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

waldo · December 16, 2015

Obfuscation? I read and cited the concerns from the actual report, not the "summation" of POGO........

Again, I'm using the actual report, not a "summation" from an anti Pentagon/defense group that clearly has an axe to grind.........the lack of F-35 stationary from POGO's summation is noted!!!

I just knew I could tease this anti-POGO comment from you! Imagine that, oversight on the U.S. government/military brings such a reaction from you!

tell you what: the POGO summation stands in balance to your complete ignoring of it. I quoted a few gems from it... what within the actual report doesn't match that POGO summation - waiting... waiting... waiting!

oh my! Further to the prior noted... and very recent... 3 separate focused concerns over U.S. F-35 funding and overall program requirements, along comes this lil' ditty from the U.S. Congressional Research Service: The Air Force Aviation Investment Challenge - Dec 11, 2015

.

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

I just knew I could tease this anti-POGO comment from you! Imagine that, oversight on the U.S. government/military brings such a reaction from you!

.

And imagine you using a source with ties to Winslow Wheeler in an attempt to further your anti-F-35 agenda.

tell you what: the POGO summation stands in balance to your complete ignoring of it. I quoted a few gems from it... what within the actual report doesn't match that POGO summation - waiting... waiting... waiting!

Why would I discuss the "POGO summation" when the entire report is available to discuss? I've no issue with discussing the actual subject mater verses a biased "summation" from a group with an anti-F-35 agenda........

oh my! Further to the prior noted... and very recent... 3 separate focused concerns over U.S. F-35 funding and overall program requirements, along comes this lil' ditty from the U.S. Congressional Research Service: The Air Force Aviation Investment Challenge - Dec 11, 2015

And as confirmed with the previous Pentagon statement, absent a Republican administration with increased funding, the option to defer other programs (see LRS- are present. From your cite:

As part of its markup of the Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget, Congress created the National SeaBased Deterrence Fund (NSBDF), a fund in the DOD budget that was to be separate from the Navy’s regular shipbuilding account, to fund development of SSBN(X), the replacement of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. This was based on two arguments: (1) that the strategic deterrence mission of the SSBN(X) was a national mission, not unique to the Navy, and (2) that funding the procurement of SSBN(X)s outside the Navy’s shipbuilding budget would preserve Navy shipbuilding funds for other Navy shipbuilding programs. The same arguments could be applied to LRS-B

So the precedent is already set to fund the next generation bomber outside the USAF budget, as will be done with the USN's new boomers (The British are also taking a similar approach with their nuclear deterrent), as such, said issues would be alleviated, both the impact on the next ~4 years R&D budget, and the post ~2020 procurement budget.

As further noted in your cite:

As noted earlier, the Air Force has already deferred some new starts to keep its modernization programs within a constrained topline. Further delaying or restricting the growth of T-X, JSTARS Recap, CRH, and/or PAR could help synchronize outyear program growth so that they are not all peaking at the same time as LRS-B or each other. However, these programs exist because older platforms are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and operate. Further deferring them would continue those costs while extending systems—often many decades old—with declining capability. This is even more relevant in the case of LRS-B, as the B-52s it is intended to replace are already programmed to remain in service longer than any operational combat aircraft in history. Slowing or deferring LRS-B could require prolonging the B-52 fleet’s life into technically—and budgetarily—unknown territory.

In other words, funding the next generation bomber outside of the USAF budget, well retiring the B-1B (which the USAF has already tried to reduce its fleet of) combined with a slower rate production LRS-B/ B-3 bomber replacing it..........and keep buggering on with the B-52s which, despite their age, still have one of the highest availability rates of any Western military aircraft (just over 80%) and a desert full of spare parts bought and paid for........if they were really ambitious, the could give the fleet yet another service life extension to push it past its ~2040 retirement out towards the 2060s........

waldo · December 16, 2015

And imagine you using a source with ties to Winslow Wheeler in an attempt to further your anti-F-35 agenda.

Why would I discuss the "POGO summation" when the entire report is available to discuss? I've no issue with discussing the actual subject mater verses a biased "summation" from a group with an anti-F-35 agenda........

the 2 names on that POGO article (Pentagon Testing Office Calls Foul on F-35B “Operational Test”) ... aren't 'your nemesis' Winslow Wheeler!

does anyone posting in this thread... on this board... who is not a "F-35 fanboy" have your declared "anti-F-35 agenda"?

POGO is a 35 year old organization focused on U.S. government/military oversight... and exposing waste/fraud/abuse within it. Clearly, its history of exposing problems/concerns within the F-35 program has hit its mark with you! The fact it relies heavily on internal U.S. government/military reports from the U.S. GAO and the U.S. Pentagon (both public and FOI sourced), adds to its credibility. Clearly, in your mind, its just a, as you say, "group with an anti-F-35 agenda"!

the POGO summation stands and you won't touch it! That's exactly the response you took whenever I put up extracts from those past U.S. GAO reports so critical of the F-35... you wouldn't touch them... you completely ignored them. In this case, again, the POGO summation of that failed F-35 trial stands and you refuse to take up my challenge to state what within that summation doesn't align with the internal Pentagon report POGO itself sourced via a FOI request to the U.S. government. Of course you do. :lol:

waldo · December 16, 2015

I don't have a subscription to Politico to realize a link to the full article... this Politico teaser will have to do:

PRO SCOOP — F-35 CYBERSECURITY TESTS DELAYED OVER VULNERABILITY CONCERNS, our colleague Austin Wright has the story: “Military officials have delayed key cybersecurity testing of the F-35 fighter jet out of concern the drills could damage the sophisticated software that serves as the backbone for the next-generation aircraft's operations, irking the Pentagon's own weapons testers and members of Congress. The delays, which have not previously been reported and were confirmed by the F-35 Joint Program Office, are the latest in a string of controversies surrounding the military's most costly weapon system, which is years behind schedule and over cost.

“Those who are pushing for the drills to be conducted as planned say there’s irony in the program office’s concerns that cyber tests could damage the fighter program and disrupt real-world F-35 operations. Such concerns, they say, are exactly why the tests are necessary for the Lockheed Martin-built plane that’s often described as a flying computer and is intended to ensure the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps can maintain air dominance for decades to come.”

apparently... the cyber-security tests on F-35 software would be too, uhhh..... too real-world!

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

the 2 names on that POGO article (Pentagon Testing Office Calls Foul on F-35B “Operational Test”) ... aren't 'your nemesis' Winslow Wheeler!

Nah, I'm sure Wheeler is at arms length :lol:

waldo · December 16, 2015

oh my! Further to the prior noted... and very recent... 3 separate focused concerns over U.S. F-35 funding and overall program requirements, along comes this lil' ditty from the U.S. Congressional Research Service: The Air Force Aviation Investment Challenge - Dec 11, 2015

Air Force May Be Forced To ‘Defer Or Delay’ F-35...

It’s a basic problem we’ve written about before. The Air Force faces a funding crunch in the next six years as the F-35 and the tanker programs ramp up, the B-3 (Long Range Strike Bomber) program gets rolling and the service keeps buying drones and C-130s.

As report author J.J. Gertler of CRS notes, “the four procurement programs (F-35A, KC-46, C-130, and RPA) account for 99% of the Air Force’s aircraft acquisition budget” in fiscal 2016. Add these weapons: the proposed T-X trainer, JSTARS recapitalization, Combat Rescue Helicopter and new Air Force Ones; and you’ve got one big wave. In fact, it may be a budget tsunami, but Gertler doest’t call it that — yet..

“The net effect of starting these new programs atop a full procurement budget is a classic ‘bow wave’ of procurement, with increasing numbers of programs with growing budgets all trying to fit within a fixed budget topline at the same time while building requirements for increased future funding,” Gertler notes.

(Breaking D readers will remember that Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition, has said that the F-35 is no longer protected from budget depredations.)

.

waldo · December 16, 2015

Nah, I'm sure Wheeler is at arms length

the POGO summation stands and you won't touch it! That's exactly the response you took whenever I put up extracts from those past U.S. GAO reports so critical of the F-35... you wouldn't touch them... you completely ignored them. In this case, again, the POGO summation of that failed F-35 trial stands and you refuse to take up my challenge to state what within that summation doesn't align with the internal Pentagon report POGO itself sourced via a FOI request to the U.S. government. Of course you do.

.

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

I don't have a subscription to Politico to realize a link to the full article... this Politico teaser will have to do:

apparently... the cyber-security tests on F-35 software would be too, uhhh..... too real-world!

Concerns brought up and addressed several years ago, brought up again by a "report" from a Korean English media company that suggested hackers could obtain control of the fleet in mid flight............what, no reports from TMZ or ET? :lol:

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

the POGO summation stands and you won't touch it!

.

No, I won't, as I cited and addressed the actual concerns from the actual report........not the "summation" post Wheeler spin-cycle :lol:

waldo · December 16, 2015

Concerns brought up and addressed several years ago, brought up again by a "report" from a Korean English media company that suggested hackers could obtain control of the fleet in mid flight............what, no reports from TMZ or ET?

huh! Interesting... those reports on the refusal of the F-35 JSF office to undertake the cyber-security testing on its maintenance computer are recent... days and a week or so old now... and they originate from Politico... not your Korean English media reference obfuscation! :lol: As I said, apparently... too real-world for the F-35 JSF office (and LockMart, of course)! But please, please... how was cyber-security so addressed, as you say, "several years ago"... and why would there be any delay in testing something that was "addressed several years ago"?

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

oh my! Further to the prior noted... and very recent... 3 separate focused concerns over U.S. F-35 funding and overall program requirements, along comes this lil' ditty from the U.S. Congressional Research Service: The Air Force Aviation Investment Challenge - Dec 11, 2015

.

Another "summation" of an actual report I already addressed several posts ago? :lol:

Waldo, in the face of the actual reports being available, why would you waste time (or expect me to waste mine) discussing "summations" of said reports? I can appreciate that for many, certain subjects require a "translation" to layman's terms..........but I have no requirement (in this field), and though you may not have direct knowledge of specifics and nuances, I would assume you're more than capable of rising above a media slanted dumbing down........

What you propose to waste time on is akin to discussing the merits of a given movie based on reviews verses actually seeing it in person and forming ones own opinion.

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

huh! Interesting... those reports on the refusal of the F-35 JSF office to undertake the cyber-security testing on its maintenance computer are recent... days and a week or so old now... and they originate from Politico... not your Korean English media reference obfuscation! As I said, apparently... too real-world for the F-35 JSF office (and LockMart, of course)! But please, please... how was cyber-security so addressed, as you say, "several years ago"... and why would there be any delay in testing something that was "addressed several years ago"?

No, the Politico story is based off an over 1 month old story first "reported" in Korean media..........and its laughable, SKYNET is further grounded in reality then the prospect it suggested.........

waldo · December 16, 2015

No, I won't, as I cited and addressed the actual concerns from the actual report........not the "summation" post Wheeler spin-cycle

you called it a prototype... how can a prototype be designated "combat ready"?

does your understanding of "combat ready" include testing without key weapons systems, without required advanced software, without ordinance, etc..... that in spite of non-real world direct assistance from a myriad of LockMart and LockMart contracted employees, no more than 2 or 3 of the 6 test F-35s were ever in a flyable status on any given day within the 12 day trial... That's your understanding of the IOC designation?

.

waldo · December 16, 2015

No, the Politico story is based off an over 1 month old story first "reported" in Korean media..........and its laughable, SKYNET is further grounded in reality then the prospect it suggested.........

have the required cyber-security tests... for something you declared addressed years ago... been done - yes or no?

waldo · December 16, 2015

Another "summation" of an actual report I already addressed several posts ago?

in that budget crunch, your wishful thinking is all that prevents you from acknowledging the F-35 is not untouchable in regards delays/cuts... again, as Frank Kendall, the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, recently stated: "The F-35 is not — it is impossible in this budget to entirely protect it, just put it that way. So it's not entirely fenced. I can't say it's entirely fenced [off from cuts]"

and as I referred to previously, the overall program review (focused on financing and overall numbers of F-35 required) being called for by U.S. Senator McCain (Chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee)... and the need acknowledged by the U.S. Joint Chief to review the overall F-35 program to determine actual F-35 numbers needed into the future - of course you simply spun those as "nothing to see here"! Of course you did.

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

in that budget crunch, your wishful thinking is all that prevents you from acknowledging the F-35 is not untouchable in regards delays/cuts... again, as Frank Kendall, the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, recently stated: "The F-35 is not — it is impossible in this budget to entirely protect it, just put it that way. So it's not entirely fenced. I can't say it's entirely fenced [off from cuts]"

The same report that clearly stated all programs would be reviewed and that the F-35 offered the most combat capability for money spent?

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

you called it a prototype... how can a prototype be designated "combat ready"?

The Wasp trials were pre IOC, hence, not "combat ready".

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

have the required cyber-security tests... for something you declared addressed years ago... been done - yes or no?

I have no idea, and if I did know I wouldn't likely be able to tell you.............none the less, the crux of the recent stories is to suggest that hackers could hack the F-35 in flight which is laughable. As addressed years ago, and discussed in previous threads, hackers can't send commands upstream a downlink used by the F-35's ALIS......not going to happen.

The concern, as demonstrated several years ago by alleged Chinese state sponsored hackers, is obtaining information transferred through commercial networks, downstream from insecure civilian suppliers. Of course this no different then any system, used by any Government, that exchanges data through the "internets"...........and is one of the main limiting factors with the use of UAV's, which due to bandwidth constraints within military networks, did require the use of commercial systems, and likely resulted in operational UAV's in Iraq (in ~2007) having their live video feeds (not control of up/downlinks) hacked/eavesdropped.

Derek 2.0 · December 17, 2015

in that budget crunch, your wishful thinking is all that prevents you from acknowledging the F-35 is not untouchable in regards delays/cuts...

An update of said "budget crunch":

Summaries of the omnibus states its $111 billion for procurement and upgrades includes 68 F-35 joint-strike fighters; in all $1.33 billion for 11 additional F-35s: six more for the Marine Corps, three more for the Air Force and two more F-35s for the Navy. The bill includes $1.01 billion for 12 more EA-18G Growlers and Super Hornets, and $80 million for four more MQ-9 Reaper aircraft.

Note the average per aircraft cost trajectory, well being cognisant both averages contain more expensive versions of each aircraft.......the vaunted baseline Super Hornet, well getting a one year reprieve, just increased in cost ~15-25%......and DoD is buying additional F-35s.

And before the repeated meme of why the USN is buying additional Super Hornets rears it head, it should be noted the actual end user of said Super Hornets..............maybe the new smoke machine had lead to the drastic Super Hornet price increase

bush_cheney2004 · December 17, 2015

An update of said "budget crunch":

Some budget crunch...the United States is buying both F-35s and Super Hornets....and lots of other stuff.

Canada is still trying to figure out what to buy and when to buy it.

Smallc · December 17, 2015

Someone told me there wouldn't be any more Super Hornets.

Also, you're mixing the cost for the F/A-18 (5) and E/A - 18 (7); more dishonest than usual. The Price for the F/A - 18, according to the information, is $70M - less than in 2013.

Smallc · December 17, 2015

Canada is still trying to figure out what to buy and when to buy it.

That's right, Canadians tend to have many varying priorities. You should try it.

Smallc · December 17, 2015

As an addition to my earlier post:

The Defense Department portion of the spending bill includes $111 billion for new equipment and upgrades, including several items beyond what the Navy and Marine Corps asked for in their budget request. The bill proposes adding $660 million for seven E/A-18G Growlers and $350 million for five F/A-18 Super Hornets

http://www.ndia.org/Advocacy/PolicyPublicationsResources/Documents/FY%2013%20Weapons%20Systems%20Cost.pdf

Smallc · December 17, 2015

As an aside:

The bill would also add $780 million for six additional F-35B Joint Strike Fighters for the Marine Corps and $255 million for two additional F-35C JSFs for the Navy; bringing the total to 15 F-35Bs and six F-35Cs in FY 2016…

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/16/final-fy-2016-spending-bill-released-funds-super-hornets-growlers-additional-f-35s

Summaries of the omnibus states its $111 billion for procurement and upgrades includes 68 F-35 joint-strike fighters; in all $1.33 billion for 11 additional F-35s: six more for the Marine Corps, three more for the Air Force and two more F-35s for the Navy. The bill includes $1.01 billion for 12 more EA-18G Growlers and Super Hornets, and $80 million for four more MQ-9 Reaper aircraft…

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/12/16/congress-includes-5727b-dod-spending-bill/77411080/

So:

The F - 35B is $130M and the F - 35C is ~$128M

Given that amount for each and a total of $1.33B For 11 F - 35s, 3 being F - 35As, we get a cost of $100M for each F-35A, or $138M Canadian. At this exchange, the Super Hornet, per these numbers, is at ~$97M - both being more than budgeted. The dollar is not on an upward trend. Houston, we have a problem.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Smallc