F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[waldo]

The current process for legacy aircraft has seen large improvements at various stages of a given aircrafts life, spawned by the various operatorsthis translates into upgrades to existing aircraft (Our Hornet upgrade for example) or new production variants (F/A-18 C&D).

Where this will differ with the F-35, is that the aircraft will be continually upgraded, to a same standard for all users and financed by all operators based on a proportional level based on their given fleet size.

and this has what to do with the artificial IOC date jockeying... and the wanton disregard for complete testing and full cycle completion of LRIP? Given the absolute methodology failure in testing while "in production" (aka concurrency failure), how could any reasonable interpretation of "combat ready" be assigned at this point (ie. the claimed "2015 IOC" date for the F35-B variant)?

[On Guard for Thee]

I always thought that when customers stopped buying a product the price was supposed to come down.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f35-fighter-jets-grounded-while-investigation-into-engine-fire-is-carried-out-9602437.html

[waldo]

So you call into question his statement over the F-35’s current status…….or not?

as for 'current status', he's using obvious less than precise/definitive words because they still don't have a complete firm understanding of what caused the problem.

“We do not see at this point what I call a systemic problem” ... “We understand to a degree what happened here. The question is why did it happen,”

[Derek 2.0]

and this has what to do with the artificial IOC date jockeying... and the wanton disregard for complete testing and full cycle completion of LRIP?

As a contrast with historical aircraft………..Would you cede your Super Duper Hornets to be more capable then the first production variants?

Given the absolute methodology failure in testing while "in production" (aka concurrency failure), how could any reasonable interpretation of "combat ready" be assigned at this point (ie. the claimed "2015 IOC" date for the F35-B variant)?

Nobody has suggested the F-35 is currently combat ready though……hence why the differing variants all have dates assigned for when they are projected to be.

[Derek 2.0]

as for 'current status', he's using obvious less than precise/definitive words because they still don't have a complete firm understanding of what caused the problem.

Yes, but they know said problem has only been found on 3 aircraft, as such, one can determine it is not a problem found on the remainder of the fleet.

[waldo]

As a contrast with historical aircraft..Would you cede your Super Duper Hornets to be more capable then the first production variants?

again, I offered the alternative only because youse guys pressed me to provide one... even after I've repeatedly suggested other military priorities exist before pissing away all that estimated F-35 cost on an obvious failure. And yes, in that regard, I choose to offer the Advanced Super Hornet/Growler combo as a better choice; one based on cost and capabilities.

Nobody has suggested the F-35 is currently combat ready thoughhence why the differing variants all have dates assigned for when they are projected to be.

I didn't say anything about current; I pointedly highlighted the latest IOC date jockey move by the U.S. Marines... "2015... mid 2015 if I recall correctly". You know, a date before complete testing and full LRIP cycle completion occurs... a date before combat ready can truly be claimed. Or wait, perhaps your (and IOC date manipulators) have a different meaning for IOC... one that really means it can't actually do much - yes? By the by, I find it quite remarkable that the 'B' variant somehow has an IOC date a couple of years ahead of the 'A' variant... you know, the 'B' variant claimed as the most complex of the three... the 'B' variant that effectively has caused most of the claimed design deficiencies introduced into the 'be all you can be' multi-role plane.

[waldo]

Yes, but they know said problem has only been found on 3 aircraft, as such, one can determine it is not a problem found on the remainder of the fleet.

which is even more hilarious because of the varying states of the assorted planes through their respective LRIP cycles and update retrofits (if they've actually had them).

[Derek 2.0]

I didn't say anything about current;

I assumed by:

Given the absolute methodology failure in testing while "in production" (aka concurrency failure), how could any reasonable interpretation of "combat ready" be assigned at this point

That is what you meant....none the less.

I pointedly highlighted the latest IOC date jockey move by the U.S. Marines... "2015... mid 2015 if I recall correctly". You know, a date before complete testing and full LRIP cycle completion occurs... a date before combat ready can truly be claimed. Or wait, perhaps your (and IOC date manipulators) have a different meaning for IOC... one that really means it can't actually do much - yes?

No, the squadron (VMFA-121) is already operational, has turned in it’s legacy Hornets (same vintage as ours) and is currently conducting conversion training to the “B”…..The IOC date, will be when the squadron is deployable, at such time, the squadron will replace the current Hornet squadron in Japan (which will return Stateside for it’s own transition)……..Forward deployed forces within a Marine Aircraft Group are very much combat capable.

By the by, I find it quite remarkable that the 'B' variant somehow has an IOC date a couple of years ahead of the 'A' variant... you know, the 'B' variant claimed as the most complex of the three... the 'B' variant that effectively has caused most of the claimed design deficiencies introduced into the 'be all you can be' multi-role plane.

I’d suggest the reason for the USMC reaching the IOC first is for several reasons……First, once the intial problems with the “B” were solved, said variant progressed rapidly. Second reason would be necessity, of the three services, the Marines legacy Hornets are by far the oldest (same age as ours) and most in need of urgent replacement.

which is even more hilarious because of the varying states of the assorted planes through their respective LRIP cycles and update retrofits (if they've actually had them).

Unlike the failure on the engine test bed last December that was clearly attributed to (intended) fatigue, I’m not aware if this recent failure was on a high hour engine or simply one built on a Friday afternoon.

[GostHacked]

How was the B-2 program a waste? If you take off your accountant hat, in terms of capability, the B-2 Spirit gives the Americans the ability to penetrate any nation on this planets airspace and deliver both smart conventional weapons and nukes….The ability to surgically decapitate a nation state is nothing to scoff at.

A couple were lost due to crashes. Technical issues. Each one going down is a billion down the tubes.

[Rue]

Lol the jet is grounded but no problem Derek right it will soon be back in the air, full speed ahead...speed did we say speed....uh no its slower than the F16 that's if it ever does get off the ground.

Here's another one to poo poo Derek:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-us-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-new-warplabe-5c95d45f86a5

[Smallc]

It's faster than the F-16 with a normal weapons load, and has a longer range.

[Derek 2.0]

A couple were lost due to crashes. Technical issues. Each one going down is a billion down the tubes.

Every fleet of aircraft in the USAF has seen crashes for various reasons, this does not diminish said aircraft value……in the case of the B-2, a value highlighted by it’s capabilities.

[Derek 2.0]

The next official update will be on the 16th, of which I expect, the grounding to be lifted or an exemption granted to the Marine aircraft.

And this morning:

FARNBOROUGH England (Reuters) - U.S. military officials have approved limited flights for Lockheed Martin's (LMT.N:Quote) F-35 fighter jets, improving the chances of the newest U.S. combat jet making its international debut before potential buyers this week.

Meanwhile, at Pax River Maryland:

[On Guard for Thee]

And this morning:

Meanwhile, at Pax River Maryland:

And this afternoon, cancelled. The restrictions require an engine inspection every 3 hours.

[Moonbox]

So you're suggesting both are lying, even though nobody outside of them, could actually prove it......

No, I'm suggesting that the issue has become extremely political. As with virtually every politically sensitive issue, both sides are dissimulating. Your implication that Lockheed spokespeople are a more reliable source simply because they have access to all of the classified data ignores the fact that they stand to make an enormous amount of money off its sale. Simply put, it's inconceivable that they would do anything but praise the plane as an invincible Jesus-protected super machine.

What aircraft have been at the forefront of allied air campaigns since the First Gulf War?

What on Earth do you mean by forefront??

Nobody said that they do……..but the Americans certainly don’t do war on the cheap when contrasted with most……..For them, unlike the peanut gallery in Canada, the selection of legacy types going forward into the decades ahead isn’t a consideration.

Again, I fail to see your point. Having a big military budget doesn't excuse waste.

No, it can't.......as I've said, the Leopard II hasn't been used in high intensity modern manoeuvre, armoured warfare………Grapeholing Afghani mud-huts wasn’t a true test……..

It doesn't matter that it doesn't have as long a combat record. It's still fully capable of high intensity conflicts and the later models are designed for it. That sort of crap logic can be upended simply by looking at the F-22 which, despite boasting no combat record, is still viewed as the pinnacle of air superiority platforms.

Also, the Challenger II did not participate in Operation Granby…In 2003, the only tank engagement I know of involved another Challenger II…….

The Challenger II engaged old Soviet tanks in 2003 with no losses. Regardless, the Challenger 1 DID participate in Operation Granby and destroyed over 300 Iraqi vehicles with no losses. Seeing as though the Challenger 2 is essentially an extensive upgrade of the Challenger 1, I don't think your point has much merit.

There is a reason both incarnations have seen little to no export success, namely electrical issues and excessive ware on it’s rifled barrel……also, due to the nature of it’s rifled design, it’s been severely limited and costly in the development of ammunition…….The British haven’t made a quality tank since the Centurion.

If we're talking exports as a measure of success, then the Leopard 2 has fared better than the Abrams, as it has larger export numbers and more widespread adoption, despite much smaller production scale and far less political clout behind it.

As for the Challenger 2, the rifled barrel (and lack of ammo production) is indeed a problem with its export prospects (zero now), but that doesn't mean it's not an extremely well-protected and capable tank. The Challenger 1 has the longest recorded kill range in combat history, and the Challenger 2's gun is reputed to be both more accurate and longer ranged than the Abrams/Leo's smoothbore gun, although it doesn't have as powerful a penetrating round.

The very nature of defense related “inflation” is common among all programs, for all nations, and is squared by the level of political interference involved in a given program…..

So...what you're saying is that the F-35's ballooning costs were a result of political interference???

[GostHacked]

I'd hate to scratch up that stealth paint.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'd hate to scratch up that stealth paint.

Apparently the Chinese and the Russians can already see though it even before you "scratch it up"

[Rue]

It's faster than the F-16 with a normal weapons load, and has a longer range.

So what is a normal weapons load. Do you know. Since the F35 is supposed to replace the Harrier for the Marines, F16, F15 and F18, not to mention the Warthog what is a normal weapons load.

What a crock.

It is slower than the F16, F15 and is comparable in speed to the F14, not the F16 or F15 or even F18.

Its slower than the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon. the F22, The Su-37 and the latest Chinese fighter.

Give it as rest. In fact if it were to carry the "normal weapons load" it would not only be ridiculously slow, but it would lose its supposed stealth advantage which we should add has already been proven a phallacy as in computerized mock air wars with the Typhoon, Rafale, SU-37 and the Chinese fighter was shot down every time.

In fact by committing to such a craft to replace so many different craft, it has no normal weapons load as you misrepresent it.

In fact at this point as the jet sits grounded, its a laughing stock. Why anyone would not simply rely on a modified F15 Silent Eagle at this point or Superhornet if they want an upgraded US aircraft is beyond me or anyone with any common sense.

The F35 is toast. Allthe denial ont his board can not change that.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Rue

[dre]

Even if it ends up being a different government making the decisions by the time they get around to it, I'll still be shocked if we end up buying more Hornets.

I wouldnt. It seems to be the most economical way to address our real needs.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The F35 is toast. Allthe denial ont his board can not change that.

....then Canada will be buying toast. Put some maple syrup on it.

[On Guard for Thee]

....then Canada will be buying toast. Put some maple syrup on it.

I wouldn't be too sure about that The report that Harper commissioned after his shell game was discovered has basically thrown the hot potato back in the gov's court and it was buried. Sort of like the original file was that helped get Harper the "contempt" finding, and now it's mum's the word. I suspect the F35 will go down in flames, (I'm talking figuratively now) about the same time as Harper's government. We know about airplanes as well as maple syrup.

[gman29]

there's no doubt the US will iron out the problems lest itself be ironed out. the real question is how much is it gonna cost. and it's better for Canada to the US sort that out first befor Canada buys lemons. nonetheless in general Canada would benefit from going with the Rafael program. and buying the f35 in the air. there's no doubt that upgrades that Rafael program and in the 20 25 30 5 should it have sufficient upgrades on its system to make it stealth I sent set the currently is detectable by modern radar systems UHF VHFmm. once it is still the Russian and Chinese detection systems will be a more useful aircraft a specially with Russia likely to sell its older systems in the next five to ten years to pretty much any country Canada would ever be involved with it a top-of-the-line aircraft

upgrades on the f18 to extend service life

dassault

and no large-scale commitment it won't meet the deadlines it won't meet the specsit doesn't rule it out once they are cropped locks the approved for combat and you ask why buy a fighter aircraft the cant fight?

.the deadline in price is just a little bit questionable nonetheless all these delays have done one thing in the outside reduce the debt load

[Derek 2.0]

No, I'm suggesting that the issue has become extremely political. As with virtually every politically sensitive issue, both sides are dissimulating. Your implication that Lockheed spokespeople are a more reliable source simply because they have access to all of the classified data ignores the fact that they stand to make an enormous amount of money off its sale. Simply put, it's inconceivable that they would do anything but praise the plane as an invincible Jesus-protected super machine.

Then explain the praise by the current operators………is that also a conspiracy?

What on Earth do you mean by forefront??

Exactly that.........All American led operations since 1991 have relied heavily upon stealth aircraft, coupled with cruise missiles, to neutralize key strategic and tactical targets.

Again, I fail to see your point. Having a big military budget doesn't excuse waste.

That’s predicated on the F-35 becoming a wasted opportunity……….Clearly the current and future operators don’t feel that.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't have as long a combat record. It's still fully capable of high intensity conflicts and the later models are designed for it. That sort of crap logic can be upended simply by looking at the F-22 which, despite boasting no combat record, is still viewed as the pinnacle of air superiority platforms.

Sure it does…….inherent flaws are found and resolved with both a long service records and especially trial by fire……..For instance, in Canadian service, the intial deployment found our Leopard II’s lack of mine plough to be a great detraction and forced the further retention of the older Leopard I.

I’m not saying the Leopard II is a bad tank, but it’s not all sunshine and gumdrops as you make it out to be, especially when compared to an Abrams……..The acceleration and gear ratio afforded to the Abrams is a great many better then what’s on the Leopard II and Challenger II……acceleration, both forward and reverse are both very important factors in armoured warfare.

The Challenger II engaged old Soviet tanks in 2003 with no losses. Regardless, the Challenger 1 DID participate in Operation Granby and destroyed over 300 Iraqi vehicles with no losses. Seeing as though the Challenger 2 is essentially an extensive upgrade of the Challenger 1, I don't think your point has much merit.

How many Abrams tanks were knocked out by a vintage RPG via a frontal armour hit?

If we're talking exports as a measure of success, then the Leopard 2 has fared better than the Abrams, as it has larger export numbers and more widespread adoption, despite much smaller production scale and far less political clout behind it.

Huh? There were nearly three times as many Abrams tanks built then Leopard II……as to their “Export success”, the Germans and Dutch gave them away once the wall came down.

As for the Challenger 2, the rifled barrel (and lack of ammo production) is indeed a problem with its export prospects (zero now), but that doesn't mean it's not an extremely well-protected and capable tank. The Challenger 1 has the longest recorded kill range in combat history, and the Challenger 2's gun is reputed to be both more accurate and longer ranged than the Abrams/Leo's smoothbore gun, although it doesn't have as powerful a penetrating round.

A rifled barrel will certainly be longer ranged and more accurate, but of course will wear out far faster, well limiting the types of ammo (HEAT rounds), and in turn, the tanks versatility.

So...what you're saying is that the F-35's ballooning costs were a result of political interference???

Political interference is a common theme with all defence and Government procurement programs.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

Well you gotta blame somebody.But much as I don't like Harper I don't think you can blame him for a poor aircraft design.

[waldo]

Then explain the praise by the current operators………is that also a conspiracy?

what current operators and what praise?