waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Pentagon reports for operating costs seemed to be fine for F-35 critics....Canada's DND didn't even know how much actual CF-18 flight hour costs were so instead used American (Pentagon) F/A-18 E/F/G flight hour costs because apparently the Canadian data was "too hard" to aggregate. this talking point is tired! Per it's history of operations, Canada's DND has provided operating costs for the CF-18's. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 this talking point is tired! Per it's history of operations, Canada's DND has provided operating costs for the CF-18's. not to mention irrelevant... Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Actually its only a few months old. But, I doubt its a serious issue. Its a new plane, on its first deployment. Its not surprising if there are a few little glitches to work out as the technicians learn how to deal with the plane. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't have problems at first. whatever its date its certainly more timely than anything being put forward by F-35 proponents... well, short of continued LockMart propaganda. In your particular case, just a few short posts back you spoke of F-35 combat performance/capability but provided no actual substantiation to that end... just what F-35 combat might you be referring to? you speak of "technicians working out glitches"; point in fact, if you actually read the article, LockMart stacked the deck by putting many of it's own contractors in key spots to cover potential problems that might arise... it also provided dedicated airplanes to courier parts as may be required - hardly what would be the actual real-life combat scenario. The USS Wasp operational test, which seems no more than a PR exercise, simply confirmed that beyond the highly publicized questions regarding the F-35’s combat effectiveness, more pressing issues remain about its basic reliability. If the most expensive weapons system in history can’t even get off the ground often enough to train pilots adequately, then all the money spent on it has been wasted.All this is in addition to the fact that the F-35B is running on software and hardware in some cases that only gives it a fraction of its intended capabilities and weapons options. This means its effectiveness against any sort of robust foe is highly questionable and its ability to provide precision close air support is lacking compared to fighters and attack aircraft currently in the inventory. Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 another extensive 'damning report'... very recent (August 2015)... surely to be waved off and casually dismissed by F-35 proponents here:Thunder without Lightning --- The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Huh. And is Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert also lacking in credibility? Here's what he says: Nope, but then you're not quoting the entire text, and more importantly, the context of his answer......which, as I cited several times in the other F-35 thread (and by cited I mean presented the entire video of said speech), Adm. Greenert is referring to a fleet wide context of systems and the USN's current deficit in standoff capabilities, from everything from sub or surfaced launched cruise missiles, to naval gunfire support, to munitions carried by its aircraft. Nonsense. The butterball's operational costs are through the roof - and it has nothing to do with procurement costs. No, reality........you cited a graph from 2012, at such time, the USN only had a handful of F-35B/C aircraft in its inventory.....of course the cost of operating a then test aircraft is going to be expensive. Furthermore, from your own cite: The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs ‘owing to the absence of actual in-service data’. “IHS Jane’s does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs,” it says. Thanks for confirming my point.......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 another extensive 'damning report'... very recent (August 2015)... surely to be waved off and casually dismissed by F-35 proponents here: Thunder without Lightning --- The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program What? Nothing from project ploughshares or Greenpeace? -------- Any comment from the Waldo on the Trudeau Government maintaining its membership in the F-35 program, sending officials to the next partners meeting in Italy in a couple weeks and committing to an additional $150 million in development monies? Sunny ways ahead for a Canadian F-35....... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 not to mention irrelevant... Not when it comes to using Pentagon data to assail the F-35 programme. Typical..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Thanks for confirming my point.......... speaking of confirming a point... could you? You perpetually speak of "eventual" full production F-35 costs and how those costs will be so much lower than what's typically being attributed to the F-35 in relation to current LRIP costing. Your, "you just wait" lacks a sense of certainty, wouldn't you say? here's the thing: a few short posts back you pulled out a tired nugget in regards Norway's decision... which, as we went over way back, per Wikileaks, was a much vaunted assault by LockMart to make that sale... a sale that only became conditional on Norway's missile production being accepted into the F-35 fold. Norway didn't make that decision on the merit of the F-35 - how could it have; at that point there was even more vapour than today! But I digress: the point I'm making on your Norway reference is that the numbers continue to "potentials"... even the 24 approved by the Norway government are only done so in blocks of 6; that is to say, monies released will only happen for 6 aircraft at a time, and another review will occur at each point to confirm whether continued purchase will occur. The UK has pulled back on its commitment to purchase the initial figure it provided. The U.S. military will never purchase the 2400 number so regularly touted in those early days... of which cost projections are heavily influenced by. When you speak of F-35 costs, and you continue to, just how many planes actually being acquired are you basing your cost figures/projections upon (rather, the ones you're parroting from LockMart)? Are you able to itemize those numbers per country? Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 What? Nothing from project ploughshares or Greenpeace? that's quite a testy comment. I appreciate that report has you so flummoxed! Any comment from the Waldo on the Trudeau Government maintaining its membership in the F-35 program, sending officials to the next partners meeting in Italy in a couple weeks and committing to an additional $150 million in development monies? aren't those monies already paid? An additional $150 million? There is no commitment to purchase attached to belonging, is there? Never has been, right? What does Canada get for continuing to participate... oh, that's right... Canadian companies can continue to bid on contracts. . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 speaking of confirming a point... could you? You perpetually speak of "eventual" full production F-35 costs and how those costs will be so much lower than what's typically being attributed to the F-35 in relation to current LRIP costing. Your, "you just wait" lacks a sense of certainty, wouldn't you say? Not the slightest.......per the head of the RAAF, just over one month ago, they will be paying a flyaway cost of $90 million (AUD) per F-35A, which is the latest figures based on current currency exchange rates (Our dollars are near parity presently). Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Not the slightest.......per the head of the RAAF, just over one month ago, they will be paying a flyaway cost of $90 million (AUD) per F-35A, which is the latest figures based on current currency exchange rates (Our dollars are near parity presently). I am shocked that you gave me a 'go fetch' link... and I'm even more shocked that you're taking liberty with your own link. Here, I fetched... and I quote: Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Seventeen billion, sorry. That includes the purchase of 72 aircraft. The first aircraft were purchased in LRIP 6. The value of that was $126.7 million for those first two aircraft. Over the life of the production, which will go out to 2023, we are expecting the average cost of our aircraft to be $90 million each your "will be" seems at odds with the "we are expecting" most vested interests of the Australian Air Force guy so entrenched in their F-35 decision - imagine that. I take it you aren't in position to provide the current tally of, per nation, procurement... proposed versus actual? Even proposed... I'll take that too; well, so long as your proposed numbers reflect on the cuts from the original proposals - yes? Quote
Smallc Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I'm wondering if Canada openly stating it will drop the jet won't change some minds. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) I'm wondering if Canada openly stating it will drop the jet won't change some minds. Not really...what are the practical, long term alternatives ? Cost savings are marginal at best...to prove what...a political promise ? Edited December 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Not really...what are the practical, long term alternatives ? Cost savings are marginal at best...to prove what...a political promise ? Super Hornets for one. Huge savings, and a plane that actually works. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 After the Marine Corp claimed the F-35 was combat ready, a DOD report contradicted that. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 After the Marine Corp claimed the F-35 was combat ready, a DOD report contradicted that. Careful. some here think that report is over a year old. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 This recent report on the F-35 reiterates what the other sources have reported: 1. The butterball is too heavy, too sluggish and too slow to be effective in air to air combat. 2. It's beyond visual range capabilities are overstated and any advantage relative to the competition will decline over time. 3. The stealth advantage is already questionable even with today's technology and will almost certainly decline over time. 4. It's too flimsy and lightly armed to be effective at ground support. 5. It's too expensive. In other words it was a bad idea, poorly executed. 1. The F-35 is less maneuverable than many of the 4th-generation fighter aircraft it is intended to replace or those it would likely face in combat, making it unlikely to be effective in within-visual-range (WVR) air-to-air engagements.2.The F-35’s small internal payload capacity will significantly limit its effectiveness in beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air engagements, and, to a lesser extent, strike missions against surface targets. The F-35 will also likely have difficulty generating high rates of sorties to deliver payloadsto targetsover time.3. The F-35’s short range means that it will be of limited use in geographically expansive theaters like the Asia-Pacific or against so-called anti-access threats whereby adversaries can target forward airbases.4. The F-35’s survivability depends on stealth technology that is at risk for obsolescence and will become increasingly ineffective over the 56 -year lifetime of the program. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) In other words it was a bad idea, poorly executed. And yet, it actually exists and is ramping up production for several nations. Meanwhile, Canada is enjoying its very typical defense procurement circle jerk that ends when all other delay tactics have been exhausted. Edited December 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Careful. some here think that report is over a year old. "Some around here" barely post any links at all and keep on repeating the the same tired tripe. It seems like the only people in favour of the butterball fall into one of three camps: Those who don't know anything Those who have a financial interest in the butterball Those who have a career interest in the butterball It seems to me that virtually all of the independent viewpoints are critical. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 And yet, it actually exists and is ramping up production for several nations. Meanwhile, Canada is enjoying its very typical defense procurement circle jerk that ends when all other options have been exhausted. Ah. Didn't want to read the report, eh? I don't blame you, it's pretty depressing. Spending a trillion dollars + on a plane that was supposed to do everything but really isn't very good at anything. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Ah. Didn't want to read the report, eh? I don't blame you, it's pretty depressing. Spending a trillion dollars + on a plane that was supposed to do everything but really isn't very good at anything. The report doesn't matter....other defense programs have proceeded in the exact same manner. The United States cancels more defense programs than Canada will ever start. You guys have made even routine shipbuilding look like an insurmountable task. Amazing amount of hand wringing that actually delivers...nothing. Edited December 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 "Some around here" barely post any links at all and keep on repeating the the same tired tripe. It seems like the only people in favour of the butterball fall into one of three camps: Those who don't know anything Those who have a financial interest in the butterball Those who have a career interest in the butterball It seems to me that virtually all of the independent viewpoints are critical. And it seems to me that, aside from the hi-tech difficulties with this thing such as stealth that isn't stealthy, you can't see out of the damn thing and an engine (one only) that burns way too hot, it just turns out that, despite LockMarts valiant efforts, one plane can't fulfill all the roles the butterball is supposed to. Aerodynamics seems to have the upper hand. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 The report doesn't matter....other defense programs have proceeded in the exact same manner. The United States cancels more defense programs than Canada will ever start. You guys have made even routine shipbuilding look like an insurmountable task. Amazing amount of hand wringing that actually delivers...nothing. You're off topic - go and start a thread about shipbuilding programs that go nowhere. This thread is about a butterball program that goes nowhere - as it should. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 You're off topic - go and start a thread about shipbuilding programs that go nowhere. This thread is about a butterball program that goes nowhere - as it should. No it isn't....your new government had declared that the F-35 is too expensive for miserly Canada. There are now more F-35s than airworthy CF-18s. The CF-18 replacement process is a never ending circle jerk. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 And it seems to me that, aside from the hi-tech difficulties with this thing such as stealth that isn't stealthy, you can't see out of the damn thing and an engine (one only) that burns way too hot, it just turns out that, despite LockMarts valiant efforts, one plane can't fulfill all the roles the butterball is supposed to. Aerodynamics seems to have the upper hand. Yup. And that one big hot engine will make an enticing target for IRST systems. Imagine when the F-35 exhausts the few weapons that will fit in its internal weapons bay and turns for home. Not only is the butterball too slow to outrun anything but that huge hot engine will be an inviting bullseye. What a disaster. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
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.