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

[waldo]

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

odd that you would ignore the U.S. GAO report reference in favour of a LockMart propaganda graphic... very odd, indeed! It's quite easy to put up past LockMart schedules and reflect upon their accuracy! Of course, the other point you're ignoring is the overall failed development methodology chosen for the JSFail program; ie., concurrency... you know, that methodology so famously and succintly summarized as "acquistion malpractice" by the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (aka, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer). The point being, of course, you choose to ignore concurrency and the actual state of planes within LRIP 9, of their actual capability relative to a final development point... in favour of a manufacturer's glossy propaganda graphic! Of course you do.

[Derek 2.0]

the just days old latest U.S. Government Accountability Office report... providing outdated data/information? How so?

The GAO report states their figures are based on 2012 and 2013 numbers:

For the F-35, DOD decided to use the

CAPE O&S estimate in the 2012 and 2013 SARs. We evaluated both the

JPO and the CAPE O&S estimates because both estimates are used in

DOD decision making. According to the GAO Cost Estimating and

Assessment Guide, there are four general characteristics of sound cost

estimating: being well-documented, comprehensive, accurate, and

credible. For the purposes of this engagement, we conducted a limited

assessment and evaluated two of these characteristics: comprehensive

and credible. We chose to evaluate the estimates’ comprehensiveness

because if a cost estimate is not comprehensive then it cannot fully meet

the characteristics of being well-documented or accurate. For example, if

the cost estimate is missing some cost elements, then the documentation

will be incomplete and the estimate will be inaccurate. We also included

an assessment of the credible characteristic due to the substantial

estimated cost of the program and the need to better understand and

quantify the F-35 O&S cost risk. To determine whether the

comprehensive and credibility characteristics were met, we reviewed

CAPE and JPO cost-estimating documentation, including data sources,

assumptions, and calculations, and we interviewed cost-estimating

officials from these offices. In addition, to determine how much more

frequently parts were being replaced than assumed in the JPO cost

estimate (see table 2), we compared the mean flight hour between

removals (MFHBR) data for the Air Force’s F-35A (CTOL) and the Marine

Corps’ F-35B (STOVL) from a 12-month period ending in March 31, 2014,

to the MFHBR assumptions used in the JPO estimate.

So their conclusions are based upon estimates from a timeframe of up to two years prior, and serviceability figures associated with an aircraft still in the R&D phase from Spring 2013-2014………contrasted with figures from mature legacy types from nearly five years ago…

And despite the “doom and gloom”, nations are still purchasing it…..

[bush_cheney2004]

The GAO report states their figures are based on 2012 and 2013 numbers:....

.....And despite the “doom and gloom”, nations are still purchasing it…..

Yep....whining about another nation's "GAO" numbers while it and other partner nations continue to procure F-35 aircraft is curious coming from a nation that has neither. So when is that election....oh yea....October 2015.

[Derek 2.0]

Yep....whining about another nation's "GAO" numbers while it and other partner nations continue to procure F-35 aircraft is curious coming from a nation that has neither. So when is that election....oh yea....October 2015.

Indeed.......next fall is correct

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed.......next fall is correct

Otay....so we have about another year of this game at least.

[waldo]

The GAO report states their figures are based on 2012 and 2013 numbers:

So their conclusions are based upon estimates from a timeframe of up to two years prior, and serviceability figures associated with an aircraft still in the R&D phase from Spring 2013-2014………contrasted with figures from mature legacy types from nearly five years ago…

you're not answering the request/challenge (like... what else is new?). You're not providing any alternate numbers that you presume to suggest are more accurate, more meaningful than the numbers being used by the U.S. GAO. Of course, the numbers for the legacy aircraft being compared to are what they are, whether 5 years ago or today... surely you're not claiming those numbers are inaccurate, as well - are you? Are you saying all the numbers are wrong... both the F-35 numbers and the legacy aircraft numbers? Well, what's stopping you from providing the REAL numbers?

would you like to put up any REAL... any projected operating and support numbers for the F-35 that you feel the GAO has got wrong?

[waldo]

Otay....so we have about another year of this game at least.

we??? Relative to a Canadian election date, what possible interest would your labeled (Canadian) "game" bring to any self-respecting (claimed) American... particularly a "game within a game", where you choose to ignore the realities of American defense spending cuts (outright), American sequestration impacts, official American auditing reports on the "progress" of JSFail, etc., etc., etc.? Where's the bigger "game" being played out here, hey?

[Derek 2.0]

you're not answering the request/challenge (like... what else is new?). You're not providing any alternate numbers that you presume to suggest are more accurate, more meaningful than the numbers being used by the U.S. GAO. Of course, the numbers for the legacy aircraft being compared to are what they are, whether 5 years ago or today... surely you're not claiming those numbers are inaccurate, as well - are you? Are you saying all the numbers are wrong... both the F-35 numbers and the legacy aircraft numbers? Well, what's stopping you from providing the REAL numbers?

would you like to put up any REAL... any projected operating and support numbers for the F-35 that you feel the GAO has got wrong?

I wouldn’t assume to make such estimates, not with numbers based on an aircraft still under the R&D phase of its life, nor present them as gospel or cause for abandonment of the F-35……..this of course is the position of those nations that have placed or are in negotiations for the aircraft……….As I’ve asked numerous times, in the most simplistic form, if the naysayers are correct, why has not a single partner left the program?

[waldo]

I wouldn’t assume to make such estimates, not with numbers based on an aircraft still under the R&D phase of its life, nor present them as gospel or cause for abandonment of the F-35……..this of course is the position of those nations that have placed or are in negotiations for the aircraft……….As I’ve asked numerous times, in the most simplistic form, if the naysayers are correct, why has not a single partner left the program?

you wouldn't assume to make such estimates??? And yet... how many projections, iterative projection upon projection has LockMart offered? You just quoted a reference to a F-35 SAR report as the basis for the GAO's F-35 estimate numbers. I know you have completely ignored by past references to iterative SAR reports... but, c'mon... they involve a cooperative engagement with the JSF Program Office. Those estimate numbers used by the GAO come from the JSF Program Office (from LockMart). Just what is it you're saying here... exactly?

your continued nonsense about NO PARTNER BEING LEFT BEHIND is, as always, your ready go-to. As before, I've challenged you to put up the commitment numbers, the original ones (the ones LockMart uses and continues to use) and the reduced commitment numbers that partner nations have shifted down to. I've also asked you for details on signed contracts and exchanged monies... still waiting on those. If Korea has truly signed on the dotted line and truly exchanged money, what did they use to substantiate and give credence to their purchase? LockMart promises/incentives? U.S. DOD/government promises/incentives? Cause it most certainly can't be any kind of actual reference to the observed capabilities of the F-35 today... can it?

[Derek 2.0]

your continued nonsense about NO PARTNER BEING LEFT BEHIND is, as always, your ready go-to. As before, I've challenged you to put up the commitment numbers, the original ones (the ones LockMart uses and continues to use) and the reduced commitment numbers that partner nations have shifted down to. I've also asked you for details on signed contracts and exchanged monies... still waiting on those. If Korea has truly signed on the dotted line and truly exchanged money, what did they use to substantiate and give credence to their purchase? LockMart promises/incentives? U.S. DOD/government promises/incentives? Cause it most certainly can't be any kind of actual reference to the observed capabilities of the F-35 today... can it?

A go-to that you appear to have problems addressing...........one would think, if the sky was indeed falling, the program would have been cancelled already...

[waldo]

A go-to that you appear to have problems addressing...........one would think, if the sky was indeed falling, the program would have been cancelled already...

what's to address? Monies have already been paid... the participating dues/costs have been paid... what's the gain in formally pulling out? As it stands, on top of all the reduced commitment numbers, it would appear "thinking partner countries" are waiting it out... to see exactly what comes out the end... to see the real capabilities (not the paper-tiger propaganda capabilities that you perpetually gush over).

so your whole bluster routine over the GAO report findings concerning operational/support costing... you're going to bury that now?

[Derek 2.0]

what's to address? Monies have already been paid... the participating dues/costs have been paid... what's the gain in formally pulling out? As it stands, on top of all the reduced commitment numbers, it would appear "thinking partner countries" are waiting it out... to see exactly what comes out the end... to see the real capabilities (not the paper-tiger propaganda capabilities that you perpetually gush over).

But if as claimed, the F-35 was a lemon, said partners could focus their resources in another direction no? I mean, of all the partners, at some point in their collective histories, they have pulled away from prior procurement programs that failed to bear fruit…….ie the Arrow, A-12 Avenger, XB-70, TSR-2 etc…

[Derek 2.0]

so your whole bluster routine over the GAO report findings concerning operational/support costing... you're going to bury that now?

Bury what? A report based on old data?

[waldo]

Bury what? A report based on old data?

old data? So you keep saying... of course, I highlighted just where that data originates from... from the JSFail Program Office (from LockMart). I challenged you to provide more accurate/current data... well, still waiting! I'm quite surprised that the official U.S. Government Accountability Office would put out it's latest 'auditing' report and refer to data other than the most recent available. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt that newer... more accurate data is available. Again, put up that data showing "the REAL" operating/support costs for the F-35. Waiting......

[Derek 2.0]

old data? So you keep saying... of course, I highlighted just where that data originates from... from the JSFail Program Office (from LockMart). I challenged you to provide more accurate/current data... well, still waiting! I'm quite surprised that the official U.S. Government Accountability Office would put out it's latest 'auditing' report and refer to data other than the most recent available. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt that newer... more accurate data is available. Again, put up that data showing "the REAL" operating/support costs for the F-35. Waiting......

As I said, such data can't be determined reliably until we have the end product……….estimates made prior are just that......estimates that haven't scared off any end users to date.

[waldo]

As I said, such data can't be determined reliably until we have the end product……….

and yet that hasn't stopped LockMart from putting those numbers out... has it? Why would they provide those estimates? I've never seen a LockMart caveat attached to those estimate numbers they provide; you know, something like LockMart providing a "we're providing these estimates but they have no foundation... we're just making shyte up here! Oh wait... that's they're underlying caveat to the whole JSFail program, right?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bury what? A report based on old data?

'Zactly.....continuing to parrot back data from a foreign country (on many things it seems), has nothing to do with the F-35 procurement decision that Canada and other JSF partner/non partner nations will/have made. South Korea obviously ain't 'fraid of no GAO reports.

[Derek 2.0]

and yet that hasn't stopped LockMart from putting those numbers out... has it? Why would they provide those estimates? I've never seen a LockMart caveat attached to those estimate numbers they provide; you know, something like LockMart providing a "we're providing these estimates but they have no foundation... we're just making shyte up here! Oh wait... that's they're underlying caveat to the whole JSFail program, right?

.

Which numbers? Numbers requested by the GAO?

[waldo]

'Zactly.....continuing to parrot back data from a foreign country (on many things it seems), has nothing to do with the F-35 procurement decision that Canada and other JSF partner/non partner nations will/have made. South Korea obviously ain't 'fraid of no GAO reports.

'Zactly'!!! That's right... you make perfect sense! Cause Canada, cause no country tries to estimate overall purchase and operational costing... no country would have any need for numbers supplied by the manufacturer to help estimate the operational and support costs they will incur in presuming to purchase the F-35!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Mission of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO):

....to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced.

Nothing in there about bean counting for another famously dramatic Canadian defense procurement. Recall that Canada's DND wouldn't/couldn't come up with flight hour costs for CF-188s....so it used American F/A-18 data !

Edited September 25, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Mission of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO):

....to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced.

Nothing in there about bean counting for another famously dramatic Canadian defense procurement.

just how naive are you? Those GAO reports, those SAR reports, they're key so-called "legitimate & independent" sources of critical JSFail review available... which, of course, presumes on the degree of (so-called) independence being maintained... which, of course, presumes on just how much classified information is being retained and kept out of the reports. Do you maintain that partner nations receive directly, separate from those reports, the same level and degree of critical program review? Cause, if you do, I'd like to know why the Harper Conservative government/DND haven't shared that kind of critical review information with the Canadian public. But hey now, try again - thanks for playing, hey!

[Derek 2.0]

And we can be assured that next years election won’t have the F-35s as a focal point……….perhaps 2019?

The Harper government says it will extend the life of its fleet of CF-18 fighters.

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson says the jets are an important component of the country’s defence and will be updated to keep them flying until 2025.

With the decision to defer the F-35 purchase this summer to until after next year’s election, this was inevitable, fore negotiations of the new aircraft would have to start soon to secure 2019 production slots, the allowance of Lockheed to purchase long-lead items and for the RCAF to set a date for the commencement of conversion training.

I would expect the required upgrades will roughly entail something along the lines of the USN’s center barrel program performed on their older Hornet fleet. These upgrades would see efforts aimed at strengthening/replacing each Hornet’s dorsal deck and longerons, adding ~15-20% to the lifespans of each aircraft, dependant on the individual aircraft’s material condition…..

Currently the USN/USMC legacy fleet will be finished the upgrade in 2017, allowing us to purchase the jigs and tooling from the DoD (which will require different ones for the Super Hornet). As to costing, between the kits purchased from Northrop and the labour performing the work, each Hornet costs ~3 million………..for us, that would translate into ~250 million for our fleet.

What this will also do, is end the speculation from the peanut gallery on mythical purchases of Super Hornets, Rafales and Typhoons, for a OSD of 2025 for our Hornet fleet will signal a purchase of new aircraft in the ~2020 timeframe………..long after the branded about “alternatives” have gone out of production, and in the timeframe the current users will start retiring their own fleets of “alternatives”, discounting even a purchase of used “4.5 generation” aircraft……….Thusly a future Canadian Government, in the 2019 timeframe, will be able to hold a competition between nothing and the F-35.

[Derek 2.0]

A first for the RAAF:

The Royal Australian Air Force’s first Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II made its debut flight from the manufacturer’s Fort Worth facility in Texas on 29 September.

The 2h flight of the aircraft – designated AU-1 by Lockheed and A35-001 by the RAAF – was conducted by company test pilot Al Norman. Australia's lead aircraft will remain at Fort Worth alongside its AU-2 stablemate for further testing, before being delivered to the US Air Force training school at Luke AFB in Arizona in early 2015.

AU-1 and AU-2 were rolled out in late July, and are the first of 72 conventional take-off and landing F-35As currently planned for the RAAF. Long-lead items for a further 12 F-35As have already been funded, with these aircraft expected to form part of the programme's tenth lot of low-rate initial production, for delivery from 2017. A further 58 aircraft were approved by the Australian government in April, for delivery between 2017 and 2021.

[bush_cheney2004]

A first for the RAAF:

Indeed...a paying customer !

[On Guard for Thee]

Indeed...a paying customer !

And how long was it able to stay aloft before a major engine (boroscope) inspection?