John Charlton Posted August 4, 2014 Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 Harpers next mess. How much have we lost in pulling out on this? This will make the Gas Power Plant's in Ontario look like a dime store mistake. Not to mention the ships that are costing billions and we don't even have finished plans. We really need to get ahold of these clowns. Don't get me wrong the planes were a mess from day 1. I worked for a company that was making parts for these paper weights, One of the issues was that the payload of wepons that the USA wanted to carry, the F-35 could not takeoff !! from the ground or on the aircraft carrier. So good to see we have finally ended this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 How do you know? As I asked, what do both deals entail? It doesn't matter what the Australian deal entails. It was for 2 planes. What is foolish is to believe that US Government budgetary woes, and in turn sequestration, are attributed to the F-35……….Did the F-35 also cause the financial crisis? It's even more foolish to believe that the biggest, highest-profile DoD program going (at least) 60% over budget did not contribute to its own cuts. The most recent LRIP of F-35s are still not full production.........If you want to compare apples to apples, look at the difference in price difference between LRIP and production Super Hornet...... The full-rate production of the Super Hornet was half that of the low-rate initial production of the F-35. That's an interesting concept. It's also damning evidence of how much of a clusterf*** the entire development phase has been for the F-35. Are you suggesting the reason for the stark price difference is targeting pods, ECM and upgrades to baseline avionics? Like I was saying……… The scale of the differences between the Growler and Super Hornet is an order of magnitude bigger than the differences between a Super Hornet equipped, or not equipped, with targeting pods. And frankly, I don't care that the American taxpayer underwrote the program, fore without international partners they would still have built a 5th gen aircraft on their on hook... You don't have to, but it all goes back to my original point that those taxpayers probably aren't getting good value for what they paid. If you follow the money, it's very easy to see where it all went: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LMT#symbol=LMT;range=5y But as I said, time will tell who is right on costing....... Yep. Despite this giant pissing match we're having, you and I both agree what the end result should be for Canada. My arguments regarding the program are more directed to apparent corruption and incompetence in the American political system, particularly with respect to the military industrial complex. While I'm not American, a lot of my family is, and I do believe that our continued prosperity is tied in with theirs. When I see how epically Lockheed Martin has failed to deliver the F-35 at cost and on time, yet watch their stock double despite this, I scratch my head. Delayed and over-budget can be expected, but not to this extent, and not without it impacting the company's bottom line. It's hard to look at this and not see blatant profiteering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 4, 2014 Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 ....And frankly, I don't care that the American taxpayer underwrote the program, fore without international partners they would still have built a 5th gen aircraft on their on hook... True...what Canada does or doesn't do in the way of a new strike fighter procurement will not materially change the F-35 program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 4, 2014 Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 ....While I'm not American, a lot of my family is, and I do believe that our continued prosperity is tied in with theirs. Wow...do you tell them how to vote too ? I believe the Americans will be just fine without your heartfelt concerns over the F-35 JSF program. You should see how much we spend on other stuff that Canada can't afford at any price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 4, 2014 Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 It doesn't matter what the Australian deal entails. It was for 2 planes. It doesn't mater? I thought we were trying to figure why they paid less for their aircraft then the Americans....I suggested because the Americans are paying for development and future upgrades, and you, the RAAF given a "special deal" by Lockheed.......one of us is clearly correct. It's even more foolish to believe that the biggest, highest-profile DoD program going (at least) 60% over budget did not contribute to its own cuts. Everything was effected by budget cuts, but wholesale budget cuts to all the armed services are not a result of the F-35... The full-rate production of the Super Hornet was half that of the low-rate initial production of the F-35. That's an interesting concept. It's also damning evidence of how much of a clusterf*** the entire development phase has been for the F-35. What was the price of the LRIP Super Hornet? At the time, a LRIP Super Hornet cost twice that of FRP Super Hornet cost later, and over three times the cost of a F/A-18C.........of course once you adjusted for inflation, both legacy and Super Hornets cost over 70 million, without ECM, targeting pods etc, today......... But of course rate of production and inflation play little into the overall price of an aircraft.... The scale of the differences between the Growler and Super Hornet is an order of magnitude bigger than the differences between a Super Hornet equipped, or not equipped, with targeting pods. Actually it's not.....The RAAF ensured a portion of their Super Hornet buy was fitted for, but not with, the additional equipment to upgrade their Hornets to Growlers if required in the future for a marginal increase.......the big difference in price was omitting the ECM, avionics and targeting pods........ You don't have to, but it all goes back to my original point that those taxpayers probably aren't getting good value for what they paid. If you follow the money, it's very easy to see where it all went: I'm well aware of the daily stock prices......but thanks Yep. Despite this giant pissing match we're having, you and I both agree what the end result should be for Canada. My arguments regarding the program are more directed to apparent corruption and incompetence in the American political system, particularly with respect to the military industrial complex. While I'm not American, a lot of my family is, and I do believe that our continued prosperity is tied in with theirs. When I see how epically Lockheed Martin has failed to deliver the F-35 at cost and on time, yet watch their stock double despite this, I scratch my head. Delayed and over-budget can be expected, but not to this extent, and not without it impacting the company's bottom line.It's hard to look at this and not see blatant profiteering. Your libelous charge of "apparent corruption" is utterly baseless.........and should be edited unless you can provide proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 4, 2014 Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 True...what Canada does or doesn't do in the way of a new strike fighter procurement will not materially change the F-35 program. Exactly..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) It doesn't mater? I thought we were trying to figure why they paid less for their aircraft then the Americans I wasn't. I was saying all along that it was irrelevant. It was two planes. All I said was that the Australian purchase being cheaper did nothing to support your low ball cost estimates. I'm done explaining why. Everything was effected by budget cuts, but wholesale budget cuts to all the armed services are not a result of the F-35... This isn't rocket science man. The fact that the F-35 was THAT far over budget put further strain on an already-strained DoD budget, making necessary cuts bigger than they should have otherwise been. What was the price of the LRIP Super Hornet? At the time, a LRIP Super Hornet cost twice that of FRP Super Hornet cost later, and over three times the cost of a F/A-18C.........of course once you adjusted for inflation, both legacy and Super Hornets cost over 70 million, without ECM, targeting pods etc, today......... The LRIP production of the Super Hornet wasn't hundreds of planes. In the hundreds, it was in full scale production. How many F-35's have been built so far, and how long will it be until it hits full production????? But of course rate of production and inflation play little into the overall price of an aircraft.... I never said either of those. Your poor grasp of reasoning just has you tripping over simple points. I'm well aware of the daily stock prices......but thanks Daily? That going back to the 1970's, and was meant to illustrate the insane profit LM is making off the F-35, despite their colossal failure to deliver it on time or on budget . Something's not right when a government contractor fails to meet its commitments THIS badly and still gets filthy rich doing it all at the taxpayer's expense. Your libelous charge of "apparent corruption" is utterly baseless.........and should be edited unless you can provide proof. Libelous charge!? Really!? After a comment like that, I don't think I could take you any less seriously. That's one of the most pathetic things I've read in 6+ years on this forum, and I've seen some sad stuff. Look up some definitions for the word 'apparent', and then read my comment again and tell me who I was committing libel against. After that, ponder the maturity level of someone who throws around accusations of libel on an internet discussion forum. What a joke. Edited August 5, 2014 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I wasn't. I was saying all along that it was irrelevant. It was two planes. All I said was that the Australian purchase being cheaper did nothing to support your low ball cost estimates. I'm done explaining why. Perhaps it is irrelevant to you, but when discussing two differing prices, knowing contract details is only logical. This isn't rocket science man. The fact that the F-35 was THAT far over budget put further strain on an already-strained DoD budget, making necessary cuts bigger than they should have otherwise been. I heard the F-35 causes cancer, male pattern baldness, diabetes and climate change……. The LRIP production of the Super Hornet wasn't hundreds of planes. In the hundreds, it was in full scale production. How many F-35's have been built so far, and how long will it be until it hits full production????? What does the LRIP production total mater? FRP for all three F-35 variants is slated in the next several years….. I never said either of those. Your poor grasp of reasoning just has you tripping over simple points. Red Herring and irrelevant? Daily? That going back to the 1970's, and was meant to illustrate the insane profit LM is making off the F-35, despite theircolossal failure to deliver it on time or on budget . Something's not right when a government contractor fails to meet its commitments THIS badly and still gets filthy rich doing it all at the taxpayer's expense. Diversification……and of course stock speculation takes into account the future... People that actually understand how the industry works, know that the F-35 (amongst other LockMart programs) are blue chips…….money follows success, smart money follows future success. Libelous charge!? Really!? After a comment like that, I don't think I could take you any less seriously. That's one of the most pathetic things I've read in 6+ years on this forum, and I've seen some sad stuff. Look up some definitions for the word 'apparent', and then read my comment again and tell me who I was committing libel against. After that, ponder the maturity level of someone who throws around accusations of libel on an internet discussion forum. What a joke. Can you highlight the “apparent corruption”? Don’t be shy, name names……..I’ll strap on my tin-foil hat and watch you exude maturity with your unfounded conspiracy theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) People that actually understand how the industry works, know that the F-35 (amongst other LockMart programs) are blue chips…….money follows success, smart money follows future success. Indeed...as the F-35 program was a cost-plus contract for LockMart and the supplier base through LRIP3. That means the government awarded 85% of costs submitted plus a guaranteed profit. Now the prime contracts are fixed-price with extra incentive awards, but many suppliers remain cost-plus at LockMart's risk. The DoD budget for the program is a Pentagon/Congress joint. What any of this has to do with the actual price that Canada will pay for the F-35 is not clear to me. Edited August 5, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Indeed...as the F-35 program was a cost-plus contract for LockMart and the supplier base through LRIP3. That means the government awarded 85% of costs submitted plus a guaranteed profit. Now the prime contracts are fixed-price with extra incentive awards, but many suppliers remain cost-plus at LockMart's risk. The DoD budget for the program is a Pentagon/Congress joint. What any of this has to do with the actual price that Canada will pay for the F-35 is not clear to me. Exactly…The cost plus approach to defense programs and procurement, for both the purchaser and manufacturer, is the most successful and efficient method………Fixed pricing has always been the least flexible, and due to inherent “mission creep” that plagues most programs, leads to an overpriced, substandard product for the end user, and can put the manufacturer in financial peril... {see A-12 Avenger and McDonnell Douglas } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Exactly…The cost plus approach to defense programs and procurement, for both the purchaser and manufacturer, is the most successful and efficient method…… The U.S. government prefers cost-plus defense contracts for high priority programs that involve lots of R&D. It is not necessarily "corruption". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) I heard the F-35 causes cancer, male pattern baldness, diabetes and climate change……. Really? I heard it was divinely inspired, designed by Superman and was powered by cold fusion! I'm SO witty. What does the LRIP production total mater? FRP for all three F-35 variants is slated in the next several years….. When 'LRIP' spans over a decade and hundreds of planes, you can't really compare it to LRIP for other planes. Other fighter programs moved from prototype to full-scale production much faster, which much smaller LRIP lots. Diversification……and of course stock speculation takes into account the future... The F-35 is a huge slice of the pie, and the speculators clearly understood that LM isn't going to be held accountable for their gross failure to stay on budget. They're having a magnificent time at the trough, less so than before Bogdan came on, but still. People that actually understand how the industry works, know that the F-35 (amongst other LockMart programs) are blue chips…….money follows success, smart money follows future success. Success, in this case, involved failing running a program 60% over budget, years late, and succeeding not only in avoiding any financial responsibility, but also making enormous profits from it. Can you highlight the “apparent corruption”? Don’t be shy, name names……..I’ll strap on my tin-foil hat and watch you exude maturity with your unfounded conspiracy theory Let me get this straight... You made the accusation of libel. I called you out on that miserable and pathetic statement, asking you to explain it. Your 'brilliant' response is then to ask me to give you specific names and ammunition to support your original witless accuasation. That a really impressive display of critical thinking Derek. Edited August 5, 2014 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) The U.S. government prefers cost-plus defense contracts for high priority programs that involve lots of R&D. It is not necessarily "corruption". Exactly.......ordering a zillion rounds of 5.56 ball is one thing.......developing the next generation fighter, with a learning curve to mimic the Apollo program, is clearly another thing.... Edited August 5, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Let me get this straight... You made the accusation of libel. I called you out on that miserable and pathetic statement, asking you to explain it. Your 'brilliant' response is then to ask me to give you specific names and ammunition to support your original witless accuasation. That a really impressive display of critical thinking Derek. That’s a no on highlighting your claimed “apparent corruption” found within the F-35 program I guess……and I thought you were some sort of internet tough guy……..oh well, your reversal of your declaration is the smart play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I've no doubt all three F-35s, once in full production, will be under 100 million (The F-35A, sans an engine is already), nor do I doubt the baseline F-35A will be somewhere between 85-75 million...... "The F-35A, sans an engine is already" ... again, you're back to quoting without engine pricing! What is the sense behind doing so? B & C variant pricing is so far beyond $100 million per, what gives you any confidence to suggest those variants will come any where near the $100 million per figure, particularly given the USN's apparent backing away from the 'C' variant. you sure have a lot to say about LockMart pricing, yet you never actually substantiate what that pricing is at any particular time - go figure! Why not step-up and quote/cite the latest LockMart pricing as there must be something to support your claims. I'd really be interested in seeing how those LockMart figures differ from the latest U.S. appropriations related pricing... it's one thing for you to simply ignore the U.S. pricing by claiming it includes "development costing" that other partner nations aren't subject to; however, it's another thing to presume that LockMart has, effectively, 2 sets of pricing... and the one you're quoting from is particular to non-U.S. partner nations. I've not seen that distinction made whenever LockMart quotes pricing - perhaps you can provide reference/citation to that end, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) "The F-35A, sans an engine is already" ... again, you're back to quoting without engine pricing! What is the sense behind doing so? B & C variant pricing is so far beyond $100 million per, what gives you any confidence to suggest those variants will come any where near the $100 million per figure, particularly given the USN's apparent backing away from the 'C' variant. Outside of a reduction in Carriers, I don’t see any indication of the USN backing away from their F-35C requirement……..carrier trials begin in the next several months aboard the USS Nimitz…. you sure have a lot to say about LockMart pricing, yet you never actually substantiate what that pricing is at any particular time - go figure! Why not step-up and quote/cite the latest LockMart pricing as there must be something to support your claims. I'd really be interested in seeing how those LockMart figures differ from the latest U.S. appropriations related pricing... it's one thing for you to simply ignore the U.S. pricing by claiming it includes "development costing" that other partner nations aren't subject to; however, it's another thing to presume that LockMart has, effectively, 2 sets of pricing... and the one you're quoting from is particular to non-U.S. partner nations. I've not seen that distinction made whenever LockMart quotes pricing - perhaps you can provide reference/citation to that end, hey? The differing quoted prices have been provided over the last several pages……….for a proper contrast, one would need the finite details of the recent RAAF deal contrasted with the latest DoD contracts……as I’ve been repeating with the other member. As to financial commitments, that has been covered here numerous times when discussing the differing membership tiers. Edited August 5, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) That’s a no on highlighting your claimed “apparent corruption” found within the F-35 program I guess……and I thought you were some sort of internet tough guy……..oh well, your reversal of your declaration is the smart play. That's a no on helping you dig yourself out of your goof accusation of libel and the shame and embarrassment you should feel for one of the dumbest comments I've seen since joining this board in 2008. You ACTUALLY accused me of libel, on an internet discussion forum! It's hard to understate how pathetic that is, especially considering you can't even explain who this vicious libel was against! Edited August 5, 2014 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 That's a no on helping you dig yourself out of your doltish accusation of libel and the shame and embarrassment you should feel for one of the dumbest comments I've seen since joining this board in 2008. You ACTUALLY accused me of libel, on an internet discussion forum! It's hard to understate how pathetic that is, especially considering you can't even explain who this vicious libel was against! If you have uncovered systemic corruption within Lockheed Martin, might I suggest reporting it here: corporate.ethics@lmco.com They might even give you a secret decoder ring as reward!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 The differing quoted prices have been provided over the last several pages……….for a proper contrast, one would need the finite details of the recent RAAF deal contrasted with the latest DoD contracts……as I’ve been repeating with the other member. As to financial commitments, that has been covered here numerous times when discussing the differing membership tiers. you ignored my question on why you continue to quote "sans engine" pricing... again, why do continue doing so? What's the point? I'm not talking about the 2 planes Australia has actually purchased. I'm talking about the LockMart pricing you perpetually refer to... but never actually cite/substantiate. Again, please step-up and provide that pricing... the pricing that, apparently, drives your confidence in claiming <$100 million pricing... in claiming that the original Harper Conservative estimated pricing for the F-35 will be met. Either do so, either provide substantiated LockMart pricing... or accept that the latest U.S. appropriations pricing is the reference benchmark. I made reference to the "fire sale", "2 for 1" like campaign Bogdan is out on trying to drum up actual business... you know, get real contracts, real money in the bank... call it 'loss leaders" as in getting beyond the trumped up, so-called commitments that actually mean nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 If you have uncovered systemic corruption within Lockheed Martin, might I suggest reporting it here: corporate.ethics[/size]@lmco.com[/size] They might even give you a secret decoder ring as reward!!! [/size] [/size] do you consider all the lobbying LockMart does with U.S. congressional members... just bidness? During the 2012 campaign cycle, Lockheed—either directly or indirectly through its employees and political-action committee—doled out millions in campaign cash to virtually every member of Congress. The company’s lobbyists included seven former members of Congress and dozens of others who have served in key government positions. According to Charlie, Pentagon officials involved with the Joint Strike Fighter routinely cycle out of the military and into jobs with the program’s myriad contractors, waiting out intervening fallow periods required by ethics laws at Beltway “body shops” like Burdeshaw Associates. Until recently Burdeshaw was led by Marvin Sambur, who, as assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, oversaw the F-35 program. (He resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker-lease scandal, for which his subordinate Darleen Druyun went to prison.) The firm itself lists dozens of generals and admirals as “representative associates,” and on its board it boasts none other than Norman Augustine, a former chairman and C.E.O. of Lockheed Martin. When asked about the Lockheed Martin connection, Burdeshaw’s vice president, retired air-force major general Richard E. Perraut Jr., wrote in a statement to Vanity Fair, “It is our company policy to not comment on questions about clients, projects, or Associates” (emphasis in the original). For his part, Dr. Sambur wrote in a separate statement: “I never consulted for Lockheed on the F35 or F22, and while I was at Burdeshaw, we had no contract with Lockheed for any consulting with respect to these programs.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 you ignored my question on why you continue to quote "sans engine" pricing... again, why do continue doing so? What's the point? I'm not talking about the 2 planes Australia has actually purchased. I'm talking about the LockMart pricing you perpetually refer to... but never actually cite/substantiate. Again, please step-up and provide that pricing... the pricing that, apparently, drives your confidence in claiming <$100 million pricing... in claiming that the original Harper Conservative estimated pricing for the F-35 will be met. Either do so, either provide substantiated LockMart pricing... or accept that the latest U.S. appropriations pricing is the reference benchmark. I made reference to the "fire sale", "2 for 1" like campaign Bogdan is out on trying to drum up actual business... you know, get real contracts, real money in the bank... call it 'loss leaders" as in getting beyond the trumped up, so-called commitments that actually mean nothing. I still await you to substantiate your claimed “fire sale”………..as was already said, a benchmark for Canada is transfixed to what other tier III partners pay.....like the RAAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 so..... politicized and outright fabricated/trumped up IOC dates is just... doing bidness? No corruption there, hey? I asked General Bogdan about the Marines’ decision to declare their planes combat-capable without adequate time for operational testing (O.T.)—or, as the Pentagon used to call it, “field testing.” His answer was straightforward—yes, that was what the Marines are going to do, and yes, they have the power to do it. “By law,” he said, “we have to do operational testing. But by law, the service chiefs, the secretaries of the services, get to decide I.O.C. and when the airplane can go into combat. There’s nothing that says the results of the O.T. must be used, factored in, to determine what the services do. I can tell you that’s why, when you look at the real letter of the law, the U.S. Marine Corps intends on declaring I.O.C. before we start O.T.” In other words, the commandant of the Marine Corps plans to announce that his planes are ready for combat before operational testing proves they are ready for combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I still await you to substantiate your claimed “fire sale”………..as was already said, a benchmark for Canada is transfixed to what other tier III partners pay.....like the RAAF. are you actually claiming Bogdan isn't/wasn't out on a sales drive... wasn't out offering volume purchase incentives? please cite something that formally aligns respective tier pricing to it's associated partner nations. Something other than you simply saying so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 do you consider all the lobbying LockMart does with U.S. congressional members... just bidness? Are you implying a level of “apparent corruption” or legal lobbying as defined by US laws associated with campaign financing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 are you actually claiming Bogdan isn't/wasn't out on a sales drive... wasn't out offering volume purchase incentives? Not as you suggest......... please cite something that formally aligns respective tier pricing to it's associated partner nations. Something other than you simply saying so. Has been provided many time through the various threads over the years..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.