F-35 Purchase

[bush_cheney2004]

Waldo’s mention of the “B” was the first time I’ve ever heard of it being procured by the USAF…….I’d love to hear the context in which the General spoke………A “B” for the USAF kinda sounds like a solution looking for a problem…….

That's what happens when trying to win the argument with half-ass context gleaned from another nation with an entirely different set of priorities. Even the best Google cowboy can't learn that.

None the less, as stated, Canada has no need to replace our A-10s with a F-35B

Agreed....Canada most definitely can dismiss the F-35B as a replacement for its many squadrons of CA-10's.

[Guest Derek L]

That's what happens when trying to win the argument with half-ass context gleaned from another nation with an entirely different set of priorities. Even the best Google cowboy can't learn that.

Agreed....Canada most definitely can dismiss the F-35B as a replacement for its many squadrons of CA-10's.

My thoughts exactly…….But you gotta love the editing of context……..Thank you for smoking

[waldo]

And how many “B” versions was Canada considering? Also, with the USAF “total commitment” to the “A” version, what effect will this have on our purchase of the “A”?

excellent! I accept your unconditional surrender concerning the USAF's decision not to proceed with the B variant. As you have been challenged many times over, step up and show that clear delineation between the variants... that clear isolation. In spite of the expressed and acknowledged commonality between variants, you refuse to accept that changes made within the program... affect the overall program regardless of what particular variant you choose to focus on.

more to the point, you continue to ignore the many references made to downsized procurement numbers, to shifted out procurement numbers. Numbers so shifted out to later years to reduce "on the book costs" in the next coming years, that a veritable queue will be forming up once, presumably, any kind of "real production" ever actually materializes. That link I put up earlier showcasing Conservative MP, Laurie "Fighter Jet" Hawn, has Hawn stating the 2017 receipt of the first of Canada's F-35s will now occur, "some several years later". Ya, like we needed someone within the Harper Conservative government to finally acknowledge what the U.S. Pentagon/GAO/Congress has been flogging since the beginning of the year.

what's the new "sweet spot" for Canada's F-35s, hey? 2021? 2022?

[Guest Derek L]

excellent! I accept your unconditional surrender concerning the USAF's decision not to proceed with the B variant. As you have been challenged many times over, step up and show that clear delineation between the variants... that clear isolation. In spite of the expressed and acknowledged commonality between variants, you refuse to accept that changes made within the program... affect the overall program regardless of what particular variant you choose to focus on.

more to the point, you continue to ignore the many references made to downsized procurement numbers, to shifted out procurement numbers. Numbers so shifted out to later years to reduce "on the book costs" in the next coming years, that a veritable queue will be forming up once, presumably, any kind of "real production" ever actually materializes. That link I put up earlier showcasing Conservative MP, Laurie "Fighter Jet" Hawn, has Hawn stating the 2017 receipt of the first of Canada's F-35s will now occur, "some several years later". Ya, like we needed someone within the Harper Conservative government to finally acknowledge what the U.S. Pentagon/GAO/Congress has been flogging since the beginning of the year.

what's the new "sweet spot" for Canada's F-35s, hey? 2021? 2022?

So the USAF selection of the “A” is a positive outcome for Canada right?

And no, I don’t concede that the USAF didn't have recent plans to procure a STOVL aircraft…….I don’t suppose you could Google up some other references or find the transcript of the General’s entire conversation for a measure of context though eh?

Is DoD and Lockheed in error of their instance of the “B” only being procured by the Marines, British and Italians?

And you never answered my skill testing math problem

Edited May 20, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

And no, I don’t concede that the USAF didn't have recent plans to procure a STOVL aircraft…….I don’t suppose you could Google up some other references or find the transcript of the General’s entire conversation for a measure of context though eh?

if you want a monkey-boy, I'm sure BC2004 will step-up! Otherwise, the way this works is the onus is on you to counter the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff... to counter the reference in your own JSF link citation. It must burn when your own cited link bites you in the keester, hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

if you want a monkey-boy, I'm sure BC2004 will step-up!

Monkeys are smarter than parrots pecking Google searches.

[Guest Derek L]

if you want a monkey-boy, I'm sure BC2004 will step-up! Otherwise, the way this works is the onus is on you to counter the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff... to counter the reference in your own JSF link citation. It must burn when your own cited link bites you in the keester, hey?

Not at all, we have the reference of the manufacturer and the largest purchaser stating the “B” was only intended to be operated by a sole branch of the US Military, versus a sole reference in a online magazine quoting a USAF General that at on time, the “B”, was considered as a potential replacement for the A-10.…….No mention of context is noted.

Again your continued reference is weak, as is the demonstration that you’re unable to provide another reference point, from a program going on since the 90s, that the USAF seriously looked at replacing their A-10 fleet with a STOVL variant of the F-35.……..Come on Waldo, prove me wrong.

To add, your initial dishonest and/or ignorant approach using an offhanded remark from a solitary reference point failed to mention that the USAF, the largest buyer of F-35s (of any variant) is purchasing the exact same version as the RCAF……..

Come on Waldo, I never thought you a monkey, but you’re continually approaching the status of a toll collector situated underneath a bridge.

[waldo]

the way this works is the onus is on you to counter the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff... to counter the reference in your own JSF link citation. It must burn when your own cited link bites you in the keester, hey?

No mention of context is noted.

Again your continued reference is weak, as is the demonstration that you’re unable to provide another reference point, from a program going on since the 90s, that the USAF seriously looked at replacing their A-10 fleet with a STOVL variant of the F-35.……..Come on Waldo, prove me wrong.

we've seen your standard song & dance routine before... in other threads... carried into this thread - big time! The pattern is quite telling. Whenever you can't refute/counter a statement, you whine about "CONTEXT" and demand someone else do your leg-work. We saw it earlier when you refused to accept the statement of the NATO Commander (Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, Stephane Abrial), in his testimony given before the House of Commons Defense Committee... you beaked off about "missing context" and demanded a full transcript be provided. And now, well... "there you go again"! In this case you refuse to accept the (following) statement of the USAF Chief of Staff (General Norton A. Schwartz) in relation to his participation in last weeks Brookings Institution event... again, you whine about context!

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

like I said, it must bite when your own source turns on ya, hey!

ya! Do you get it yet? There's also no mention of CTOL either... is there? No, as I stated, the reference purposely excludes variant breakout reference. Instead, it relies upon a generic reference to "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)"... which includes both CTOL and STOVL. Which implies the USAF had designs on both the A and B variants! How does it feel to be schooled, hey?

by the by, let me reacquaint you with your quote from the JSF site: "

U.S. Air Force

Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)

to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22

"

... in what world do you equate "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)" as singularly related to the A variant... to the exclusion of the B variant? Which self-serving Derek L world is that to be found in?

[Guest Derek L]

we've seen your standard song & dance routine before... in other threads... carried into this thread - big time! The pattern is quite telling. Whenever you can't refute/counter a statement, you whine about "CONTEXT" and demand someone else do your leg-work. We saw it earlier when you refused to accept the statement of the NATO Commander (Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, Stephane Abrial), in his testimony given before the House of Commons Defense Committee... you beaked off about "missing context" and demanded a full transcript be provided. And now, well... "there you go again"! In this case you refuse to accept the (following) statement of the USAF Chief of Staff (General Norton A. Schwartz) in relation to his participation in last weeks Brookings Institution event... again, you whine about context!

like I said, it must bite when your own source turns on ya, hey!

Again, from my previous link:

F-35

The F-35 is drastically more than just a jet; it is a highly integrated air system. The system is comprised of many key parts such as the propulsion system, the avionics suite, the weapons systems, an autonomic logistics system and the list continues.

The single-engine, single-seat F-35 will be manufactured in three versions: a conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) variant for the U.S. Air Force, an aircraft-carrier version (CV) for the U.S. Navy, and a short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) version for the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

Thanks for coming out though......

[waldo]

we've seen your standard song & dance routine before... in other threads... carried into this thread - big time! The pattern is quite telling. Whenever you can't refute/counter a statement, you whine about "CONTEXT" and demand someone else do your leg-work. We saw it earlier when you refused to accept the statement of the NATO Commander (Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, Stephane Abrial), in his testimony given before the House of Commons Defense Committee... you beaked off about "missing context" and demanded a full transcript be provided. And now, well... "there you go again"! In this case you refuse to accept the (following) statement of the USAF Chief of Staff (General Norton A. Schwartz) in relation to his participation in last weeks Brookings Institution event... again, you whine about context!

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B

, he says.

Again, from my previous link:

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_background.htm

Thanks for coming out though......

how pathetic! Just how desperate are you that you would actually change your original link... your original link/quote, as follows... is not the one you're now flogging. Intellectual honesty is clearly not one of your fortes, hey?

http://www.jsf.mil/program/

U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft

(primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22

let's recap: as timely as this past week, USAF Chief of Staff (General Norton A. Schwartz) causes a bit of 'stink' over his raised concerns that the F-35-B variant can't generate enough sorties to allow it to still be considered as a replacement for the USAF A-10s. Apparently, USMC F-35-B proponents have taken exception to the "deficient sorties" claim. Whatever nonsense you need to play out with your intellectually dishonest swapped link routine, to the USAF Chief of Staff, up until this past week, the USAF still had designs on the F-35-B variant... as a replacement for its A10s.

in any case, the power of the waldo googly has found several references to the USAF designs on the F-35-B variant... I particularly favour this one from the online magazine of the U.S. Air Force Association:

The Air Force will buy both the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant to replace its huge fleet of F-16s

and the F-35B STOVL jump jet as a follow-on to the A-10 attack aircraft

.

thanks for coming out though......

[waldo]

I trust a slight costs diversion refocus won't detract too much for some of you 'jingo-boys'. Clearly, we've had occasion to flaunt the fail within JSFail in relation to the most recently released U.S. GAO and Pentagon F-35 SAR reports... the following is an extract from one of the last regular columns of one of the most prolific and vocal opponents of the F-35... from the reputed Aviation Week. Apparently, he's been given a 'time-out' - with speculation that "forces within" finally got to his editors:

The good news for the JSF program in the March 20 Government Accountability Office report – combined with the other numbers released in March – is that the program is no longer at risk of failure.

The bad news is that it has already failed.

It’s now clear that the strategic goal is out of reach. Even if today’s base-2010 average procurement unit costs ($106+ million for the F-35A and $127+ million for the B/C) are attained, the customers cannot afford planned production rates. Current USAF fighter funding – comprising, today, R&D and LRIP for the F-35 – will support 48 jets per year instead of the 80 required to recapitalize the force. Operational costs are predicted to exceed those of earlier fighters, in some cases by large margins.

There will also be a spiral effect as the lower rates result in higher unit costs, and this has not yet been modelled. Its severity will also depend on factors yet to be quantified, such as how international partners respond to the cost increases.

As for the GAO report in detail: Its recurring theme is that there are many further uncertainties ahead of the program, and all of them are downside. It could be argued that it’s the GAO’s job (as practitioners of the dismal science) to be critical or even negative. However, not even the program’s most avid boosters have advanced credible scenarios showing that projected costs and schedules could improve, and so far the GAO’s track record of predicting the program’s trajectory has been much better than that of program insiders.

The GAO identifies risks in all three major cost areas: SDD, procurement and operations.

SDD

- The alternate engine, if pursued, would add another $1.6 billion to SDD (page 7). However, the GAO also notes poor performance and overruns with the F135 (7 and 28).

- The GAO notes that the management reserve has been depleted at a high rate, suggesting that the SDD bill has been underestimated (page 7).

- Delays in testing to date raise questions as to whether the aggressive schedule now planned can be accomplished (page 9 and 22 onward).

- Using labs to minimize the flight-testing required for software depends on accrediting those ground facilities – that is, proving that they are equivalent in validity to flight test – and this process is slow (page 25).

- In order to keep to the paper schedule, software capabilities have been slipped to later Blocks. Navair has also predicted that development will be slowed as resources are split between testing new software and fixing previously tested code (page 26-27).

- In contrast to Lockheed Martin, the GAO says that the final impact of the fix to the CV version’s keel structure has not been determined, and that the new fuel pump to be introduced in LRIP-3 is not expected to solve thermal management problems on its own (page 28 onwards).

Procurement

- Engine cost is well above estimates (page 9).

- Navair in October 2009 predicted that procurement costs could be 15 per cent above JET estimates, because of late design changes, rework of earlier aircraft to definitive service standards, and upgrades.

- Trends in cost reduction from one lot to another, assembly hours and cycle times have consistently been less favorable than predicted (page 14-15) and cost-reduction efforts have had “mixed results” (page 18).

- The delay in DT/OT completion has more than offset the earlier 122-aircraft reduction in total buys in FY2011 through FY2015 in terms of concurrency. On current plans, US and international customers will order 564 aircraft in those years (page 21).

- The procurement ramp-up relies heavily on foreign customers. See the page 21 charts showing FY2011 through FY2015 buys (2013-2017 deliveries). Overall, 38 per cent of aircraft in that period are supposed to go to international customers, with an increasing proportion towards the end of the period – in 2015, 45 per cent of the production run is for export. These numbers are straight from the Annex to the current production, sustainment and follow-on development MoU (page 88), but it is unthinkable that those will actually be attained given the customers’ budget constraints, the schedule and the real prices. The result is good news/bad news: the ramp is not as steep, but the rate will be lower and the costs higher.

Operations

- The report notes Navair’s total operating cost estimates, and says unequivocally that F-35A O&S costs will be higher than those of the F-16 (page 12-13).

In order even to meet current SDD cost estimates, the program will either have to be smart or lucky – with none of the above factors, singly or in combination, moving the needle significantly.

Edited May 23, 2012 by waldo

[Topaz]

I came across this report about the US buying counterfeit Chinese parts for the F-35. Is that's good or bad? Well,as one of the comments at the end of the articles says, there's a certain grade military parts must have and with counterfeit it may not come up to that grade. Also, which jets are going to have them on, the US or other countries buying them? http://www.rt.com/news/us-air-force-counterfeit-electronics-879/

[Guest Derek L]

I trust a slight costs diversion refocus won't detract too much for some of you 'jingo-boys'. Clearly, we've had occasion to flaunt the fail within JSFail in relation to the most recently released U.S. GAO and Pentagon F-35 SAR reports... the following is an extract from one of the last regular columns of one of the most prolific and vocal opponents of the F-35... from the reputed Aviation Week. Apparently, he's been given a 'time-out' - with speculation that "forces within" finally got to his editors:

I noticed you didn’t post a link to your tin-foil site......It might be a little desperate to reference a blog post from March, of 2010 though eh?

[Guest Derek L]

I came across this report about the US buying counterfeit Chinese parts for the F-35. Is that's good or bad? Well,as one of the comments at the end of the articles says, there's a certain grade military parts must have and with counterfeit it may not come up to that grade. Also, which jets are going to have them on, the US or other countries buying them? http://www.rt.com/news/us-air-force-counterfeit-electronics-879/

Where does it state in the article Chinese parts have been used in the F-35?

[waldo]

I noticed you didn’t post a link to your tin-foil site......It might be a little desperate to reference a blog post from March, of 2010 though eh?

so you've now deemed ... Aviation Week a... "tin-foil" site! Well, have a gimme ... I appreciate you need to come up with sumthin given you've been so handily trumped over your B-variant/A-10 nonsense.

in any case, have another... I trust you won't whine about dates given this reflects on the most recent Pentagon F-35 SAR release, hey?

Pentagon F-35 SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip

There have been rumblings over the past year about another “SDD replan”, and here it is: Another three-year slip to initial operational test and evaluation, the culmination of system development and demonstration, which now is due to be complete in 2019 – the target date is February but the threshold date is October.

The program has not made progress, it’s gone backwards: completion of IOT&E is farther off than it was two years ago. In the early 2010 restructuring, IOT&E was expected to be complete in April 2016. The services are not going to announce initial operational capability dates until next year, according to the SAR.

From a Reuters report last Friday, it appears that the main culprit is software and hardware, mainly in terms of the integration functions – sensor fusion and emission control – that take place in the fighter’s main processor banks.

Completion of IOT&E should be followed by a Milestone C full-rate production decision in April or October 2019 – but this is a misnomer, because the plans call for the program to be most of the way to full rate in the 2018 buy year. The FY18 budget is planned to fund the F-35B and C at their full 50/year rate, and the USAF will buy 60 F-35As, against an FRP level of 80. And that means committing to those 110 jets in early 2016, three years before MS-C, to get advance procurement funds into the 2017 budget.

As for the normal ten percent limit on low-rate initial production (as a fraction of total buy) the program has not merely driven a coach and horses through it, but the entire Wells Fargo Stagecoach Company. By the time the Milestone C decision is taken, 695 aircraft will be on the ramp, in production or fully funded in budgets submitted to Congress.

The financial details in the SAR are not made any clearer by two changes versus the 2010 edition: a change in the base year from 2002 (program start) to 2012, and the splitting of airframe and engine costs. On the other hand, the base-year 2012 numbers are no longer unrealistically low, and using the base-year numbers takes arguments about future inflation and the effects of delays out of the picture.

In what follows, I’m going to use average procurement unit cost (APUC) because I am a taxpayer and that’s the bottom line (literally) in procurement budgets. Unit recurring flyaway is the lowest cost, but neither the US nor anyone else can put an aircraft on the ramp for that money. And all numbers are base-2012 unless otherwise indicated.

Some findings: One of my contacts predicted in 2010 that it would be 2015 (buy year) before the F-35A cost less than the last F-22s. Shacked! The APUC for the F-35A in 2013-14 is $184-$188 million, versus $177m (2009 dollars) for the last F-22s. And that is at a much higher production rate, when F-35Bs and Cs are included.

And let's kill the "same price as an F-16 in FRP" meme. If all goes perfectly according to plan, an F-35A delivered eleven years hence, at full rate, will have an APUC tag of $89 million. A Super Hornet today is $81 million, and it's a 50 percent larger airplane than an F-16.

What about the frugal, do-more-with-less Marines? At full rate, the F-35B costs $138 million in 2018, versus $117 million for the F-35C. That’s nearly 80 percent of the price of the last batch of F-22s – you remember, that extravagantly expensive toy for the white-scarf air force – but coming off a 110-per-year line. What would have been the F-22 price at 40 per year, rather than 20?

Finally, all the kerfuffle around the $1.5 trillion program life-cycle obscures the central component of that calculation, which is cost per flying hour. Although the basis of the numbers has been changed, the SAR still compares the F-35A with the F-16, and shows that the estimated CPFH for the F-35A has gone from 1.22 F-16s in the 2010 SAR to 1.42 today – versus 0.8 F-16s, which was being claimed a few years ago. Where is that operations and support money going to come from?

The SAR predictions also rest on several big assumptions.

The first is that the F-35 procurement program will grow from $7.6 billion in FY15 to $13.1 billion in FY21, increasing by $950 million per year. In view of the US fiscal climate, the fact that Obama is still likely to be writing the FY16 and FY17 budgets (the latter including advance procurement for FY18), the USAF tanker and bomber programs and the reorientation towards Asia, this assumption is, to say the least, a little rosy in its tint.

Second, if you look at the forecast changes in F-35A unit costs, there is a 22 percent drop in APUC between FY16 (48 USAF jets) and FY18 (60 USAF jets) although the buy goes up by a quarter. But between FY18 and FY21 the USAF buy increases by one-third -- and the unit cost comes down by less than 8 percent. The explanation, almost certainly, is that the plan assumes large volume partner buys by FY17/18.

Finally, everything in the SAR rests on "if everything goes to plan from now on", which, so far, it hasn’t.

[Guest Derek L]

so you've now deemed ... Aviation Week a... "tin-foil" site! Well, have a gimme ... I appreciate you need to come up with sumthin given you've been so handily trumped over your B-variant/A-10 nonsense.

in any case, have another... I trust you won't whine about dates given this reflects on the most recent Pentagon F-35 SAR release, hey?

Pentagon F-35 SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip

Trumped? I linked to a US DoD sight several posts back that you didn't care to respond to.........As for your new “blog”, I thought you suggested in your last post that said author had been “silenced”? You have anything better from Alex Jones and/or Art Bell?

[Guest Derek L]

how pathetic! Just how desperate are you that you would actually change your original link... your original link/quote, as follows... is not the one you're now flogging. Intellectual honesty is clearly not one of your fortes, hey?

let's recap: as timely as this past week, USAF Chief of Staff (General Norton A. Schwartz) causes a bit of 'stink' over his raised concerns that the F-35-B variant can't generate enough sorties to allow it to still be considered as a replacement for the USAF A-10s. Apparently, USMC F-35-B proponents have taken exception to the "deficient sorties" claim. Whatever nonsense you need to play out with your intellectually dishonest swapped link routine, to the USAF Chief of Staff, up until this past week, the USAF still had designs on the F-35-B variant... as a replacement for its A10s.

in any case, the power of the waldo googly has found several references to the USAF designs on the F-35-B variant... I particularly favour this one from the online magazine of the U.S. Air Force Association:

thanks for coming out though......

Care to explain the DoD site with highlighted reference? Instead you offer a “magazine” from seven years ago and a offhanded quote from an online news report……..I’ve provided as sources, both information from Lockheed and DoD, you can’t do likewise?

[GostHacked]

Where does it state in the article Chinese parts have been used in the F-35?

You are taking the approach of another poster. I would even guess that they have no idea how many or what counterfeit parts are in USA military hardware. They know about the problem, but I think they are just figuring out the scope. I would not surprised at all if they were able to confirm that. But that might hurt sales, so they are in a bind here.

I don't think it's anything they want to confirm anyways. Once it is publicly identified what hardware has these fake chips, you can bet your ass that hardware would soon be hacked (or at least attempted)

One question regarding the cost of these F-35s. How are we going to pay for them?

[waldo]

Trumped? I linked to a US DoD sight several posts back that you didn't care to respond to.........

perfect! Far be it for you to actually address any of the criticisms within the U.S. GAO report... within the Pentagon's F-35 SAR. Noooooo.... instead we get you blustering over source references. I could give a FF if you won't accept the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff - that statement is there, given this past week. Equally, the Air Force Association reference is clear on the USAF designs toward the B-variant as a replacement for its A-10s.

let's be perfectly clear in your bluster/fluster distraction routine:

- are you categorically denying the USAF had intentions toward the F-35-B variant?

- are you categorically denying this past weeks statement from the USAF Chief of Staff concerning the decision not to proceed with the B-variant... based on the recent weeks evaluation of the B-variant's inability to deliver enough sorties to satisfy the USAF towards a criteria in replacing its A-10s.

[Guest Derek L]

perfect! Far be it for you to actually address any of the criticisms within the U.S. GAO report... within the Pentagon's F-35 SAR. Noooooo.... instead we get you blustering over source references. I could give a FF if you won't accept the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff - that statement is there, given this past week. Equally, the Air Force Association reference is clear on the USAF designs toward the B-variant as a replacement for its A-10s.

let's be perfectly clear in your bluster/fluster distraction routine:

- are you categorically denying the USAF had intentions toward the F-35-B variant?

- are you categorically denying this past weeks statement from the USAF Chief of Staff concerning the decision not to proceed with the B-variant... based on the recent weeks evaluation of the B-variant's inability to deliver enough sorties to satisfy the USAF towards a criteria in replacing its A-10s.

Are you denying the information pertaining to the JSF programs from the DoD site and choosing to defer to a online magazines as counter reference to help “streamline” your message and obscure point?

*I reference your point as obscure since you’ve yet explain how the sortie rate of the STOVL F-35 will effect Canada….

[Guest Derek L]

perfect! Far be it for you to actually address any of the criticisms within the U.S. GAO report... within the Pentagon's F-35 SAR. Noooooo.... instead we get you blustering over source references. I could give a FF if you won't accept the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff - that statement is there, given this past week. Equally, the Air Force Association reference is clear on the USAF designs toward the B-variant as a replacement for its A-10s.

let's be perfectly clear in your bluster/fluster distraction routine:

- are you categorically denying the USAF had intentions toward the F-35-B variant?

-

are you categorically denying this past weeks statement from the USAF Chief of Staff concerning the decision not to proceed with the B-variant... based on the recent weeks evaluation of the B-variant's inability to deliver enough sorties to satisfy the USAF towards a criteria in replacing its A-10s.

To add, do you wish to go done the tract of combat sorties as referenced in your article, and then countered in said same article by Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children?

I’ll gladly oblige in this tangent of a debate also if you wish……….I’ll even grant you a (Google) head start:

What does FEBA mean to you? Also, as mentioned by the Marine, how does the USAF generate more sorties in relation to the FEBA? One force relies upon airfields the other ~600 ft of steel mesh and/or roadway to conduct said sorties, with the inherent advantage of enabling more sorties to the FEBA by operating from either at or nearer the FEBA…….

[waldo]

zing! And another piece of the overall procurement projections... bites the dust:

May 16, 2012 --- USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing Lockheed Martin F-35B model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service

will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant

.

perfect! Far be it for you to actually address any of the criticisms within the U.S. GAO report... within the Pentagon's F-35 SAR. Noooooo.... instead we get you blustering over source references. I could give a FF if you won't accept the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff - that statement is there, given this past week. Equally, the Air Force Association reference is clear on the USAF designs toward the B-variant as a replacement for its A-10s.

let's be perfectly clear in your bluster/fluster distraction routine:

- are you categorically denying the USAF had intentions toward the F-35-B variant?

- are you categorically denying this past weeks statement from the USAF Chief of Staff concerning the decision not to proceed with the B-variant... based on the recent weeks evaluation of the B-variant's inability to deliver enough sorties to satisfy the USAF towards a criteria in replacing its A-10s.

Are you denying the information pertaining to the JSF programs from the DoD site and choosing to defer to a online magazines as counter reference to help “streamline” your message and obscure point?

*I reference your point as obscure since you’ve yet explain how the sortie rate of the STOVL F-35 will effect Canada….

you didn't answer the questions... is there a problem? Just answer the questions... just state you don't believe/accept last weeks words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen Norton A. Schwartz - just say it! Is there a problem you just won't... say it?

now, as I've said, clearly the USAF, up until as recent as last weeks words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff, still had designs on the B-variant... whether you accept that fact - or not. Let me continue my schooling:

- Subsequently, in June, USAF launched year-long study of plans to include some STOVL-configured aircraft in overall purchase as replacement for A-10 Thunderbolt II in CAS/BAI role; further announcement on 23 September 1997 revealed that USAF considering buying sufficient

STOVL JSFs

to equip two Fighter Wings (approximately 200 aircraft in total, including allowance for pilot training and maintenance requirements).

- JSF Requirements (2004 estimates) - US Air Force Qty 1,763 => Multi-role (primary air-to-ground) fighter to replace the A-10 and F-16; and to complement F-22. F-35A

and F-35B

variants. IOC* 2012

as I've said before, you steadfastly refuse to accept any comment on the JSFail program that doesn't associate to the A-variant. And again, you steadfastly refuse to answer the very pointed repeated challenges to you... challenging you to clearly delineate the isolation of respective variants within the program... to clearly show that, in spite of one of the main hyped "talking point so-called advantages" of the JSFail, being the oft expressed, "commonality between variants". Why, it was such an, as you say, "obscure" point, you tried to flog the theme that this would mean... more A-tails for the USAF - and hence an advantage for Canada. Like I said earlier, the gravy is watching you gyrate and spin!

but hey now, speaking of the B-variant and the earlier discussed interoperability theme in which you so (also) wished to deny the words/statements of the NATO Commander, it appears the French are quite displeased with the recent about face the UK has taken in shifting from the C-variant back to their original B-variant proposed procurement. I guess that interoperability theme you so pushed (while denying the NATO Commanders words/statement)... only goes so far, hey? Imagine the French being displeased with the UK's choice... so much for that "reduced model jet interoperability" emphasis meme you flogged, hey?

Britain confirmed Thursday it had changed its mind over which model of the F-35 to purchase for its planned new carriers because of the extra cost of fitting launching catapults and arrester gear to the ships.

Such equipment is required for France's Rafale warplanes, which were to have shared use of the two carriers under a 2010 defence deal between the two countries.

It is not needed for the F-35B fighter that Britain has now decided to purchase, unlike the more conventional F-35C.

The change risks being politically damaging to Britain's coalition government and is an awkward start to Britain's relationship with French president-elect Francois Hollande.

[waldo]

perfect! Far be it for you to actually address any of the criticisms within the U.S. GAO report... within the Pentagon's F-35 SAR.

To add, do you wish to go down the tract of combat sorties as referenced in your article, and then countered in said same article by Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children?

would that be the same article you disparage... the article from which you refuse to accept the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff? That article? You mean you now want to challenge the sorties number thingee... you want to advocate for the USMC... you want to actually challenge the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff? Hey Mr. Wizard - this would mean you would actually have to accept the very words/statement you're so fixated on denying!!! Perfect... more gravy all around!

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz

: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

now, clearly, you want to reference that article to presume to distract away from actually discussing/acknowledging the very detailed JSFail F-35 criticisms put forward in regards to US GAO & Pentagon F-35 SAR reports? Clearly, distraction is your game!

[waldo]

oh my! Pile on...

F-22's Oxygen Issues Raise Questions About F-35

Lockheed Martin remains mum about whether an oxygen system flaw on its F-22 fighter might also plague its sibling, the F-35, but defense analysts say there are reasons to worry.

After a dozen incidents of F-22 pilots losing consciousness mid-flight, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta placed restrictions last week on the Air Force's Raptor fleet amid safety concerns. Panetta has restricted the distances the advanced jets can fly and ordered a fleet-wide installation of an automatic backup oxygen system.

While defense insiders say those restrictions aren't that confining, military experts say similar problems might hit the F-35 fighter, also made by Lockheed.

Whether Lockheed Martin and Pentagon officials already are taking such steps is unclear. Lockheed officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Defense trade publications have reported the fighters' oxygen systems, made by a subcontractor, are indeed similar, but not carbon copies.

[Guest Derek L]

you didn't answer the questions... is there a problem? Just answer the questions... just state you don't believe/accept last weeks words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen Norton A. Schwartz - just say it! Is there a problem you just won't... say it?

now, as I've said, clearly the USAF, up until as recent as last weeks words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff, still had designs on the B-variant... whether you accept that fact - or not. Let me continue my schooling:

- Subsequently, in June, USAF launched year-long study of plans to include some STOVL-configured aircraft in overall purchase as replacement for A-10 Thunderbolt II in CAS/BAI role; further announcement on 23 September 1997 revealed that USAF considering buying sufficient

STOVL JSFs

to equip two Fighter Wings (approximately 200 aircraft in total, including allowance for pilot training and maintenance requirements).

- JSF Requirements (2004 estimates) - US Air Force Qty 1,763 => Multi-role (primary air-to-ground) fighter to replace the A-10 and F-16; and to complement F-22. F-35A

and F-35B

variants. IOC* 2012

as I've said before, you steadfastly refuse to accept any comment on the JSFail program that doesn't associate to the A-variant. And again, you steadfastly refuse to answer the very pointed repeated challenges to you... challenging you to clearly delineate the isolation of respective variants within the program... to clearly show that, in spite of one of the main hyped "talking point so-called advantages" of the JSFail, being the oft expressed, "commonality between variants". Why, it was such an, as you say, "obscure" point, you tried to flog the theme that this would mean... more A-tails for the USAF - and hence an advantage for Canada. Like I said earlier, the gravy is watching you gyrate and spin!

but hey now, speaking of the B-variant and the earlier discussed interoperability theme in which you so (also) wished to deny the words/statements of the NATO Commander, it appears the French are quite displeased with the recent about face the UK has taken in shifting from the C-variant back to their original B-variant proposed procurement. I guess that interoperability theme you so pushed (while denying the NATO Commanders words/statement)... only goes so far, hey? Imagine the French being displeased with the UK's choice... so much for that "reduced model jet interoperability" emphasis meme you flogged, hey?

So you’re not going to explain the DoD website?