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

[Derek 2.0]

no - given that it can't actually do anything, it's nothing more than a prop (like the one Harper Conservatives used in 2010).

No, it's a real aircraft, and like it's cousin (AU-1) was handed over to the RAAF today.

[waldo]

It varies by accounting method and what is included.

is that like when (several times) you tried to flog LockMart pricing... that didn't include engines - like that included accounting method?

The death spiral ehdid you look at your second graph?

sure did! That's what has the U.S. Pentagon head of the F-35 program out on a big-time sales push... and yes, I showed that graph specifically to highlight it's a long way to get to the supposed sustainable figure - hence, given the lack of real contractually money-exchanged purchases, talk of the 'death spiral' is out there again.

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course I’m right, I’m a professional and learned in the subject.

No it doesn’t……. “Creep” as you term it (Thermomechanical fatigue) is indicative of either/or an inherent issue with metallurgy and poor manufacturing techniques -or- end of life fatigue…….

With the first two, this would indicate a fleet wide problem, but as confirmed, this incident is congruent with a one off event…….As to the later, there has been no indication of the number of hours on the failed engine released for public consumption……..As such, it’s pure speculation.

The cause could have been attributed to something as simple as fouling/FOD or fuel contamination (the most common cause of engine failures in military aircraft) that induced sulphidation.

"Creep" is certainly not my term. PW uses it as well describing excess heat problems with this engine. Fuel contamination may cause an engine to quit, but not blow up. No sign of FOD in the latest engine explosion. The ensuing fire was caused apparently by turbine blade parts severing a fuel line. Not surprising judging by how violently the stove came apart.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, we all know that Lockheed Martin has eschewed GAAP for their own special version of Magical Mystery Numbers. They can say whatever they want about unit cost going down etc, but as production scale has increased over the last couple years, so too has the per unit cost of the plane, which is sort of the exact opposite of what's supposed to be happening.

Are you suggesting the quoted figure that the Government of Australia paid was a lie?

[waldo]

No, it's a real aircraft, and like it's cousin (AU-1) was handed over to the RAAF today.

no - it's a prototype; one that can't (yet) do anything near what it is claimed to be able to do.

[Derek 2.0]

Fuel contamination may cause an engine to quit, but not blow up.

It will if said contamination magnifies the sulphur content in the fuel and this leads to rapid corrosion of the protective coatings on the engine parts.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it's a real aircraft, and like it's cousin (AU-1) was handed over to the RAAF today.

Right....real orders...real deliveries...while Canada dithers until the election is over.

[waldo]

Are you suggesting the quoted figure that the Government of Australia paid was a lie?

if that $120 million cost is accurate, why would the cost be so much less than the U.S. military would pay itself today? (again, per the graphic I just posted a short number of posts back)? I know Walmart has this rollback pricing approach... same with LockMart?

[On Guard for Thee]

It will if said contamination magnifies the sulphur content in the fuel and this leads to rapid corrosion of the protective coatings on the engine parts.

Oh, so now we have to develop new jet fuel?

[waldo]

Right....real orders...real deliveries...while Canada dithers until the election is over.

onesy-twosey... steady but sure!

[Derek 2.0]

Oh, so now we have to develop new jet fuel?

Why would we do that? Fuel contamination has been and will continue to be the leading cause of serious failures…..this can be squarely attributed to the improvements to engineering and manufacturing techniques found within modern aerospace.

[Derek 2.0]

if that $120 million cost is accurate, why would the cost be so much less than the U.S. military would pay itself today? (again, per the graphic I just posted a short number of posts back)? I know Walmart has this rollback pricing approach... same with LockMart?

How old is your graphic? And what does the fine print on the both the 120 million figure and the one you ascribe to say? Is the American figure including aircraft development?

[On Guard for Thee]

I've been in the aviation business for over 40 years. Never had a problem with fuel. And never heard of fuel causing an engine to explode.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice photo op today....maybe Canada would like to buy Australia's used F-18s...guaranteed to work better than "slightly used" British submarines !

Edited July 25, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Never had a problem with fuel.

Consider yourself lucky.

And never heard of fuel causing an engine to explode.

Reread my explanation several posts back.

[waldo]

How old is your graphic? And what does the fine print on the both the 120 million figure and the one you ascribe to say? Is the American figure including aircraft development?

if you have alternate numbers (per U.S. military branch, per partner nation)... actual sales... not so-called "commitments" or "LockMart test" planes, please advise.

if you have something to say about "fine print", it would be helpful for you to quote that fine print and then provide whatever it is you really want to say - yes? I mean, otherwise... it's just your same ole, same ole routine. C'mon, step it up, hey!

[waldo]

Nice photo op today....maybe Canada would like to buy Australia's used F-18s...guaranteed to work better than "slightly used" British submarines !

oh - a swipe at Canada... that's unusual for you.

[Derek 2.0]

....maybe Canada would like to buy Australia's used F-18s...

Though they are the same vintage, they are actually in a worse material condition since the RAAF put less tails through the same extensive mid-life upgrade like us…….Of course, they had no expectation that their two most populous political parties would ascribe to Canada’s political procurement method……..

With that said, the Australians have a much worse track record with submarines and buying used (American) warships then Canada…….

[Derek 2.0]

if you have alternate numbers (per U.S. military branch, per partner nation)... actual sales... not so-called "commitments" or "LockMart test" planes, please advise.

I don't contest those figures.

if you have something to say about "fine print", it would be helpful for you to quote that fine print and then provide whatever it is you really want to say - yes? I mean, otherwise... it's just your same ole, same ole routine. C'mon, step it up, hey!

What is included with the American figure you provided? Contrast with what is precluded with the Australian deal………the only attribute that I think could cause such a discrepancy, is that developmental costs are included in the American figures, and not for the RAAF.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Though they are the same vintage, they are actually in a worse material condition since the RAAF put less tails through the same extensive mid-life upgrade like us…….Of course, they had no expectation that their two most populous political parties would ascribe to Canada’s political procurement method……..

Still...it's another source for airframe and systems spares in a pinch....in addition to the CF-188s that were not upgraded and can be cannibalized. Australia probably won't ferry their old Hornets to Davis-Monthan.

With that said, the Australians have a much worse track record with submarines and buying used (American) warships then Canada…….

Despite their problems and lack of crew, the Collins Class actually bored a lot more holes in the ocean than Canada's diesel boats.

Edited July 25, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Consider yourself lucky.

Reread my explanation several posts back.

Why would I consider myself lucky? I do in many contexts but certainly not because of bad fuel causing my engine(s) to blow up. It just doesn't happen. I have heard of water contamination causing a fuel control/engine failure. Tht's bad but doesn't happen oftern and it certainly doen's cause the engine to rip out of the airframe and then burn, which is a lot worse I'd say.

[Derek 2.0]

Still...it's another source for airframe and systems spares in a pinch....in addition to the CF-188s that were not upgraded and can be cannibalized. Australia probably won't ferry their old Hornets to Davis-Montham.

Probably the same fate as their Pigs.

Despite their problems and lack of crew, the Collins Class actually bored a lot more holes in the ocean than Canada's diesel boats.

But at a far greater cost then what we paid, and we both now have a similar number operational..........Ask the RAN what they thought of surplus USN tank landing ships

Edited July 25, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

Why would I consider myself lucky? I do in many contexts but certainly not because of bad fuel causing my engine(s) to blow up. It just doesn't happen. I have heard of water contamination causing a fuel control/engine failure. Tht's bad but doesn't happen oftern and it certainly doen's cause the engine to rip out of the airframe and then burn, which is a lot worse I'd say.

Does fuel contamination cause corrosion? If so, can corrosion cause catastrophic engine failures that could lead to a Class A event?

[On Guard for Thee]

Does fuel contamination cause corrosion? If so, can corrosion cause catastrophic engine failures that could lead to a Class A event?

Fuel contamination is usually caused bu condensation which increasdes the water content of the fuel beyond which a fuel control will allow and so the flow is stopped and the oops, silence. Keeping in mind that fuel dows have water in it. But you knew that right.

[Derek 2.0]

Fuel contamination is usually caused bu condensation which increasdes the water content of the fuel beyond which a fuel control will allow and so the flow is stopped and the oops, silence. Keeping in mind that fuel dows have water in it. But you knew that right.

I know the problems associated with contamination, you’re the one that appears new to the concept….so answer the two simple questions or we're done:

Does fuel contamination cause corrosion? If so, can corrosion cause catastrophic engine failures that could lead to a Class A event?