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

[Derek 2.0]

"Lorne Thompson"... from probably the biggest F-35 fanboy there is! Have you no shame? The only legitimate accounting of test progress comes from either the U.S. GAO review or from the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation. In the past I've put forward posts rererencing from both sources detailing the abysmal testing progress and results... posts that you completely ignored! I

I don't ignore, more of dismiss, since by the time said reports are tabled, and the anti-f-35 crowd blogs about them, they are dated........the program isn't in stasis........

Like your above mention of the 2015 FY appropriations, as confirmed by the Waldo math's breakdown of the then planned purchase........the problem, LRIP 8 was signed nearly 6 months later, at a reduced cost, for more aircraft........

[waldo]

Of course, since you're stuck on LRIP 6/7 pricing, since fiscal year 2015 appropriations were initially requested in the Spring of 2014......nearly two years ago and four production contracts ago.

nice try! It's the most complete and representative appropriations bill released. In your selective, self-serving D2.0 math done on a subset of costing you haven't even seen the breakout on the larger full costing... nor have the authors behind your referenced links... cause those articles sure don't go into any details in that regard. And interestingly, even your referenced articles don't try to "squeeze out" so-called fly-away costing for the respective variants... wonder why, hey!

[Derek 2.0]

nice try! It's the most complete and representative appropriations bill released.

You can laugh all you like Waldo, said appropriations doc was released, months prior to LRIP 8 being signed......LRIP 8 the contract that also included the provisions to produce the first F-35s for the Norwegians and Italians.........since that time:

Now get in your garbage fueled Delorean and join us in the present day

[waldo]

Like your above mention of the 2015 FY appropriations, as confirmed by the Waldo math's breakdown of the then planned purchase........the problem, LRIP 8 was signed nearly 6 months later, at a reduced cost, for more aircraft........

hey now! I'll take that kind of freebee any ole time you lay one up... from your own referenced link, such a phenominal price reduction from LRIP 7 to 8!

the average unit price for all three variants of the airframe in LRIP 8 is approximately 3.6 percent lower than the previous contract.

when that LockMart propaganda piece still closes with, "The U.S., eight Partner nations, and Foreign Military Sales participants have announced plans to procure more than 3,100 F-35 aircraft over the life of the program."... how's that working out so far, in terms of already announced reductions, signed contracts and actual monies paid?

.

[Derek 2.0]

hey now! I'll take that kind of freebee any ole time you lay one up... from your own referenced link, such a phenominal price reduction from LRIP 7 to 8!

Good, you've moved forward to Fall of 2014 and LRIP 8.......now just another 13 months to get to LRIP 10 and the present day

[waldo]

Now get in your garbage fueled Delorean and join us in the present day

couldn't resist the porn, hey! Since you speak of Italy, is that the same Italy that reduced its commitment from 131 to 90 because of excessive cost... is that the same Italy that has deferred actual decisions on program funding?

or the recent days announcement from Denmark: Denmark Further Postpones Fighter Selection Until 2016

of course, you'll just dismiss these examples of legitimate funding pressures facing some countries... the same way you completely dismissed all those recent U.S. political/military personnel raised concerns over U.S. program number requirements versus projected available funding. You have this absolute and unshakable belief that the F-35 funding will "just be there"... and all other requirements from any military branch will simply take a back-seat to the F-35!

.

[waldo]

Good, you've moved forward to Fall of 2014 and LRIP 8.......now just another 13 months to get to LRIP 10 and the present day

you show me where the DOD doesn't spend those appropriation dollars... you show me where LockMart returns them!

like I said, you haven't seen the bill... it hasn't been officially released to the public. You have no idea how that overall defense appropriations funding number is split out. In your typical blowhardy fashion you take an article and you pull out a slice of it and proceed to do your best to declare actual costs. I'm surprised you can't manage to put forward an actual "flyaway cost accounting" directly from the U.S. DOD... or from the JSF Office... or from LockMart! Oh wait, I've challenged you on that several times in the past, right? Nothing changes... you continue to ply your nonsense.

[waldo]

let me add to your collection of representative graphics: of course... that one didn't actually fly, right?

[Derek 2.0]

you show me where the DOD doesn't spend those appropriation dollars... you show me where LockMart returns them!

Why would I do that? Due to the then lowered cost, contrasted between the Spring 2014 appropriations and the Fall 2014 contract signing, the DoD was able to purchase additional aircraft.

like I said, you haven't seen the bill... it hasn't been officially released to the public.

I know, I said that numerous times.......LRIP 9 was signed little over a month ago, and LRIP 10 is expected to be signed in the coming weeks.

You have no idea how that overall defense appropriations funding number is split out.

Sure I do, I provided several links (One from the USNI) with the dollar amount for the 11 additional F-35s and the breakdown of the versions being purchased.........simple grade school math applied and: $295 million/ 3 F-35As = ?

[Derek 2.0]

of course, you'll just dismiss these examples of legitimate funding pressures facing some countries...

.

Of course I will.........for example, have the Italians opted for another "cheaper" type (over the F-35) to meet their aircraft requirements?

[waldo]

Of course I will.........for example, have the Italians opted for another "cheaper" type (over the F-35) to meet their aircraft requirements?

you mean the Italians that cut their commitment from 131 down to 90? You mean the Italians who have chosen to defer anything to do with actual numbers and related funding... where speculation abounds that, given fiscal constraints, another reduction seems imminent.

apparently you chose not to bite on the Denmark reference - imagine all those Danish politicians so very upset at the refusal of the Danish air force to address the significant F-35 testing deficiencies brought forward within that scathing Pentagon report! Imagine wanting accountability!

Edited December 27, 2015 by waldo

[waldo]

Why would I do that? Due to the then lowered cost, contrasted between the Spring 2014 appropriations and the Fall 2014 contract signing, the DoD was able to purchase additional aircraft.

say what! Are you saying there was no special funding... additional funding... allotted? Is that what you're saying?

[waldo]

Sure I do, I provided several links (One from the USNI) with the dollar amount for the 11 additional F-35s and the breakdown of the versions being purchased.........simple grade school math applied and: $295 million/ 3 F-35As = ?

your fantasy math does not equate to an official "flyaway cost"! Like I keep asking you: why doesn't the U.S. DOD... why doesn't the JSF office... why doesn't LockMart... why don't any of them publish a formal identified "flyaway cost"? Why do they leave that to all the blogosphere fanboys to do their magic math? Seems to me that figure should be... the figure... they would want to trumpet. Well, trumpet if it actually was coming down like all those doing, as you say, "simple grade school math" are speculating on!

why no formal publishing of a recognized flyaway cost?

.

[waldo]

IOC is months away, and as cited earlier, the first USAF squadron will go into the pool of combat capable aircraft.........

just like the Marines F-35B IOC? Like that "combat capable"?

now we've had some chuckles over that fake declared U.S. Marines F-35B IOC certification... but now, when you begin to tout the U.S. Air Force F-35A IOC as "months away... going into a pool of combat capable aircraft", well, thanks for another freebee. Keep em coming!

Billions In F-35 Upgrades Debated

While Congress and the media focus on immediate issues with the F-35’s ejection seat, the program has begun working on a long-range modernization plan to upgrade the Joint Strike Fighter’s combat power.

This modernization package, with the so-called Block 4 software upgrade at its core, is essential to the aircraft reaching its “full warfighting capability,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, the Air Force’s F-35 integration director, told Congress yesterday. The Air Force F-35A model will reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in December 2016, but it won’t have all the advertised features — i.e. full capability — at that time. The modernization effort will cost $2.6 billion in R&D through 2020 alone.

“We will improve electronic attack [e.g. jamming]. We will improve electronic warfare [in general]. We will improve the radar,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, speaking to reporters after the House air-land forces subcommittee hearing. “We will add many weapons in Block 4, many unique weapons that the [foreign] partners need and use.” Those first two improvements are particularly important because the Air Force has said the F-35 won’t need the help of dedicated jamming aircraft like the Navy’s EA-18G Growler.

oh my! The U.S. Air Force F-35A lacking full capability at IOC... where have we seen that before? Just like that fake U.S. Marines F-35B IOC, hey! But what the hey... a $2.6 billion modernization program for the F-35A to "2020 alone"... just to bring the F-35 up to "advertized LockMart hype"! Oh my! Now some, certainly not the waldo, are suggesting this lil' LockMart dodge with a separate "modernization initiative" is simply a blatant move to disguise additional failure/delay as just "another separate program change"!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

The F-35 JSF Program is already looking past Canada's indecisiveness for CF-18 replacement with potentially more F-35C Pentagon orders thru 2021. The program office reported acceptance of all planned 2015 production of 45 units, for a total of 154 to date. History tells us that Canada will do what it always does for military procurements, and take forever to do it. Discussing what other nations are actually doing today will have to do for now.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-not-ruled-out-of-canadian-fighter-competition-420264/

[On Guard for Thee]

The F-35 JSF Program is already looking past Canada's indecisiveness for CF-18 replacement with potentially more F-35C Pentagon orders thru 2021. The program office reported acceptance of all planned 2015 production of 45 units, for a total of 154 to date. History tells us that Canada will do what it always does for military procurements, and take forever to do it. Discussing what other nations are actually doing today will have to do for now.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-not-ruled-out-of-canadian-fighter-competition-420264/

I guess when you're in up to your eyeballs such as you guys are, you have to clutch at whatever straw you can fabricate. After all, the taxpayer may eventually come calling/voting.

[segnosaur]

your fantasy math does not equate to an official "flyaway cost"! Like I keep asking you: why doesn't the U.S. DOD... why doesn't the JSF office... why doesn't LockMart... why don't any of them publish a formal identified "flyaway cost"?

.

Well, for one, the assembly line has not started full production runs. Until the plane is out of the prototype/low rate production phase, you can't really reliably state an actual "flyaway cost", since the price of assembly tends to go down once you enter full production.

Not sure why you consider this issue so significant. While the flyaway cost may have some use for vague price comparisons between planes, its an imperfect measure, since buyers often make modifications to the base model (which increases the price). For that reason, pointing to the actual price paid by a country (i.e. the amount stated in the contract between a government and the manufacturer) is probably just as useful (if not more) than looking at a stated flyaway cost. (And, since prices tend to decrease as production rates increase, future prices of the F35 will probably be lower than current prices, until full production rates are hit.)

Of course I will.........for example, have the Italians opted for another "cheaper" type (over the F-35) to meet their aircraft requirements?

you mean the Italians that cut their commitment from 131 down to 90?

Yes, the Italians reduced their planned purchase of the F35. So has the U.S. So what?

In defense procurement, its all too common for countries to plan certain purchases, and then reduce the planned order. Its happened with a lot of planes. For example, both Germany and Austria reduced their commitments to the Eurofighter Typhoon. In the 2000s, Israel had an option for (I think) 60 F16 but only bought 52. And India canceled a fighter program that may have seen them purchase >100 Rafales. About the only reason you don't hear of reductions in orders of the F18 Super Hornet is that there are so few users of that plane. If you're pointing to reduced orders as justification for your flawed opinion of the F35, then you are likely a huge hypocrite.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579393103247459842

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/austria-resolves-eurofighter-dispute-with-reduced-or-215290/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/08/09/analysts-indias-fighter-buy-cancellation-hurts-industry-air-force/31159223/

Countries may cut defense purchases for a number of reasons: Economic conditions may worsen, a change in leadership may mean decisions are made base on "looking different" than the previous government. Politicians may also use jet purchases as "piggy banks"... using savings from cutting orders to fund pork barrel projects.

So, the fact that some countries reduced their planned purchases of the F35 is neither surprising nor alarming. Its more or less just par for the course. The only way it would actually mean anything is if countries started outright cancelling their F35 purchases in order to buy other planes (which of course they aren't).

[segnosaur]

I guess when you're in up to your eyeballs such as you guys are, you have to clutch at whatever straw you can fabricate.

What, you mean like those who oppose the F35 tend to clutch at straws by pointing out incorrect data and irrelevancies?

Such as the way they keep pointing out the engine fire on the F35, while ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that fixed the problem?

Such as the way they keep saying it lost in a dogfight to an F16, when it was never actually IN a dogfight with an F16?

Yeah it is rather sad when people clutch at straws like that.

[Rue]

What, you mean like those who oppose the F35 tend to clutch at straws by pointing out incorrect data and irrelevancies?

Such as the way they keep pointing out the engine fire on the F35, while ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that fixed the problem?

Such as the way they keep saying it lost in a dogfight to an F16, when it was never actually IN a dogfight with an F16?

Yeah it is rather sad when people clutch at straws like that.

Come on. You came on here to defend the F35 posing your argument as if the F35 has only one problem which is fixed.

Here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3

The numerous continuing problems of the F35 are not straws. They are real defects causing this craft to sky rocket out of control in cost as we speak and to the point the IDF pilots asked to fix many of its defects have given up. Good luck. Go on show me a person in the US Air Force who thinks the F35 is better than an F22- or updated F-18 or even an F16. Please.

You claim others clutch straws, we claim you keep flogging this real real dead horse.

I also did find the article you misquoted. which is:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3135487/leaked-dogfight-test-reveals-that-f-35-jet-is-in-very-big-trouble-1.3136411

The article refers to a leaked report from a mock combat test that revealed that the F-35 is terrible at air-to-air combat, specifically it found that the F-35 could not turn or accelerate fast enough to maneuver into an advantageous position to shoot at an F-16 and that it was incapable of escaping the F-16 that was attacking it That's not a straw.

Bottom line -it can't engage in dog fights. It's too slow...its a a ridiculously overhyped bomber with no stealth capability if you place fuel tanks on it let alone properly arm it.

The F-35 can't be fixed. This is not a question of one problem. It's a matter of its entire physical design. It makes no financial sense to redesign it when you would only end up in fact making the equivalent of an F18 Superhornet which is far cheaper to make.

Canada does not need a bomber. The F35 was designed to take the Harrier Jet, Wart Hog and F16 and try jam them into one multi-purpose craft and it can't do any of their tasks well.

Canada got caught up in the military industrial complex web and the amount of jobs the F35 consortium was offering in Canada not the proper jet for Canada.

The writer in the article opined that:

"The F-35's a decent attack plane if that's what you want it to do, to penetrate enemy lines and drop bombs. It's not an air-to-air fighter." and:

"If you need your airplane to fight air-to-air, youIf you need your airplane to fight air-to-air, you cannot buy this airplane."

Canada needs an intercepter not a ground attack bomber. We need to do long distance patrols over vast territory.

That is why the Swedish Gripen is our best bet.

It requires a pick up truck and five men to fix. It can fly great distances, has far cheaper on-going maintenance costs, can land on ice and on very short run ways, and can take all the left over military equipment from our retiring F18's which the F35 can't.

The Gripen is being used in Brazil and in Austria. Nothing wrong with it.

Now we can not afford the Typhoon or Rafale. They are too costly. Canada can only afford the Gripen and it would get the most jets for its fleet and still have money left over for its non existent navy.

The updated F18 is a possibility but I would put it no.2. Its still too expensive.

The bottom line is Gripens can intercept very well. 5 Gripens to 1 SU35 from Russia containing it is better than a clunky slow F35 trying to deal with an Su35.

More to the point if In fact Russia did invade Canadian air space it is a fact the US Air Force will use F22 Raptors as the primary interceptor of SU35's even in our air space. The F22 is the go to combat craft for any North American air defence. Its very expensive. The Gripen is not and would allow us to do more in NATO and in NORAD since we would have more jets.

Canada needs air craft for two missions-one is to deal with Russian incursions or possible terror attacks with aircraft and show the flag sovereignty flights patrolling our vast coast ranges and North for vessels invading our territory. Thats interception not boming and strafing which is what the F35 is supposed to do.

The other thing we need aircraft for is search and rescue and fishery and drug smuggler patrols. That means a non combat surveillance plane, helicopters and a mix of submarines, and smaller faster navy vessels. The money going into the F35 is better off buying more interceptors, and then navy vessels, helicopters, surveillance craft.

We have no search and rescue, drug interception capabilities and fishery patrol capabilities any more. We've let that all slide.

Hell we can't even get our act together to get ice breakers to ply our Northern waters to enforce sovereignty and that is crucial with global warming and Russia, US, China, Britain, France,Denmark, all interested in competing claims up North to natural resources.

The F35 is a waste. You don't send a fat slow man to a ballet dance.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

What, you mean like those who oppose the F35 tend to clutch at straws by pointing out incorrect data and irrelevancies?

Such as the way they keep pointing out the engine fire on the F35, while ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that fixed the problem?

Such as the way they keep saying it lost in a dogfight to an F16, when it was never actually IN a dogfight with an F16?

Yeah it is rather sad when people clutch at straws like that.

Never actually in a dogfight?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html

[segnosaur]

Come on. You came on here to defend the F35 posing your argument as if the F35 has only one problem which is fixed.

At no point have I ever claimed that there was only one problem with the F35. I quite openly acknowldge that there have been many problems in the past. And there are still some things that have to be fixed.

My 2 main complaints are:

- People pointing to problems that have already been fixed. If a problem has already been fixed, it won't be a problem should Canada decide to purchase the plane in the future.

- The complete and total hypocrisy of those complaining about the F35, while ignoring similar or identical problems with the alternatives.

They are real defects causing this craft to sky rocket out of control in cost...

Yet for a plane who's costs are out of control, its currently selling for less than many of its competitors (including the Eurofighter Typhoon and versions of the Rafale), and its cost is actually decreasing as the assembly line increases production it will likely become cost competitive with the F18 and Gripen.

Go on show me a person in the US Air Force who thinks the F35 is better than an F22- or updated F-18 or even an F16. Please.

From: http://breakingdefense.com/2011/08/marine-test-pilots-prefers-f-35-over-f-18/

I asked two test pilots who’ve actually flown both the F-35 and the F/A-18 E/F for their opinion. Their unequivocal opinion — I’d fly the F-35.

I also did find the article you misquoted. which is:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3135487/leaked-dogfight-test-reveals-that-f-35-jet-is-in-very-big-trouble-1.3136411

The article refers to a leaked report from a mock combat test that revealed that the F-35 is terrible at air-to-air combat

First of all, not sure why you think that is the exact article I was referring to. The false "dogfight" claim came from a blog called "war is boring", and its been repeated over and over. The problem is, the original claim was wrong.

It was never tested in a 'mock combat test' or dogfight... A dogfight implies 2 planes that are trying to win. That was not the case here. Instead, it was a test of the F35s controls, that used the F16 as a frame of reference. (Controls that have since been modified, which was the purpose of the exercise.)

The F35 was never set up to test in a realistic scenario (i.e. where it would actually be able to use its advantages.) It did not have its stealth coating, nor it did not have fully functional weapons systems. Its a little like saying a Smart Car is better than a Ferrari because of its tight turning radius when you put them both on a go-cart track, ignoring the fact that its a scenario which is not one that our pilots would likely have to deal with.

Bottom line -it can't engage in dog fights. It's too slow...its a a ridiculously overhyped bomber with no stealth capability if you place fuel tanks on it let alone properly arm it.

Stealth is not an all-or-nothing concept. All planes will have some radar cross section, whether its the size of a golf ball or the size of a barn door.

Because the F35 is able to carry a significant number of weapons internally, it is more than capable of carrying out many of its missions without external fuel tanks or external weapons, minimizing its radar cross section. Even in those cases where it DOES need to carry weapons or fuel externally, it will STILL have a smaller cross section than the F18, or Gripen.

Canada does not need a bomber.

In the time Canada has purchased or CF18s, we have used them in:

- Libya for bombing

- Syria for bombing

- Gulf War 1 for bombing

- Eastern Europe for bombing

It should be noted that ALL major federal political parties have supported at least one (if not more) of those missions. So yes, having a capability to bomb targets on the ground is something that Canada has done and will probably do in the future.

Canada got caught up in the military industrial complex web and the amount of jobs the F35 consortium was offering in Canada not the proper jet for Canada.

For better or worse, industrial spin-offs (i.e. jobs) ARE an important part of military procurement.

If we spend $X on buying a plane, and as part of the deal the manufacturer contracts several billion dollars to Canadian companies for work, it may make the ultimate cost of the plane cheaper than lower cost alternatives that have no such spin-offs.

I'm sure its fun to toss around terms like 'Military industrial complex', but aircraft manufacturing is a high-tech endeavor, and it benefits the Canadian economy to be involved.

"The F-35's a decent attack plane if that's what you want it to do, to penetrate enemy lines and drop bombs. It's not an air-to-air fighter." and:

"If you need your airplane to fight air-to-air, youIf you need your airplane to fight air-to-air, you cannot buy this airplane."

They may make that statement, but that does not mean they are correct.

While the F35 does not have the capability of (for example) the F22, its capabilities would still make it effective against your typical 4th generation fighter.

Canada needs an intercepter not a ground attack bomber.

Actually, we should have a plane that is capable of handling both functions. While we can't ignore the defense of our own air space, historically we have gotten involved in many air-to-ground missions, and will likely do so in the future.

Buying planes that are less capable in an air-to-ground role would be unfairly hampering future governments.

We need to do long distance patrols over vast territory. That is why the Swedish Gripen is our best bet

The Gripen?

According to Wikipedia, the Gripen's combat radius is 800km. The F35s combat radius is 1135km. So, in a country as large as Canada, you really want to reduce the distance it can fly by around 1/3rd?

Oh, and let me be proactive... the Gripen does supposedly have a higher rated speed than the F35, but that is in a clean configuration (i.e. no weapons). When you add weapons, it slows the plane down. The F35 can fly at a higher speed on missions because it can carry weapons internally.

Oh, and speaking of the Gripen... did you know that 2 of their planes were destroyed during their test phase? Yet here you are, touting it as the "plane for Canada". Why is it that the Gripen can have problems during its development and still be acceptable, but the F35 cannot?

It can fly great distances...

Yet not as far as the F35

...has far cheaper on-going maintenance costs...

Yet with a smaller number of users and a smaller global fleet, costs will rise as planes need to be upgraded. With the larger number of F35 users, upgrade costs can be spread among a larger number of countries.

Not to mention that the F35 will likely be manufactured for decades to come. The Gripen may not be produced in a decade or two. This makes getting replacement parts and planes cheaper if we get the F35.

, can land on ice and on very short run ways, and can take all the left over military equipment from our retiring F18's which the F35 can't.

Not sure what exactly you mean by that....

The F35 can certainly use many of the same weapons the CF18 can (AIM120 missles, AGM154 bombs, etc.) Granted, there are some weapons the CF18 can carry that the F35 can't, but then there are also weapons that the CF18 can carry that the Gripen can't either... JDAM, Mk83/84 bombs, etc.

[waldo]

Well, for one, the assembly line has not started full production runs. Until the plane is out of the prototype/low rate production phase, you can't really reliably state an actual "flyaway cost", since the price of assembly tends to go down once you enter full production.

Not sure why you consider this issue so significant. While the flyaway cost may have some use for vague price comparisons between planes, its an imperfect measure, since buyers often make modifications to the base model (which increases the price). For that reason, pointing to the actual price paid by a country (i.e. the amount stated in the contract between a government and the manufacturer) is probably just as useful (if not more) than looking at a stated flyaway cost. (And, since prices tend to decrease as production rates increase, future prices of the F35 will probably be lower than current prices, until full production rates are hit.)

I'm not the one continually bringing up the claimed "flyaway" cost of the F-35... I'm not the one bringing that iterative cost up in relation to iterative LRIP shifts. That sir, that is MLW member D2.0 doing that. My challenges to him in that regard are quite direct and pointed, particularly in regards the "simple D2.0 math he uses to declare the F-35 cost... from which he then manipulates into some projected eventual cost that nations (that Canada) might have to pay. Again, that is not me, as you say, "considering the issue so significant"!

perhaps you and I have some point of agreement in recognizing the folly of this presume iterative flyaway costing during LRIP. When I keep pressing member D2.0 to advise why no authority actually presents such a current "flyway cost" at this time... why the DOD, why the JSF office, why LockMart aren't flogging such a number, member D2.0 just ignores the point being made.

.

Yes, the Italians reduced their planned purchase of the F35. So has the U.S. So what?

In defense procurement, its all too common for countries to plan certain purchases, and then reduce the planned order. Its happened with a lot of planes.

huh! You say, "so what"? Really? Just what do you understand that eventual cost to be based upon... what that eventual production line sequence/schedule timing will be based upon, if not actual procurement commitments? There's a reason why so many countries have shifted their initial commitments down - delay, cost and lack of delivery/performance. There has been a much hyped years-on-end expectation that "volume purchasing" will begin once actual production is realized... meanwhile, hundreds of jets continue to roll out during LRIP (current and upcoming)... and each of these will need to be "brought forward" to bring them current with each successive LRIP. This is the problem, by design, of the F-35 development strategy - "concurrency" - ongoing development while testing continues.

partner countries and the U.S. military will not be purchasing the F-35 to the original commitment numbers. That point is most clear, particularly if you accept fiscal constraints, military downsizing and that the plane is no where near a production state. I also put forward a recent post (that was completely ignored) that had the "next phase" of development slated for the F-35A... the phase that would actually bring it forward to a state of original claim/design presentations... with a date that seems to position post-2020. As I said, it's one way for LockMart to get around another big years-on delay... simply refer to "another phase" coming. Which, of course, begs the question - just what type/capability of F-35A will initially be available once that "mystical/magical" production date is actually realized in what... 2019 now?

The only way it would actually mean anything is if countries started outright cancelling their F35 purchases in order to buy other planes (which of course they aren't).

cancelling... what purchases? As I'm aware, no countries have actually signed/contracted/payed for any F-35s... other than the "onesy, twosey" type jets that have been delivered in so-called "tire-kicking" mode. Of course, these are planes that can't really do anything at this point, but that certainly doesn't stop the LockMart presses from hyping these to no end... why, we even get a few members here that quite regularly chime right in and hype a delivery of another single plane to some tire-kicking country!

.

Edited January 13, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

What, you mean like those who oppose the F35 tend to clutch at straws by pointing out incorrect data and irrelevancies?

Yeah it is rather sad when people clutch at straws like that.

or MLW members, like you, who continually tout the F-35 based on..... based on what exactly? You appear to have an unwavering and unflinching acceptance that the plane will be there and will have all the claimed capabilities hyped/touted. Based on what? Apparently you simply accept the cost will be "lower" based on some blind-belief that countries will actually step forward and volume purchase it... that the U.S. military will do the same, regardless of fiscal restraint or concerns over it's capabilities. You appear to "just know it to be so"!

.

[Rue]

Segno I apologize if I misrepresented any of your positions. Not my intent. Just debate. Acknowledge with respect all your points.

In an article comparing the F35 which I will provide the reference for the two craft were compared.

air to ground: interdiction/penetration-F35, deep strike-tie

payload: F35 can carry more weapons

close air support: Gripen

air to ground support: F35

air to air: F35

beyond visual range: Gripen

within visual range: Gripen

dogfight: Gripen

air to air: Gripen

versatility/logistics: Gripen

source: http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2014/09/jet-fighter-club-f-35-vs-gripen.html.

[PIK]

When have our jets ever been in a dogfight? Our jets are used for bombing runs.