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

[Derek 2.0]

ya, it's just the minimum 'bear' bones diplomacy at work... in international air-space, no less!

I admit, that was a good one

[Derek 2.0]

oh, did I manage to prod you back into the thread? But nice try! Read it again... all existing engines are to be replaced. I recall you emphasizing something about "not being systemic"!

That of course isn't true, the existing engines will have the portions found defective on the several engines that failed, replaced.

Nothing from you about the impacts on testing schedules and IOC dates.

The roadmap per earlier this month:

and

By the by, did Bodnar's recent VolumeSalesTour prove out... any bites yet?

LRIP 9 talks should be finalised next month, with purchases for not only the three American services, but also Israel, Japan, the UK, Italy and Norway………The South Koreans, from my understanding, might sneak into LRIP 9, but more likely a larger buy in LRIP 10……….Likewise the next two (delayed) lots of F135s from P&W.

As to the rest of this years roadmap:

-Carrier trials should start next month

-The USMC squadron in Yuma now has a squadrons worth of aircraft

-Cost reductions will be released with the details of LRIP 9......from my understanding, the price reduction for LRIP should be ~4% overall, with ~6-8% for the F-35A.......

[waldo]

That of course isn't true, the existing engines will have the portions found defective on the several engines that failed, replaced.

a 2-week gap in replying... when normally you're all over this thread like... In any case, per the article linked in that original statement, "all 156 engines will have "fixes applied". If you're quibbling with the "replaced" reference, change that to "defective parts" replaced.

however, the latest I've read has Bogdan stating a "fix" may be ready by year end... yet they still don't know the definitive cause, which really begs the question as to how he can make that year end (maybe) claim if the root cause still hasn't been determined.

The roadmap per earlier this month:

again, as politically motivated as those IOC dates are, my question was aimed at what impact the engine flaw would have to the IOC dates given the inability to fly/test for the better part of 6 months. Anything I read suggests there is no way that 2015 Marine IOC date can ever be made. Oh wait... given it's a trumped up capability, one you've already admitted to, I guess nothing can stop the schedule! But, of course, you simply choose to pull from the propaganda machine and throw down a couple of graphics! Of course you do.

LRIP 9 talks should be finalised next month, with purchases for not only the three American services, but also Israel, Japan, the UK, Italy and Norway………The South Koreans, from my understanding, might sneak into LRIP 9, but more likely a larger buy in LRIP 10……….Likewise the next two (delayed) lots of F135s from P&W.

straight-up, put up something that speaks to real testing results... what's been tested, what problems have been found, and what remains to be tested. Given all the problems found to-date, given all the critical testing that remains, why would any country purchase any F-35 within LRIP 9, or any remaining LRIP? Note: you're going to counter my reference to "all the critical testing that remains", right? You're going to take up my challenge for you to provide a testing summary accounting, right?

you do know that U.S. sequestration comes back again in 2016, right? Care to put up the exact numbers you're projecting for the respective U.S. military branches... the exact numbers. And is that factoring the 2016 sequestration, or not? You've mentioned several countries will actually be purchasing in LRIP 9. It looks like you're simply reading off that LockMart propaganda schedule... can you provide specifics as to contracts signed and money exchanged?

As to the rest of this years roadmap:

does the stated delivery of early LRIP planes actually mean anything? They have no real capability and need to be retrofitted to some "magical point" in the future when real designated production begins - yes?

-Cost reductions will be released with the details of LRIP 9......from my understanding, the price reduction for LRIP should be ~4% overall, with ~6-8% for the F-35A.......

oh snap! You know this topic always gets you scrambling when I challenge you to actually put up the costs presumably being reduced. So, let me do that, once again: before those projected 'cost reductions' (which, of course, are presuming big time on actually producing/selling those countries (and U.S. military branches) you claim will occur in LRIP 9), what are today's costs... full costs... don't play around by quoting without an engine again! Costs today are?

[Derek 2.0]

a 2-week gap in replying... when normally you're all over this thread like... In any case, per the article linked in that original statement, "all 156 engines will have "fixes applied". If you're quibbling with the "replaced" reference, change that to "defective parts" replaced.

however, the latest I've read has Bogdan stating a "fix" may be ready by year end... yet they still don't know the definitive cause, which really begs the question as to how he can make that year end (maybe) claim if the root cause still hasn't been determined.

Between work/a move/sale and purchase of several homes I’ve been time limited in my MLW time allotment……Not a quibble per-say, but stating accuracy……..the engines will not be replaced, but the portions that failed in several of them, will be replaced by P&W at no cost……….if it turns out their supplier was using substandard alloys and this is the cause of the several failures, they should be prosecuted!!!

again, as politically motivated as those IOC dates are, my question was aimed at what impact the engine flaw would have to the IOC dates given the inability to fly/test for the better part of 6 months. Anything I read suggests there is no way that 2015 Marine IOC date can ever be made. Oh wait... given it's a trumped up capability, one you've already admitted to, I guess nothing can stop the schedule! But, of course, you simply choose to pull from the propaganda machine and throw down a couple of graphics! Of course you do.

That runs counter to both the roadmap and comments suggesting that though the NAVAIR flight restrictions have increased turnaround time between flights, delaying some of the flight requirements, there has been no indication that next year’s IOC won’t be met.

straight-up, put up something that speaks to real testing results... what's been tested, what problems have been found, and what remains to be tested. Given all the problems found to-date, given all the critical testing that remains, why would any country purchase any F-35 within LRIP 9, or any remaining LRIP? Note: you're going to counter my reference to "all the critical testing that remains", right? You're going to take up my challenge for you to provide a testing summary accounting, right?

That’s an obtuse request………why would a country purchase aircraft, that it intends to purchase.

you do know that U.S. sequestration comes back again in 2016, right? Care to put up the exact numbers you're projecting for the respective U.S. military branches... the exact numbers. And is that factoring the 2016 sequestration, or not? You've mentioned several countries will actually be purchasing in LRIP 9. It looks like you're simply reading off that LockMart propaganda schedule... can you provide specifics as to contracts signed and money exchanged?

LRIP 9 will fall under the 2015 fiscal year........and of course, you do know there will be a likely change in control of the Senate in November right?

At this time I can't provide contract details.........because they're still ongoing......Once they're finalised, I will gladly oblige though.

does the stated delivery of early LRIP planes actually mean anything? They have no real capability and need to be retrofitted to some "magical point" in the future when real designated production begins - yes?

Certainly, with growth in fleet size, both the rate of testing and training will increase exponentially……..A year from now, I’m certain you’ll argue the lack of progress because the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Italy, the Dutch, Japanese, Israel and Australia have yet to complete their entire ordered deliveries.

oh snap! You know this topic always gets you scrambling when I challenge you to actually put up the costs presumably being reduced. So, let me do that, once again: before those projected 'cost reductions' (which, of course, are presuming big time on actually producing/selling those countries (and U.S. military branches) you claim will occur in LRIP 9), what are today's costs... full costs... don't play around by quoting without an engine again! Costs today are?

Flyaway, right now for the F-35A, ~98 million + ~17%.........Sans training, spares and support.

Of course that will change in the next several months as the LRIP 9 contract is complete, likewise the next block purchase from P&W.

[waldo]

Flyaway, right now for the F-35A, ~98 million + ~17%.........Sans training, spares and support.

why quote without the engine cost? More pointedly, what's the basis for your quote - cite please.

[waldo]

That runs counter to both the roadmap and comments suggesting that though the NAVAIR flight restrictions have increased turnaround time between flights, delaying some of the flight requirements, there has been no indication that next years IOC wont be met.

give it a rest! It's a totally politicized date... U.S. Marine "combat ready" takes on a whole new meaning, hey? But really, you pulled those graphics from this article (of course, they originate from the LockMart F-35 Program Manager)... as much as the article is "fanboy slanted", the author at least speaks to risks associated with those timelines, speaks to sequestration, etc. You did none of that... you simply posted the images as another of your fait-accompli ta-da's.

........and of course, you do know there will be a likely change in control of the Senate in November right?

this is interesting! Presuming to a U.S. Republican controlled (House... & Senate) do you believe that helps... or hinders... F-35 funding allotments? Everything I read/presume suggests those Republican budget hawks will have their (further) way with U.S. defense spending.

[Derek 2.0]

give it a rest! It's a totally politicized date... U.S. Marine "combat ready" takes on a whole new meaning, hey? But really, you pulled those graphics from this article (of course, they originate from the LockMart F-35 Program Manager)... as much as the article is "fanboy slanted", the author at least speaks to risks associated with those timelines, speaks to sequestration, etc. You did none of that... you simply posted the images as another of your fait-accompli ta-da's.

Combat ready is clearly subjective and requires further definition…….for the Marines, does it mean the F-35B will be at it technological end-state next year? Unlikely………Will it be an advancement over the Marines legacy Hornets that it has already replaced? Certainly.

this is interesting! Presuming to a U.S. Republican controlled (House... & Senate) do you believe that helps... or hinders... F-35 funding allotments? Everything I read/presume suggests those Republican budget hawks will have their (further) way with U.S. defense spending.

To date, the F-35 has been largely ring-fenced in the force wide cuts (yes some aircraft purchases have been deferred etc), I see no reason why this wouldn't continue with a GOP controlled Congress and Senate.

[waldo]

Combat ready is clearly subjective and requires further definition.for the Marines, does it mean the F-35B will be at it technological end-state next year? UnlikelyWill it be an advancement over the Marines legacy Hornets that it has already replaced? Certainly.

"certainly"??? How so; specifically, how so... by 'mid-2015' will the F-35B be an advancement over... wait... you said 'legacy hornets'. Huh, say what? With the way STOVL compromised the overall design for A & C variants, why wouldn't you measure it against the U.S. Marine AV-8 Harriers? But I'm also confused, if you truly want to highlight the legacy hornet as a "close air support" jet... why has Canada limited its use of the CF-18 to that of a "bomb truck"? And if the U.S. Marines can replace its hornets by mid-2015, why have you recently suggested 2019/2020 as the year for Canada to receive it's F-35s? Your wording might also suggest the U.S. Marines won't be flying any hornets beyond that magical (what you call subective) IOC "combat ready" politicized date... which really isn't "combat ready", hey?

To date, the F-35 has been largely ring-fenced in the force wide cuts (yes some aircraft purchases have been deferred etc), I see no reason why this wouldn't continue with a GOP controlled Congress and Senate.

then why did you mention it in the first place? I mentioned the upcoming, once again, affect of a 2016 U.S. sequestration, What point were you implying by speaking to a possible shifting Senate to Republican control? Again, the real military budget hawks intent on (further) significant military defense spending reductions are in that Republican/T-Party camp.

[waldo]

hey... where did my cite request for you to qualify your costing go?

[Derek 2.0]

"certainly"??? How so; specifically, how so... by 'mid-2015' will the F-35B be an advancement over... wait... you said 'legacy hornets'. Huh, say what? With the way STOVL compromised the overall design for A & C variants, why wouldn't you measure it against the U.S. Marine AV-8 Harriers? But I'm also confused, if you truly want to highlight the legacy hornet as a "close air support" jet... why has Canada limited its use of the CF-18 to that of a "bomb truck"? And if the U.S. Marines can replace its hornets by mid-2015, why have you recently suggested 2019/2020 as the year for Canada to receive it's F-35s? Your wording might also suggest the U.S. Marines won't be flying any hornets beyond that magical (what you call subective) IOC "combat ready" politicized date... which really isn't "combat ready", hey?

The Marines are replacing their legacy Hornets (half the fleet of the same vintage as ours), the Harrier IIs and the EA-6 Prowlers with the F-35B and several squadrons of F-35Cs……The Hornet squadrons equipped with the eldest Hornets (such as the ones currently at MCAS Yuma) will be replaced first, followed by squadrons flying the F/A-18C and Harrier IIs.

As has been stated prior, the Hornet, Harrier and Falcon (used by the USAF), followed by the various F-35 are multirole……As to “close air support” (aka CAS) and “bomb trucks” (interdiction/attack), coupled with “air-to air” (Air superiority & interceptors), the above aircraft can perform all of the missions (Caveat alert, the USMC’s Harriers weren’t required for “air-to-air”, but the Harriers operated by the Royal Navy did) to various degrees.

The Marines have a specific emphasis on CAS (dating back to Guadalcanal), with interdiction and air superiority having lesser importance. This of course is the inverse with the RCAF, which focuses on the mentioned tasks in the reverse order…….These roles are reflected more so in training than the aircraft, hence a Canadian Hornet will be used as an interceptor, a USN Hornet to perform interdiction and a Marine Hornet used to perform CAS.

As to a Canadian IOC, as mentioned prior, that would be predicated on a Canadian order……..once said order is placed, on the assumption the F-35 is in full production, a complete transition for the RCAF would take 3-5 years dependant on the rate of production and availability of training for pilots and technicians.

then why did you mention it in the first place? I mentioned the upcoming, once again, affect of a 2016 U.S. sequestration, What point were you implying by speaking to a possible shifting Senate to Republican control? Again, the real military budget hawks intent on (further) significant military defense spending reductions are in that Republican/T-Party camp.

You mentioned sequestration.........be that as it may, even if the Dems retain the Senate, I doubt the progress of the F-35 will be effected.........

Edited September 22, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

hey... where did my cite request for you to qualify your costing go?

I'll do you one better, I'll comment once LRIP 9 info is released

[Army Guy]

Just a question why are we purchasing the a model vice the c is it all about pricing, when you look at the stats the c model looks like the better aircraft.

[waldo]

I'll do you one better, I'll comment once LRIP 9 info is released

no! That's not better... if suggested percentage savings will be realized, we need to have the existing figures to which those claimed reductions will relate back to. You know, today's latest and greatest cost figures. Like I said, this whole costs thingee just gets you into such a flap... quit bringing it up, hey!

[waldo]

Just a question why are we purchasing the a model vice the c is it all about pricing, when you look at the stats the c model looks like the better aircraft.

the 'C' variant is even more of a paper tiger... and the most expensive of all the paper-tiger variants! To-date, only the U.S. Navy has designs on the 'C' variant... although that U.S. Navy interest is one most critically analysed given past pronouncements from the highest of its leaders. Notwithstanding it deferred recent 'C' purchases in favour of Super Hornet (variant) alternative purchases.

Boeing Builds the Navy an F-35C Exit Strategy

notwithstanding, for several years now, the U.S. Navy has been actively pursuing options/alternatives for "the next one"... the FA-XX project... claimed as a "compliment to the F-35", intended to do what the F-35 can't... as in "deep strike".

[Derek 2.0]

no! That's not better... if suggested percentage savings will be realized, we need to have the existing figures to which those claimed reductions will relate back to. You know, today's latest and greatest cost figures. Like I said, this whole costs thingee just gets you into such a flap... quit bringing it up, hey!

I'm sure the LockMart info-machine will provide nice colour graphics to contrast the price reduction

[Derek 2.0]

the 'C' variant is even more of a paper tiger... and the most expensive of all the paper-tiger variants! To-date, only the U.S. Navy has designs on the 'C' variant... although that U.S. Navy interest is one most critically analysed given past pronouncements from the highest of its leaders. Notwithstanding it deferred recent 'C' purchases in favour of Super Hornet (variant) alternative purchases.

Boeing Builds the Navy an F-35C Exit Strategy

Again, the CNO has stated the commitment to the F-35C……….and as mentioned numerous times, the purchase of additional EA-18 Growlers, a specialist electronic warfare aircraft, has the same effect on the F-35 as the USN purchasing P-8 patrol aircraft or new helicopters….

notwithstanding, for several years now, the U.S. Navy has been actively pursuing options/alternatives for "the next one"... the FA-XX project... claimed as a "compliment to the F-35", intended to do what the F-35 can't... as in "deep strike".

Ahh, the replacement for the Super Hornet...........why doesn't Boeing just offer the Super-Duper Hornet as a replacement?

[Derek 2.0]

Don't the South Koreans know any better?

South Korea has approved a deal to acquire 40 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for about KRW7.3 trillion (USD7.1 billion).

The Defense Acquisition Program Executive Committee headed by Minister of National Defense Han Min-gu approved the signing of a letter of offer and acceptance at a meeting in Seoul on 24 September.

Deliveries to South Korea of the F-35A - the conventional take-off and landing variant - will start in 2018, according to a statement by Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, Program Executive Officer for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office.

[Smallc]

I think I'd rather be ready than not:

http://www.janes.com/article/43640/mig-31-interception-near-north-america-suggests-russia-changing-offensive-air-ops

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't the South Koreans know any better?

Oh shucks....now isn't that a big surprise. Try the rest...then buy the best !

[waldo]

Try the rest...then buy the best!

just a sampling from the latest GAO report... not even the.... best sampling!

the annual F-35 operating and support (O&S) costs are estimated to be considerably higher ($8.8 billion) than the combined annual costs of several legacy aircraft --- U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Slams F-35 On ‘Unaffordable’ Costs: $8.8B Over Legacy Fighters

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe that increased costs reflect the additional requirements for fire extinguishers on standby at the departure end of the runway. You know, when they shove the throttle ahead.

[Derek 2.0]

just a sampling from the latest GAO report... not even the.... best sampling!

I guess you question the sampling, like I do, since it bases the F-35 costs off of figures from several years ago!!!

[Derek 2.0]

Oh shucks....now isn't that a big surprise. Try the rest...then buy the best !

Indeed.......and what are the Japanese, Norwegians, Italians and British doing purchasing aircraft in LRIP 9?!?!?!?!

[waldo]

I guess you question the sampling, like I do, since it bases the F-35 costs off of figures from several years ago!!!

the just days old latest U.S. Government Accountability Office report... providing outdated data/information? How so? I believe it's still a draft - you might still have time to ensure your updated information reaches them! Oh wait, all the past GAO reports I've brought forward (you know, the one's you regularly ignored), were cooperative undertakings that involved the JSF Program Office actually signing off on the reports. Are you saying that didn't happen this time... or hasn't happened yet?

perhaps you can provide those updated numbers here... now? You know, just like you've regularly done in the past when I've asked you for data, for numbers. Oh, wait... you just ignore those requests!

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed.......and what are the Japanese, Norwegians, Italians and British doing purchasing aircraft in LRIP 9?!?!?!?!

Yes...how dare they...don't they know they are suppose to wait until AFTER an election !