowered by multitudes of J20s, then I say that this is a ridiculous hypothetical. Conclusion??? I must fear an imminent Chinese invasion!!!

I hope that clarifies things for you lefties. Now keep the feigned outrage and comedic overreactions coming!

let's summarize your delusional convoluted thought process....right wing-nuts want to spend billions on a first strike aircraft to protect our sovereignty and resources from a non-existent foreign threats that have no intention of attacking us?...oh ya that makes so much sense

epic right-wing logic, comical paranoia....

[waldo]

It’s your skewed reference………..

my Pentagon F-35 SAR reference quoting the flying cost per hour for the F-35-A... is skewed? How so?

[bush_cheney2004]

my Pentagon F-35 SAR reference quoting the flying cost per hour for the F-35-A... is skewed? How so?

It's American...of course.

[Guest Derek L]

how dull are you... really?

You forget what you're quoting?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20677&st=2250

That document claimed the Navy and Marines’F-35C carrier variant and F-35B short Take-off and vertical landing variant JSFs would cost $30,700 per hour to fly versus the $18,900 an hour that the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet cost to fly.

[Guest Derek L]

you could address the actual lack of an IOC date, of the F-35 Program Office's failure, unwillingness and inability to provide a new date... you could do that - or, per your norm, you could slough it off by insinuating Akin is pro-Boeing. Far be it for you to actually ever address any glaring legitimate criticism of JSFail!

of course you don't want to address U.S. GOP Rep. Akin's letter... you want to ignore it and run away from it as fast as you can!

The same member of congress that shares the same district as Boeing, in which the produce the Super Hornet?

[DogOnPorch]

The same member of congress that shares the same district as Boeing, in which the produce the Super Hornet?

I donna think he gets it, laddie. All planes R built by Americacorp.

[waldo]

But hey, we're not purchasing the "B" and "C" versions......

how dull are you... really?

per the previously linked (recently released) Pentagon F-35 SAR:

cost per piano-flying hour for the F-35-

A

... in "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars): a whopping, fantabulous, wait for it... wait for it...

$32,500 per hour

You forget what you're quoting?

no - you just can't read! In spite of my repeated references to $32,500, F-35-A and the Pentagon F-35 SAR, you choose to ignore all that and fixate on a separate quote where the $18,900 per hour F/A-18 Hornet cost to fly is derived. Two separate references bringing forward the comparison MLW member 'Smallc' focused on... he didn't care for the Pentagon comparison to the F-16, but couldn't be bothered to source the F/A-18 Hornet number himself.

but, of course, this is just you being in your hyper-distraction mode... it is quite comical to read you so flummoxed over the two separate references; notwithstanding you want to make a huuuuge deal about the cost differential between the F-35 variants... anything for you to actually avoid commenting on the $32,500 F-35-A cost per flying hour number, hey? In your distracting world, it's more important to obfuscate over the $32,500 F-35-A versus $30,000 F-35-B/C numbers. It's what you do... it's what you're about.

here... read it/them again!

per the previously linked (recently released) Pentagon F-35 SAR:

cost per piano-flying hour for the F-35-

A

... in "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars): a whopping, fantabulous, wait for it... wait for it...

$32,500 per hour

...a leaked slide from NAVAIR claimed that the F-35 — a plane originally sold on the premise that it will offer 5th-generation fighter performance with a low price tag — would be far more expensive to operate than the Navy and Marine Corps current crop of fighters?

That document claimed the Navy and Marines’F-35C carrier variant and F-35B short Take-off and vertical landing variant JSFs would cost $30,700 per hour to fly versus the

$18,900 an hour

that the AV-8B Harrier and

F/A-18 Hornet

cost to fly.

pending your update/correction, for now, I'll go with the

F-35 @ $32,500 per hour // F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour.

Wow! Quite the difference, hey? But again, the point being you don't seem to have an actual comment on the Pentagon figure of $32,500 an hour for the F-35! Apparently, to you... whatever it costs... it costs, right?

anything for you to actually avoid acknowledging the $32,500 cost per flying hour for the JSFail F-35-A, hey?

[waldo]

The same member of congress that shares the same district as Boeing, in which the produce the Super Hornet?

I donna think he gets it, laddie. All planes R built by Americacorp.

yup, neither Maverick or Goose would actually address the contents of the U.S. GOP Rep. Akin letter/amendment... much easier for you to ignore it and bluster about Boeing!!!

but don't worry Maverick/Goose... U.S. GOP Rep. Akin's amendment was voted down in the U.S. House yesterday. But wait! What's this? Why... it seems the Akin amendment was voted down in favour of the exact same amendment from U.S. Dem Rep. Adam Smith (Washington)... the exact same amendment request, minus any actual punitive recourse against Lockheed Martin; i.e., a toothless one.

but Maverick/Goose, is there a Boeing angle you can trump up for U.S. Dem Rep. Adam Smith (Washington)? Or Boeing angle's for each and every one of the rest of the U.S. House of Representatives that voted for the amendment?

Akin makes unsuccessful attempt to tie F-35 funding to setting fighter's operational date

In offering his substitute, Smith said that threatening to take away funding for the F-35 sent the wrong signal to foreign partners on the F-35 program, many of whom have threatened to pull out as problems with the design have persisted.

If foreign countries left the F-35 program it could drive up costs even further, Smith said.

Smith’s amendment called for the Pentagon to provide an IOC date by Dec. 31, 2012, but it did not lay out any punishment if the Pentagon did not do so.

Akin said he didn’t think Smith’s amendment “would do anything at all.”

The Smith amendment passed on a voice vote, and it sounded like only Akin voiced a “no” vote.

[GostHacked]

It's not just Canada that seems to have issues with the F-35 costs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the F35-C had hit development problems and it would be cheaper in the long term to order F35-B jump jets, as originally planned by Labour.

The cost of the U-turn is likely to be about £100m, he told BBC News.

Labour said it was an "omnishambles" which risked "international ridicule".

Mr Hammond said delays to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter programme, a multinational venture led by American company Lockheed Martin, meant they would have not been operational until 2023 - three years later than planned

Looking at at least 10 years even before Canada gets them as well.

[Smallc]

Looking at at least 10 years even before Canada gets them as well.

We're not buying the F-35C.

[Guest Derek L]

[/indent]

no - you just can't read! In spite of my repeated references to $32,500, F-35-A and the Pentagon F-35 SAR, you choose to ignore all that and fixate on a separate quote where the $18,900 per hour F/A-18 Hornet cost to fly is derived. Two separate references bringing forward the comparison MLW member 'Smallc' focused on... he didn't care for the Pentagon comparison to the F-16, but couldn't be bothered to source the F/A-18 Hornet number himself.

but, of course, this is just you being in your hyper-distraction mode... it is quite comical to read you so flummoxed over the two separate references; notwithstanding you want to make a huuuuge deal about the cost differential between the F-35 variants... anything for you to actually avoid commenting on the $32,500 F-35-A cost per flying hour number, hey? In your distracting world, it's more important to obfuscate over the $32,500 F-35-A versus $30,000 F-35-B/C numbers. It's what you do... it's what you're about.

here... read it/them again!

anything for you to actually avoid acknowledging the $32,500 cost per flying hour for the JSFail F-35-A, hey?

I suppose you can’t see the difference between operating a Canadian Hornet from a land base versus a US Hornet or Harrier from an aircraft carrier?

[Guest Derek L]

yup, neither Maverick or Goose would actually address the contents of the U.S. GOP Rep. Akin letter/amendment... much easier for you to ignore it and bluster about Boeing!!!

but don't worry Maverick/Goose... U.S. GOP Rep. Akin's amendment was voted down in the U.S. House yesterday. But wait! What's this? Why... it seems the Akin amendment was voted down in favour of the exact same amendment from U.S. Dem Rep. Adam Smith (Washington)... the exact same amendment request, minus any actual punitive recourse against Lockheed Martin; i.e., a toothless one.

but Maverick/Goose, is there a Boeing angle you can trump up for U.S. Dem Rep. Adam Smith (Washington)? Or Boeing angle's for each and every one of the rest of the U.S. House of Representatives that voted for the amendment?

Akin makes unsuccessful attempt to tie F-35 funding to setting fighter's operational date

Clearly you already know where Boeing is headquartered....

[waldo]

I suppose you can’t see the difference between operating a Canadian Hornet from a land base versus a US Hornet or Harrier from an aircraft carrier?

what's your number? Put it up. Put up your per hour flying cost for the F/A-18 Hornet... as compared to the $32,500 per piano-flying hour for the JSFail F-35-A. What's your number?

and maybe... just maybe... you might actually offer comment on the $32,500 per hour cost for the F-35-A. Something more than your standard, "freedom isn't free" BS, hey?