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

[waldo]

- your dropped link/quote reference is to a (now) dated 2010 CRS report for the U.S. Congress. In that report, the FY2011 flyaway cost for the F/A-18E/F Super-Hornet is ~83 million dollars. How does that compare with the F-35A (FY2013) flyaway cost of ~$118 million dollars? Is that $35 million dollar a plane difference what you refer to as (by extension), "on par for cost"? (of course, that ~$118 million figure for the JSFail F-35 is severely criticized for being too low (today) and has no bearing on what the actual eventual price for the F-35 will be... particularly when more and more of the JSFail members continue to delay or bail outright from the program).

How does it compare with the “quoted price” in the CBC piece?

we can say the CBC piece missed the mark on the actual acquisition costs for both the Super Hornet and the F-35... but was correct in its suggestion of a 2x procurement cost difference. Additionally, the CBC article was correct in identifying the 2x operational costs for the F-35 as compared to the Super Hornet... unless you're going to dispute that figure. So... I guess we can say you won't touch my post that showed your big-time fail in attempting to reference the Australian RAAF Super Hornet purchase.

but let's strive for more current numbers... let's revisit both our costing figures from above, as I've re-quoted again. In both our cases, we also missed the current mark for costing; yours was a dated reference to a 2010 CRS report to the U.S. Congress, while my reference was to the most recent 2012 U.S. GAO report. Let's get current with the U.S. DOD 2013 Budget Request report that presents the following current acquisition costs:

- Super Hornet => (FY2013) $79 million per plane

- F-35A => (FY2013) $188 million per plane

As to the difference between the Super Hornet and F-35 current flyaway price, as I’ve said numerous times, the current flyaway price for the F-35 is for low rate production aircraft…………And with each batch said price has reduced and as confirmed by the recent audit, the Government’s budgeted per plane price for the F-35 is aligned with fiscal realities.

F-35 LRIP batch numbers are decreasing given budget constraints and cuts... and no, iterative LRIP costing is not decreasing: LRIP4 to LRIP5 saw a 2.5% increase in costs. Even if one accepted your most optimistic F-35 cheerleading, the above (FY2013) $79M versus $188M acquisition cost spread is a huuuuge gap to close - yes? Even before we talk about the significant operational costing edge the Super Hornet holds over the F-35 - yes? Your so-called "fiscal realities" are laughable, to say the least. What within the past decade+ of JSFail, 'over-budget, over-schedule, over-hype', provides any semblance of 'fiscal reality' optimism to suggest F-35 costs will come down by the almost 40% figure that LockMart still "insists" is possible??? Particularly in regards to program member countries, as well as the U.S. military branches, delaying/cutting intentions to purchase the F-35. Particularly in regards to the following true reality, not your imaginative one:

- Pentagon’s $525 Billion Budget Takes Most From Lockheed F-35

The Defense Department would cut $1.6 billion from the F-35 program by eliminating 13 planned aircraft, part of $18 billion in weapons cuts proposed in the budget that President Barack Obama sent to Congress today for the year beginning Oct. 1.

The Pentagon also proposed delaying the purchase of 179 F-35s beyond 2017 for a total of $15.1 billion in savings.

- Lockheed F-35 programme may have to be restructured under sequestration

The entire Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme may have to be restructured if the Pentagon budget undergoes the full 10 year effects of sequestration.

Under the Congressional sequestration budgetary maneuver, the US Department of Defense's coffers would be automatically cut across the board by 10% every year for 10 years. That is on top of the $487 billion that has already been cut from the spending plan.

If the full sequestration were to take effect, "we're going to have to look completely at the [F-35] programme," US Air Force chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on 12 February. "It's going to be impossible to modernize."

.

Now said Super Hornet price is associated with current USN orders………….What does the Waldo think will happen to the per plane price once the USN stops purchasing Super Hornets? What will happen to Super Hornet support costs once the USN retires theirs? Do you think in the 2040s that Boeing will fund a Super Hornet upgrade program for Canada’s small fleet?

the waldo thinks you're grasping at straws... that in 25 years from now, unmanned flight will rule the day - drone baby, drone! Which really emphasizes the true fiscal reality of not wasting any "available" monies on the exorbitant JSFail F-35.

[Guest Derek L]

we can say the CBC piece missed the mark on the actual acquisition costs for both the Super Hornet and the F-35... but was correct in its suggestion of a 2x procurement cost difference. Additionally, the CBC article was correct in identifying the 2x operational costs for the F-35 as compared to the Super Hornet... unless you're going to dispute that figure. So... I guess we can say you won't touch my post that showed your big-time fail in attempting to reference the Australian RAAF Super Hornet purchase.

but let's strive for more current numbers... let's revisit both our costing figures from above, as I've re-quoted again. In both our cases, we also missed the current mark for costing; yours was a dated reference to a 2010 CRS report to the U.S. Congress, while my reference was to the most recent 2012 U.S. GAO report. Let's get current with the U.S. DOD 2013 Budget Request report that presents the following current acquisition costs:

- Super Hornet => (FY2013) $79 million per plane

- F-35A => (FY2013) $188 million per plane

I won’t dispute the hourly flying costs, other then to say the ones cited for the Super Hornet don’t include personal costs, for the F/A-18F (What the RAAF purchased) and EA-18G , unlike the F-35A, have two crew members………..A squadron of 18 F-35s will have ~24-30 pilots making ~90k a year, versus a Super Hornet squadron of 18 aircraft with ~48-60 officers making ~90k a year………….A big difference in annual operating cost at the squadron level………

As I will also question the CBC & Boeing effectively just cutting the associated F-35 numbers in half to obtain ones for the Super Hornet……….As we learnt with the PBO and audits, the “hidden” costs that brought us from the Harper Governments ~15 billon figure to ~40+ billion are related to the indirect support costs and the direct costs over the entire life of the aircraft.

What would the RAAF’s deal look like will all indirect and direct costs included into the late 2030s and early 2040s?

F-35 LRIP batch numbers are decreasing given budget constraints and cuts... and no, iterative LRIP costing is not decreasing: LRIP4 to LRIP5 saw a 2.5% increase in costs. Even if one accepted your most optimistic F-35 cheerleading, the above (FY2013) $79M versus $188M acquisition cost spread is a huuuuge gap to close - yes? Even before we talk about the significant operational costing edge the Super Hornet holds over the F-35 - yes? Your so-called "fiscal realities" are laughable, to say the least. What within the past decade+ of JSFail, 'over-budget, over-schedule, over-hype', provides any semblance of 'fiscal reality' optimism to suggest F-35 costs will come down by the almost 40% figure that LockMart still "insists" is possible??? Particularly in regards to program member countries, as well as the U.S. military branches, delaying/cutting intentions to purchase the F-35. Particularly in regards to the following true reality, not your imaginative one:

How many LRIP aircraft is Canada planning to purchase?

the waldo thinks you're grasping at straws... that in 25 years from now, unmanned flight will rule the day - drone baby, drone! Which really emphasizes the true fiscal reality of not wasting any "available" monies on the exorbitant JSFail F-35.

Who's drones will rule the day?

The Russians and Chinese deem it prudent to procure “5th generation stealth manned aircraft”……….Do share your insight.

[waldo]

I won’t dispute the hourly flying costs, other then to say the ones cited for the Super Hornet don’t include personal costs, for the F/A-18F (What the RAAF purchased) and EA-18G , unlike the F-35A, have two crew members………..A squadron of 18 F-35s will have ~24-30 pilots making ~90k a year, versus a Super Hornet squadron of 18 aircraft with ~48-60 officers making ~90k a year………….A big difference in annual operating cost at the squadron level………

at an almost doubling per/hour operational flying cost, niggling over the number of pilot salaries seems somewhat secondary, to say the least. I read suggestions that speak to a need, in operational combat, for single pilot planes to have at least 2 dedicated pilots per plane, suggesting you're low-balling the F-35 squadron number.

As I will also question the CBC & Boeing effectively just cutting the associated F-35 numbers in half to obtain ones for the Super Hornet……….As we learnt with the PBO and audits, the “hidden” costs that brought us from the Harper Governments ~15 billon figure to ~40+ billion are related to the indirect support costs and the direct costs over the entire life of the aircraft.

??? I don't read where your described simplistic halving was done (by either the CBC writer or Boeing). Those 'hidden costs' you're highlighting weren't even mentioned... the emphasis was on procurement and operational costing. Is this you distracting, again?

What would the RAAF’s deal look like will all indirect and direct costs included into the late 2030s and early 2040s?

??? I guess... they'd be higher! But your point wasn't to speak to 'longer-term'. Your (intended) point was to throw down a reference to the initial Australia RAAF Super-Hornet purchase, provide a cost number and emphasize that it included support... and then suggest it was a comparable cost to the F-35. As I subsequently emphasized (and beat on), you failed to mention the cost number you provided was in Australian dollars and that the support time-frame was only for 10 years. Oh wait... I get it!!! You're still trying to keep to that initial Harper Conservative F-35 low-ball costing... was that also 10 years support? At some point, you're going to have to drop that initial number/estimate... you did know about the KPMG review, right! Whaa!

How many LRIP aircraft is Canada planning to purchase?

well... since we have no certainty on what the actual eventual production cost will be (assuming JSFail doesn't get shut down), relying on the most recent LRIP costing is the only available reference - it's the one always mentioned. Clearly, projections are made on costing, some of it based on more traditional generalized LRIP-to-production phasing. I read somewhat authoritative accounts suggesting there is no way... no way... that anyone will see a production F-35 at less than $120 million per plane. This projection always seems to hold significant caveats around it in terms of just how many planes are actually being delayed - or cut... just how many planes will member countries actually seek. Given F-35 delays and exorbitant cost overruns, we officially know both Turkey and the Netherlands are looking at alternatives to the F-35... as, supposedly, is Canada. We see Australia has given up on waiting and is moving aggressively to purchase Super-Hornets. We see the most immediate affects of sequestration on the U.S. military... I posted the links that speak to budgetary measures to cut a significant number of LRIP planes for 2013, and delay others post-2017. And this will affect overall F-35 production timing, how? Of course, regardless of just how many planes go through LRIP cycling, what will the eventual cost of concurrency on those planes be... bringing them forward to some "eventual production configuration"... I'm reading this will cost billions! What affect/impact will this have on the production timing?

Perhaps you should step-up and suggest what cost you anticipate Canada might pay for a production F-35 plane... of course, you might also offer conjecture on just what year that will be. It would be most helpful if you could offer qualification for your suggested costing/timeframe... whether it's based on something other than LockMart propaganda.

Who's drones will rule the day?

the drone point was offered in relation to your extended time-frame reference... in 25 years where will technology have driven military procurement, particularly under ever increasing expenditure scrutiny. Do you really believe manned flight will still, "rule the sky's" in 20-25 years?

[DogOnPorch]

Do you really believe manned flight will still, "rule the sky's" in 20-25 years?

This is a common statement since the rise of flight itself. The ever predicted removal of humans from the equation. In the 1920s and 30s, smart people claimed the bomber would ALWAYS get through to its target. There were oodles of statistics to 'prove' it. No need for fighters...a waste of money. In the 1960s, smart people claimed the missile made the gun obsolete. There was oodles of statistics to 'prove' it. Guns on aircraft were simply a waste of space and money.

Now you're a smart person....

[GostHacked]

What's a seven letter word for something you find in Russia?

Muslims??

[GostHacked]

I won’t dispute the hourly flying costs, other then to say the ones cited for the Super Hornet don’t include personal costs, for the F/A-18F (What the RAAF purchased) and EA-18G , unlike the F-35A, have two crew members………..A squadron of 18 F-35s will have ~24-30 pilots making ~90k a year, versus a Super Hornet squadron of 18 aircraft with ~48-60 officers making ~90k a year………….A big difference in annual operating cost at the squadron level………

You left out the cost of each type of aircraft in your equation, also maintenance/fueling costs. Not to mention fluctuation in the oil markets meaning your fuel costs can go up.

[Guest Derek L]

at an almost doubling per/hour operational flying cost, niggling over the number of pilot salaries seems somewhat secondary, to say the least. I read suggestions that speak to a need, in operational combat, for single pilot planes to have at least 2 dedicated pilots per plane, suggesting you're low-balling the F-35 squadron number.

Actually it doesn’t……………..Do the math yourself, a squadron with twice the amount of officers, with an equal amount of aircraft, will cost more…………

As to the actual numbers in the squadrons, they will vary, with pilots going on courses, exchanges, postings to Ottawa and training centers etc………The point, a similar purchase at to what the RAAF did, will require the establishment of not only a “new officer trade” (In American parlance, a Naval flight officer to the Naval aviator…….Or “Goose” if you will) coupled with a new training establishment for said “trade”……..Our former school went with the Voodoos………..

Now with the F/A-18F & EA-18s (as is the case of the Boeing Strike Eagle), said aircraft do require multiple crew members in combat to gain full effect from the aircraft, well not putting increased requirements on a solitary person…………The F-35 won’t require this due to the modern avionics associated with the aircraft, as evident by the Marine Corps replace their four person crewed Prowlers with the single seat F-35B.

??? I don't read where your described simplistic halving was done (by either the CBC writer or Boeing). Those 'hidden costs' you're highlighting weren't even mentioned... the emphasis was on procurement and operational costing. Is this you distracting, again?

Didn't the CBC piece reach for the 40+ billion figure associated with the CF-35? As such, the inclusion of Billions of dollars of said "indirect costs".

??? I guess... they'd be higher! But your point wasn't to speak to 'longer-term'. Your (intended) point was to throw down a reference to the initial Australia RAAF Super-Hornet purchase, provide a cost number and emphasize that it included support... and then suggest it was a comparable cost to the F-35. As I subsequently emphasized (and beat on), you failed to mention the cost number you provided was in Australian dollars and that the support time-frame was only for 10 years. Oh wait... I get it!!! You're still trying to keep to that initial Harper Conservative F-35 low-ball costing... was that also 10 years support? At some point, you're going to have to drop that initial number/estimate... you did know about the KPMG review, right! Whaa!

The Initial figure included 20 years support for the F-35.………….What would said numbers look like for the Super Hornet over ~35-40 years?

As you’ve so far acknowledged, after the majority of the Super Hornet fleet was retired by the Americans, said costs will increase for Canada………….couple this with your acknowledgment of the CBC’s consumption of Boeing’s magic beans associated with the per plane cost……………..And well, what does that say about the CBC piece……….I notice aside from the CBC, no other major new organizations are jumping on the piece………

well... since we have no certainty on what the actual eventual production cost will be (assuming JSFail doesn't get shut down), relying on the most recent LRIP costing is the only available reference - it's the one always mentioned. Clearly, projections are made on costing, some of it based on more traditional generalized LRIP-to-production phasing. I read somewhat authoritative accounts suggesting there is no way... no way... that anyone will see a production F-35 at less than $120 million per plane. This projection always seems to hold significant caveats around it in terms of just how many planes are actually being delayed - or cut... just how many planes will member countries actually seek. Given F-35 delays and exorbitant cost overruns, we officially know both Turkey and the Netherlands are looking at alternatives to the F-35... as, supposedly, is Canada. We see Australia has given up on waiting and is moving aggressively to purchase Super-Hornets. We see the most immediate affects of sequestration on the U.S. military... I posted the links that speak to budgetary measures to cut a significant number of LRIP planes for 2013, and delay others post-2017. And this will affect overall F-35 production timing, how? Of course, regardless of just how many planes go through LRIP cycling, what will the eventual cost of concurrency on those planes be... bringing them forward to some "eventual production configuration"... I'm reading this will cost billions! What affect/impact will this have on the production timing?

Perhaps you should step-up and suggest what cost you anticipate Canada might pay for a production F-35 plane... of course, you might also offer conjecture on just what year that will be. It would be most helpful if you could offer qualification for your suggested costing/timeframe... whether it's based on something other than LockMart propaganda.

Yet no countries have yet left the program…………….And I’ll tell you why the F-35 won’t be dumped: It has content produced in over 40 States…….

By feel free to continue with the Boeing propaganda.

the drone point was offered in relation to your extended time-frame reference... in 25 years where will technology have driven military procurement, particularly under ever increasing expenditure scrutiny. Do you really believe manned flight will still, "rule the sky's" in 20-25 years?

UAVs & UCAVs aren't cheap...........In 20-25 years, they will have a larger impact, but not replace manned flight..............Even just recently, the USAF mothballed a portion of their Global Hawk fleet in favor of keeping the U-2s going...........A direct correlation with the fact that unmanned flight is still within it’s infancy, and is still limited to the curvature of the Earth and flight in restricted airspace…………

[waldo]

Now with the F/A-18F & EA-18s (as is the case of the Boeing Strike Eagle), said aircraft do require multiple crew members in combat to gain full effect from the aircraft, well not putting increased requirements on a solitary person…………The F-35 won’t require this due to the modern avionics associated with the aircraft, as evident by the Marine Corps replace their four person crewed Prowlers with the single seat F-35B.

no - again, you're continuing to low-ball. I emphasized extended combat scenarios... you're discounting physical constraints... like fatigue, for example - just how long a single pilot can effectively perform. Again, what I read suggests the need for at least 2 pilots per F-35... that anyone suggesting otherwise is distracting, like you.

Didn't the CBC piece reach for the 40+ billion figure associated with the CF-35?

yes, it ($46 billion) was mentioned in regards to it being the (now) official costing for Canada purchasing F-35s. The principal theme of the article was to reinforce the 2x costing differential for both acquisition and operational (e.g. per hour flying cost) support... that, for each, the Super-Hornet costs are half those projected/accepted for the F-35. Clearly, there are aspects of "indirect costs" that would be the same for either plane... differentiating these and distinguishing them from the true "operational costs" would be needed to fully qualify comparative costing across the full 42 year life-cycle being used. I've never seen such a qualified estimate - have you?

As you’ve so far acknowledged, after the majority of the Super Hornet fleet was retired by the Americans, said costs will increase for Canada………….couple this with your acknowledgment of the CBC’s consumption of Boeing’s magic beans associated with the per plane cost…………….

if you're talking about costs to extend the life of a Super-Hornet, if the CF-18 is representative (where Canada spent $2 billion to extend the life of the CF-18 given F-35 delays), that price is relatively 'minor' as compared to the overall costing differential between Super-Hornets and F35s. More pointedly, you're assuming, outright, that the U.S. Navy might also consider (or be forced through budgetary constraint) to extend the life of its own Super-Hornets. You... don't... know!

Yet no countries have yet left the program…………….And I’ll tell you why the F-35 won’t be dumped: It has content produced in over 40 States…….

By feel free to continue with the Boeing propaganda.

and... they said the F-22 would never be shuttered! Right! Even if one accepts your most optimistic F-35 cheer-leading, the overall F-35 numbers being sought will never reach the initial forecast purchasing - no where close! You know how many hundreds the U.S. military has already down-sized by... you know how many member countries have stalled out on their purchase intentions. You know what sequestration has already meant to this years 2013 budget, and to expressed USAF intentions to delay over a hundred planes post-2017. All of this has implications to the cost of the F-35 - whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

UAVs & UCAVs aren't cheap...........In 20-25 years, they will have a larger impact, but not replace manned flight..............Even just recently, the USAF mothballed a portion of their Global Hawk fleet in favor of keeping the U-2s going...........A direct correlation with the fact that unmanned flight is still within it’s infancy, and is still limited to the curvature of the Earth and flight in restricted airspace…………

nonsense - it was a budgetary move. Fiscal restraint has consequences... like downsizing/shuttering the F-35! Here is the same Pentagon, just a relatively short time back (before the cuts), stating the following as a part of justifying the continued purchase of the intended numbers of the Block 30 Global Hawk:

...the continuation of the program is essential to national security. ... There are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost.

the future is... unmanned flight! Drone baby, drone!

[DogOnPorch]

Muslims??

Wrong. Enjoy, though...a classic.

[Guest Derek L]

no - again, you're continuing to low-ball. I emphasized extended combat scenarios... you're discounting physical constraints... like fatigue, for example - just how long a single pilot can effectively perform. Again, what I read suggests the need for at least 2 pilots per F-35... that anyone suggesting otherwise is distracting, like you.

And you’re failing or flaying the subject………….A Canadian squadron of 18 F-35s will have “x” number of pilots ingrained in it, well an Australian squadron of 18 F/A-18Fs will have a equal number of pilots in addition to an equal number of Air Combat Officers (“Goose” in the back seat)……………..As such, the Australian squadron will have twice as many officers when contrasted to a F-35 squadron, hence double the payroll………..

Now one could go further into maintenance personal when contrasting the two aircraft types, since the Super Hornet squadron will have twice as many engines to maintain…………

Or even logistics………We won’t examine what Super Hornet logistics will look like once the USN retires the fleet, but until such time, there are only two current operators (USN and RAAF) of the Super Hornet………Contrast with future worldwide operators of the F-35A………..

yes, it ($46 billion) was mentioned in regards to it being the (now) official costing for Canada purchasing F-35s. The principal theme of the article was to reinforce the 2x costing differential for both acquisition and operational (e.g. per hour flying cost) support... that, for each, the Super-Hornet costs are half those projected/accepted for the F-35. Clearly, there are aspects of "indirect costs" that would be the same for either plane... differentiating these and distinguishing them from the true "operational costs" would be needed to fully qualify comparative costing across the full 42 year life-cycle being used. I've never seen such a qualified estimate - have you?

Yes, and the CBC didn’t include the “indirect costs”, as they also quoted a per plane figure that is devoid of engines, spare parts and electronic warfare and targeting pods (Both of which are integral to the F-35)………

As for a breakdown (Must forgive, I can’t figure out how to post an image/chart):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/index-eng.asp#3i

If you go down to table 7, you'll find the F-35 30 year life cycle chart with :

With the total operating costs estimated at 19.9 billion, broke down further into 10.2 billion for personal and 9.7 billion in operating costs…………………

Now if the operating cost of the Super Hornet is half of that of the F-35, you’d be looking at ~4.8 billion………But if Canada operates the same proposed number of Super Hornets, based on the RAAF experience in operating their F/A-18Fs the personal costs will also increase*

The F-35 personal figure of 10.2 billion will include all personal associated with the squadron (Maintainers logistics personal and aircrew) with aircrew making up somewhere between 15-20% or ~1.5-2 billion of said costs over the entire life cycle (Based on a standard RCAF ratio of teeth to tail and the doubling of salary associated with commissioned pilot officers versus non-commissioned purple trades)………Now said RAAF Super Hornet squadron, unlike the F-35 squadron, will also include a equal number of Air Combat Officers, for an increase of ~15-20% in thru life costs or an additional 1.5-2 billion………

So to recap:

For the F-35A:

Operating costs: 9.7 billion

Personal costs: 10.2 billion

Total combined operating costs: 19.9 Billion

For the F/A-18F:

Operating costs: 4.8 Billion

Personal costs: 11.9 Billion

Total Operating Costs: 16.7 Billion

Or 3.2 billion in Savings with a Super Hornet purchase when contrasted to the F-35A………This of course assumes operating, sustainment and upgrades to a Super Hornet fleet won’t increase once the USN fleet starts retiring, we won’t benefit from a worldwide supply chain associated with the F-35 fleet and we won’t benefit from fleet wide manufactures and DoD upgrades to the F-35 fleet…………….And most importantly, combat effectiveness………………

if you're talking about costs to extend the life of a Super-Hornet, if the CF-18 is representative (where Canada spent $2 billion to extend the life of the CF-18 given F-35 delays), that price is relatively 'minor' as compared to the overall costing differential between Super-Hornets and F35s. More pointedly, you're assuming, outright, that the U.S. Navy might also consider (or be forced through budgetary constraint) to extend the life of its own Super-Hornets. You... don't... know!

As demonstrated above, the Separation in cost isn’t that great…………Also, our (And the Australian) said Hornet upgrade was able to piggyback onto synergies funded and developed by the USN and McDonnell Douglas, starting in the late 80s for the production F/A-18C/Ds…………And as I said, USN Super Hornets only have a finite lifespan based on their (intended) usage…………..This is why AMARG is already the host of USN Hornets younger then ours…

and... they said the F-22 would never be shuttered! Right! Even if one accepts your most optimistic F-35 cheer-leading, the overall F-35 numbers being sought will never reach the initial forecast purchasing - no where close! You know how many hundreds the U.S. military has already down-sized by... you know how many member countries have stalled out on their purchase intentions. You know what sequestration has already meant to this years 2013 budget, and to expressed USAF intentions to delay over a hundred planes post-2017. All of this has implications to the cost of the F-35 - whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Comparisons between the F-22 and the F-35 are as apt as those between apples and oranges………One was a aircraft only ever intended for USAF usage, well the other will be the gold standard of NATO and allied air forces……….To date, there are already 60+ F-35s in service.......Contrasted with less than 200 F-22s........

nonsense - it was a budgetary move. Fiscal restraint has consequences... like downsizing/shuttering the F-35! Here is the same Pentagon, just a relatively short time back (before the cuts), stating the following as a part of justifying the continued purchase of the intended numbers of the Block 30 Global Hawk:

Negative Ghostrider:

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=4965

The reality is that the Global Hawk system has proven not to be less expensive to operate than the U-2. And in many respects, the Global Hawk Block 30 system is not as capable from a sensor point of view, as is the U-2. And so we have made the choice, as the deputy secretary mentioned yesterday -- cancel the Block 30 program.

So the 50s vintage is cheaper and more capable? As I said, I won’t discount UAVs will play an increasingly important role as a compliment, not replacement, to man flight in the coming decades…….

Edited March 5, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

And you’re failing or flaying the subject....A Canadian squadron of 18 F-35s will have 'x' number of pilots ingrained in it, well an Australian squadron of 18 F/A-18Fs will have a equal number of pilots in addition to an equal number of Air Combat Officers ('Goose' in the back seat).....As such, the Australian squadron will have twice as many officers when contrasted to a F-35 squadron, hence double the payroll.....

you keep ignoring what I actually wrote... initially questioning your F-35 pilot number was based on analysis review requirements for extended combat - the suggestion was that, 'at least 2 pilots per F-35 would be needed'. Your latest attempt to 'goose' the numbers offers even more fodder! Your linked National Defence and the Canadian Forces 2012 annual update suggests the estimated F-35 personnel costs are based on the CF-18 - my read on the inventory numbers suggests that the current upgraded and flyable numbers of CF-18 includes ~35-40% as 2-seater 'B' planes. What's that - training, you say? Which really allows a convenient segue to further scrutinize a significant F-35 concern:

USAF may not be able to afford T-X jet trainer project

Due to its many competing budgetary priorities, the US Air Force may not have the funds to procure its prospective T-X jet trainer, which the service hopes will one day replace its vintage Northrop T-38 Talons.

Part of the reason is because the USAF can live with the T-38 for the time being. But, the question is for how long, Rice says. Though the venerable T-38 is in no imminent danger of falling out of the sky, as time goes by, Rice says it becomes less effective at preparing new pilots to fly fifth-generation fighters like the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35.

The USAF is already training prospective F-22 pilots on the T-38, but those students have to undertake an eight-flight "bridge course" in the Lockheed F-16, Rice says. But as the number of F-35s in the USAF arsenal grows, using F-16s to train those pilots becomes impractical because there simply are not enough of those jets to train that many students. "I can't produce enough F-16 pilots today for the air force," Rice says. "I can't afford to get into a situation where I've got to use F-16s in large numbers to train into the F-35."

The USAF needs to finds a way to train F-35 pilots that does not involve F-16s, Rice says. "That has to be part of the calculus with T-X," he adds.

who knew! Bridge training with F-16s... I guess that shifts F-35 training to select U.S. (only) bases - probably for quite some time, right? Who knew! Apparently, budget constraints are the new reality... well, except for die-hard F-35 cheer-leaders! The more interesting point I'm still a bit fuzzy on... perhaps you can help... appears when I read details of your referenced Australian Super Hornet purchase that state it includes training (specifically, simulators (TOFTs, LCT, IVEMT)... what is Canada's F-35 training dollar commitment, separate from JSFail? Say, like the expressed intentions by DND to purchase new trainer jets to facilitate "F-35 training requirements", replacing the existing 20 CT-155 planes. What's the cost of that little ditty, hey? I read a suggestion that the unit cost for a T2 is ~$29 million... assuming a full replacement of the existing 20 CT-155s... there's a cool half-billion right there! Mice-nuts, right?

Now one could go further into maintenance personal when contrasting the two aircraft types, since the Super Hornet squadron will have twice as many engines to maintain....

ah yes, another key distinguishing point that highlights one of DNDs long-standing preferences for 2-engines, particularly given lengthy Arctic flight requirements..... a key distinguishing requirement conveniently thrown out the door to "line-up" around the F-35. Yes, convenient indeed! Of course, maintenance costs for 2 engines are a most insignificant component relative to the comparison of overall acquisition costs. Of course, the key qualifier here is to make sure the estimated F-35 price actually includes an engine... funny how there are so many F-35 estimate variants that somehow manage to exclude engines! Go figure.

Or even logistics...We won’t examine what Super Hornet logistics will look like once the USN retires the fleet, but until such time, there are only two current operators (USN and RAAF) of the Super Hornet...Contrast with future worldwide operators of the F-35A.....

you keep harping on the Super Hornet retirement - '25 years' from now. In reality world, the USN/Boeing are actively working to bring forward upgrades that compete directly with F-35 'promises'. Today... and into the near-future, the USN/Boeing are actively working to upgrade the Super Hornet! Wouldn't you say this USN commitment toward the Super Hornet sort of, uhhh... kind of, uhhh... dovetails with the "unofficial" USN position that for all intents and purposes has shut out the F-35. Go Navy! How many fewer F-35s does that add to the ever diminishing F-35 numbers, hey?

[waldo]

Or 3.2 billion in Savings with a Super Hornet purchase when contrasted to the F-35A...This of course assumes operating, sustainment and upgrades to a Super Hornet fleet won’t increase once the USN fleet starts retiring, we won’t benefit from a worldwide supply chain associated with the F-35 fleet and we won’t benefit from fleet wide manufactures and DoD upgrades to the F-35 fleet......And most importantly, combat effectiveness....

my question/request to you was whether or not there was a complete detailed (all inclusive) costing comparison between the Super-Hornet and the F-35... not one that allows a 'pick & choose' of your linked reference DND/Canadian Forces Dec2012 (F-35) annual update. And, most certainly, I won't accept your personalized monkeying of the support numbers to declare, 'just a lil' difference'! Even with your best figure twisting, it is quite revealing to realize 3-to-4 billion dollars is so inconsequential to you! Cheer on!.

of course, we've seen that DND/Canadian Forces Dec2012 annual update before, right? We've had some real fun with it, particularly when Harper Conservatives/Mackay magically came up with that 42 year reference (2010-2052)... to unabashedly attempt to low-ball the per-plane costing. Who the hell has any confidence in the numbers within that update??? I mean, other than a die-hard cheerleader. Yes, there's some real creative work going on there! All of a sudden we had an arbitrary 12 years added into the mix (from 2010 to 2022)... chalked up as "development time", with $565 million costing attached, which is supposed to represent what Canada will pay into the program before (supposedly) taking ownership of the last phased F-35 delivery in 2022. Of course, Canada had already spent more than half that $565 development estimate amount ($300 million of it), prior to the official 2010 agreement to purchase. Why... it's bloody amazing Harper Conservatives didn't actually try to extend on that 42 year period and back up the start right to the program beginning point in the late 90s!!! I mean, after all, the 42 year game/charade was to try and weasel out a lower per plane costing number... why stop there??? Why didn't they go right back to the start when the first of the $300 million was paid out? Too obvious? Nah, c'mon!

that whole update report costing is a sham anyway. On one hand we have KPMG relying almost entirely on numbers being fed to it by the JSFail Program Office... now, that's certainly an independent source, ya think? Then we have the JSFail Program Office delivering estimates to DND/Canadian Forces based on a 36 year cycle (cause that's actually how long the plane is anticipated to fly)... somehow DND did its magic and pulled all that into a 20 year estimate... somehow KPMG did its magic and went for a 30 year estimate... all wrapped around the 42 year nonsense that Harper Conservatives flogged. Of course, this allows the sham artists to take that initial 20-year DND number and compare it to the 42-year number, and bring forward an amazing, "see, not so bad... that initial estimate wasn't so far off!!!

you've not had much to say about acquisition costs - wonder why? Is that part of the sham too painfully obvious for you to even attempt to support? As your linked reference shows, the acquisition cost comes in as $87.4 million per plane... such a convenient number for the JSFail Program Office to pull out of its xxx, hey? C'mon, take a shot at how that number was arrived at and express your confidence in it. Should I remind you the report itself only attributes a 50% confidence rating on that figure? Do you remember me a few short posts back emphasizing the analysis I'm reading that suggests no one, no country, no branch of the U.S. military, will get a F-35 for less than $120 million per plane? Go ahead, try to make a/your case for that $87.4 million per plane number - sure you can! Don't forget to include the replacement planes into the mix to cover attrition... you know, the extra 1 billion dollars associated with those planes that, somehow, doesn't get included into the update report costing. What's another billion here or there, hey? And you're the guy trying to nibble away at costs based on pilot salaries!!! Hilarious, indeed!

[waldo]

To date, there are already 60+ F-35s in service.

my latest read says 52... but who's counting! It is quite remarkable that you would actually use the phrase, "in service" for pre-production planes added at varying numbers across each of, now 5, iterative phases. Is this a good time to once again highlight concurrency and the masterful decision JSFail has made to start pumping those planes out so early/so fast. How many billions to retrofit those planes into a "production ready" capability... whenever the hell that day actually comes about. Care to take a swag on just how many LRIP phases there will be? When the U.S. military and member countries keep delaying/dropping purchase numbers, what's an LRIP program to do?

as for your "in service"... is this a good time to speak about those reduced performance standards - the moves made to allow JSFail to continue beyond the stages it obviously wasn't/isn't ready for? Is this a good time to speak about all those testing metrics that were eliminated/changed/adjusted... cause the U.S. GAO kept coming out with those embarassing updates on program testing results? Perhaps this is the time for you to throw out some more LockMart propaganda, hey?

[waldo]

Negative Ghostrider:

The reality is that the Global Hawk system has proven not to be less expensive to operate than the U-2. And in many respects, the Global Hawk Block 30 system is not as capable from a sensor point of view, as is the U-2. And so we have made the choice, as the deputy secretary mentioned yesterday -- cancel the Block 30 program.

So the 50s vintage is cheaper and more capable? As I said, I won’t discount UAVs will play an increasingly important role as a compliment, not replacement, to man flight in the coming decades...

and yet, as I said, just a short period prior, the USAF formally certified in writing to the U.S. Congress that, "...the continuation of the program is essential to national security. ... There are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost". In fact, the USAF included a cost comparison stating the U2 program cost $220 million a year more than the Global Hawk. So what changed in a very short timeframe? Well... the USAF changed requirements for the U2, decreasing the orbital flight numbers for its high-altitude surveilance. Less orbits, less flying time, reduced costs - magic, Ghostrider, magic in response to ever-increasing budgetary tightening constraints. Prior to that lil' U2 requirement change, the Global Hawk was deemed to have a greater persistence awareness capability than the U2... the, "sustained ability to monitor or surveil a wide area while concurrently obtaining detailed, precision target quality information on targets, forces or similar points of interest". Kapeesh, Ghostrider?

[Guest Derek L]

you keep ignoring what I actually wrote... initially questioning your F-35 pilot number was based on analysis review requirements for extended combat - the suggestion was that, 'at least 2 pilots per F-35 would be needed'. Your latest attempt to 'goose' the numbers offers even more fodder! Your linked National Defence and the Canadian Forces 2012 annual update suggests the estimated F-35 personnel costs are based on the CF-18 - my read on the inventory numbers suggests that the current upgraded and flyable numbers of CF-18 includes ~35-40% as 2-seater 'B' planes. What's that - training, you say? Which really allows a convenient segue to further scrutinize a significant F-35 concern:

USAF may not be able to afford T-X jet trainer project

who knew! Bridge training with F-16s... I guess that shifts F-35 training to select U.S. (only) bases - probably for quite some time, right? Who knew! Apparently, budget constraints are the new reality... well, except for die-hard F-35 cheer-leaders! The more interesting point I'm still a bit fuzzy on... perhaps you can help... appears when I read details of your referenced Australian Super Hornet purchase that state it includes training (specifically, simulators (TOFTs, LCT, IVEMT)... what is Canada's F-35 training dollar commitment, separate from JSFail? Say, like the expressed intentions by DND to purchase new trainer jets to facilitate "F-35 training requirements", replacing the existing 20 CT-155 planes. What's the cost of that little ditty, hey? I read a suggestion that the unit cost for a T2 is ~$29 million... assuming a full replacement of the existing 20 CT-155s... there's a cool half-billion right there! Mice-nuts, right?

ah yes, another key distinguishing point that highlights one of DNDs long-standing preferences for 2-engines, particularly given lengthy Arctic flight requirements..... a key distinguishing requirement conveniently thrown out the door to "line-up" around the F-35. Yes, convenient indeed! Of course, maintenance costs for 2 engines are a most insignificant component relative to the comparison of overall acquisition costs. Of course, the key qualifier here is to make sure the estimated F-35 price actually includes an engine... funny how there are so many F-35 estimate variants that somehow manage to exclude engines! Go figure.

you keep harping on the Super Hornet retirement - '25 years' from now. In reality world, the USN/Boeing are actively working to bring forward upgrades that compete directly with F-35 'promises'. Today... and into the near-future, the USN/Boeing are actively working to upgrade the Super Hornet! Wouldn't you say this USN commitment toward the Super Hornet sort of, uhhh... kind of, uhhh... dovetails with the "unofficial" USN position that for all intents and purposes has shut out the F-35. Go Navy! How many fewer F-35s does that add to the ever diminishing F-35 numbers, hey?

Distract and deflect eh? One, the age difference between our Hawks versus the USAF T-38s……..Our Hawks started entering service in the late 90s………The American aircraft in the early 60s………Second, the RCAF doesn’t own the Hawks, Bombardier does under the auspices of the NFTC………Third, regardless of the aircraft we’d purchase, one day out in the late 2030s or 2040s, Bombardier will have to eventually replace them under the terms of the NFTC…………

But back to your “two pilots would be needed”………If that is fact, then one single F/A-18F will require not only two pilots, but also two Air Combat Officers………

[Guest Derek L]

my question/request to you was whether or not there was a complete detailed (all inclusive) costing comparison between the Super-Hornet and the F-35... not one that allows a 'pick & choose' of your linked reference DND/Canadian Forces Dec2012 (F-35) annual update. And, most certainly, I won't accept your personalized monkeying of the support numbers to declare, 'just a lil' difference'! Even with your best figure twisting, it is quite revealing to realize 3-to-4 billion dollars is so inconsequential to you! Cheer on!.

of course, we've seen that DND/Canadian Forces Dec2012 annual update before, right? We've had some real fun with it, particularly when Harper Conservatives/Mackay magically came up with that 42 year reference (2010-2052)... to unabashedly attempt to low-ball the per-plane costing. Who the hell has any confidence in the numbers within that update??? I mean, other than a die-hard cheerleader. Yes, there's some real creative work going on there! All of a sudden we had an arbitrary 12 years added into the mix (from 2010 to 2022)... chalked up as "development time", with $565 million costing attached, which is supposed to represent what Canada will pay into the program before (supposedly) taking ownership of the last phased F-35 delivery in 2022. Of course, Canada had already spent more than half that $565 development estimate amount ($300 million of it), prior to the official 2010 agreement to purchase. Why... it's bloody amazing Harper Conservatives didn't actually try to extend on that 42 year period and back up the start right to the program beginning point in the late 90s!!! I mean, after all, the 42 year game/charade was to try and weasel out a lower per plane costing number... why stop there??? Why didn't they go right back to the start when the first of the $300 million was paid out? Too obvious? Nah, c'mon!

that whole update report costing is a sham anyway. On one hand we have KPMG relying almost entirely on numbers being fed to it by the JSFail Program Office... now, that's certainly an independent source, ya think? Then we have the JSFail Program Office delivering estimates to DND/Canadian Forces based on a 36 year cycle (cause that's actually how long the plane is anticipated to fly)... somehow DND did its magic and pulled all that into a 20 year estimate... somehow KPMG did its magic and went for a 30 year estimate... all wrapped around the 42 year nonsense that Harper Conservatives flogged. Of course, this allows the sham artists to take that initial 20-year DND number and compare it to the 42-year number, and bring forward an amazing, "see, not so bad... that initial estimate wasn't so far off!!!

you've not had much to say about acquisition costs - wonder why? Is that part of the sham too painfully obvious for you to even attempt to support? As your linked reference shows, the acquisition cost comes in as $87.4 million per plane... such a convenient number for the JSFail Program Office to pull out of its xxx, hey? C'mon, take a shot at how that number was arrived at and express your confidence in it. Should I remind you the report itself only attributes a 50% confidence rating on that figure? Do you remember me a few short posts back emphasizing the analysis I'm reading that suggests no one, no country, no branch of the U.S. military, will get a F-35 for less than $120 million per plane? Go ahead, try to make a/your case for that $87.4 million per plane number - sure you can! Don't forget to include the replacement planes into the mix to cover attrition... you know, the extra 1 billion dollars associated with those planes that, somehow, doesn't get included into the update report costing. What's another billion here or there, hey? And you're the guy trying to nibble away at costs based on pilot salaries!!! Hilarious, indeed!

And as I said above, you take Boeing’s, and by extension, the CBC’s numbers relating to the Super Hornet as Gospel?

Lockheed is deceitful and money grubbing, but Boeing, the loser in the JSF prize and the manufacturer that is faced with declining orders for it’s products, is golden?

[Guest Derek L]

my latest read says 52... but who's counting! It is quite remarkable that you would actually use the phrase, "in service" for pre-production planes added at varying numbers across each of, now 5, iterative phases. Is this a good time to once again highlight concurrency and the masterful decision JSFail has made to start pumping those planes out so early/so fast. How many billions to retrofit those planes into a "production ready" capability... whenever the hell that day actually comes about. Care to take a swag on just how many LRIP phases there will be? When the U.S. military and member countries keep delaying/dropping purchase numbers, what's an LRIP program to do?

as for your "in service"... is this a good time to speak about those reduced performance standards - the moves made to allow JSFail to continue beyond the stages it obviously wasn't/isn't ready for? Is this a good time to speak about all those testing metrics that were eliminated/changed/adjusted... cause the U.S. GAO kept coming out with those embarassing updates on program testing results? Perhaps this is the time for you to throw out some more LockMart propaganda, hey?

The USAF and USMC both have their respective versions of the F-35 in squadrons…………The Marine squadron in Yuma is already receiving pilots from active duty Hornet, Harrier and Prowler squadrons for conversion training……….But the actual number I’m certain is fluid as the months go by, but the 100th

Aircraft was already in the production line as of January………Already a half the size of the F-22 total numbers.

[Guest Derek L]

and yet, as I said, just a short period prior, the USAF formally certified in writing to the U.S. Congress that, "...the continuation of the program is essential to national security. ... There are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost". In fact, the USAF included a cost comparison stating the U2 program cost $220 million a year more than the Global Hawk. So what changed in a very short timeframe? Well... the USAF changed requirements for the U2, decreasing the orbital flight numbers for its high-altitude surveilance. Less orbits, less flying time, reduced costs - magic, Ghostrider, magic in response to ever-increasing budgetary tightening constraints. Prior to that lil' U2 requirement change, the Global Hawk was deemed to have a greater persistence awareness capability than the U2... the, "sustained ability to monitor or surveil a wide area while concurrently obtaining detailed, precision target quality information on targets, forces or similar points of interest". Kapeesh, Ghostrider?

So “changing requirements” made the over 50 year old U-2 the better aircraft? A UAV such as the Global Hawk can’t fully whip an aircraft that started production (By Lockheed no less) in the Eisenhower administration? And you suggest that in a few decades “drones” will replace manned flight?

[waldo]

Distract and deflect eh? One, the age difference between our Hawks versus the USAF T-38s……..Our Hawks started entering service in the late 90s………The American aircraft in the early 60s………Second, the RCAF doesn’t own the Hawks, Bombardier does under the auspices of the NFTC………Third, regardless of the aircraft we’d purchase, one day out in the late 2030s or 2040s, Bombardier will have to eventually replace them under the terms of the NFTC…………

yes... you are distracting and deflecting - as you quite regularly do! Are you disputing the DND rep quote advising of the need to replace the CT-155 to facilitate F-35 training requirements? Care to point out what part of the NFTC agreement puts the cost onus completely and solely on Bombardier to upgrade?

[waldo]

my question/request to you was whether or not there was a complete detailed (all inclusive) costing comparison between the Super-Hornet and the F-35... not one that allows a 'pick & choose' of your linked reference DND/Canadian Forces Dec2012 (F-35) annual update. And, most certainly, I won't accept your personalized monkeying of the support numbers to declare, 'just a lil' difference'! Even with your best figure twisting, it is quite revealing to realize 3-to-4 billion dollars is so inconsequential to you! Cheer on!.

of course, we've seen that DND/Canadian Forces Dec2012 annual update before, right? We've had some real fun with it, particularly when Harper Conservatives/Mackay magically came up with that 42 year reference (2010-2052)... to unabashedly attempt to low-ball the per-plane costing. Who the hell has any confidence in the numbers within that update??? I mean, other than a die-hard cheerleader. Yes, there's some real creative work going on there! All of a sudden we had an arbitrary 12 years added into the mix (from 2010 to 2022)... chalked up as "development time", with $565 million costing attached, which is supposed to represent what Canada will pay into the program before (supposedly) taking ownership of the last phased F-35 delivery in 2022. Of course, Canada had already spent more than half that $565 development estimate amount ($300 million of it), prior to the official 2010 agreement to purchase. Why... it's bloody amazing Harper Conservatives didn't actually try to extend on that 42 year period and back up the start right to the program beginning point in the late 90s!!! I mean, after all, the 42 year game/charade was to try and weasel out a lower per plane costing number... why stop there??? Why didn't they go right back to the start when the first of the $300 million was paid out? Too obvious? Nah, c'mon!

that whole update report costing is a sham anyway. On one hand we have KPMG relying almost entirely on numbers being fed to it by the JSFail Program Office... now, that's certainly an independent source, ya think? Then we have the JSFail Program Office delivering estimates to DND/Canadian Forces based on a 36 year cycle (cause that's actually how long the plane is anticipated to fly)... somehow DND did its magic and pulled all that into a 20 year estimate... somehow KPMG did its magic and went for a 30 year estimate... all wrapped around the 42 year nonsense that Harper Conservatives flogged. Of course, this allows the sham artists to take that initial 20-year DND number and compare it to the 42-year number, and bring forward an amazing, "see, not so bad... that initial estimate wasn't so far off!!!

you've not had much to say about acquisition costs - wonder why? Is that part of the sham too painfully obvious for you to even attempt to support? As your linked reference shows, the acquisition cost comes in as $87.4 million per plane... such a convenient number for the JSFail Program Office to pull out of its xxx, hey? C'mon, take a shot at how that number was arrived at and express your confidence in it. Should I remind you the report itself only attributes a 50% confidence rating on that figure? Do you remember me a few short posts back emphasizing the analysis I'm reading that suggests no one, no country, no branch of the U.S. military, will get a F-35 for less than $120 million per plane? Go ahead, try to make a/your case for that $87.4 million per plane number - sure you can! Don't forget to include the replacement planes into the mix to cover attrition... you know, the extra 1 billion dollars associated with those planes that, somehow, doesn't get included into the update report costing. What's another billion here or there, hey? And you're the guy trying to nibble away at costs based on pilot salaries!!! Hilarious, indeed!

And as I said above, you take Boeing’s, and by extension, the CBC’s numbers relating to the Super Hornet as Gospel?

Lockheed is deceitful and money grubbing, but Boeing, the loser in the JSF prize and the manufacturer that is faced with declining orders for it’s products, is golden?

WTF!!! I re-quoted my post... the one you replied to... the one you quoted and replied to. Nothing in my post has diddly-squat to do with the CBC article/numbers. How desperate are you? Oh right, you're in mega-deflection mode now!

speaking of golden! How about today's leaked U.S. Pentagon report revealing the F-35 has a major blind-spot... and this time it's not the HarperConservative blind-spot! Let's be very clear here; the following relates specifically to significant F-35A flaws, inclusive of significant design concerns... the F-35A - Canada's version!

Pentagon report warns of F-35 visibility risks

Significant visibility issues could lead to dangerous flight conditions, according to test pilots who have flown the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

That is just one of several issues identified by the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester in a February report, published online (PDF) today by the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight.

Other issues include flawed radar, ongoing challenges with the high-tech helmet required to fly the jet, and potential issues with the touch screen control interface.

The operational utility evaluation (OUE) itself was extremely scaled down from the type of testing that is normally done with such a program, to the point where the authors of the report conclude that “the results of the OUE should not be used to make decisions regarding the readiness of the JSF system to support training inexperienced pilots in an F-35A initial qualification course.”

“Due to the immaturity of the aircraft, the workarounds required to support flight operations, and very limited mission systems capability little knowledge can be gained from the OUE applicable to F-35 sustainment under normal squadron training operations or to sustainment of combat capable aircraft in operational units,” found the report.

“Additionally, the F-35 Joint Reliability and Maintainability Evaluation Team (JRMET) data for the F-35A fleet suggest that the program is not meeting reliability growth targets to meet operational requirements documents (ORD) requirements.”

wasn't it you, just a couple of posts back, hyping the "in service" numbers of F-35s? That was you right? Well, by golly... don't try to fly the plane at night... or in clouds!!! The current state of the F-35A is so lacking in maturity that the following are not allowed to be performed by the training pilots... not only is the plane no where near flight/combat readiness, it's not even ready for training! The fragile state of the F-35A dictates that the following are prohibited for training pilots:

- Descent rates more than 6,000 feet per minute (for reference, Wikipedia shows the F-16C rate of climb to be 50,000 feet per minute)

- Airspeed above 550 knots per hour or Mach 0.9 (not the 1.6 Mach or 1,200 mph Wikipedia says the F-35 is capable of)

- Angle-of-attack (attitude of flight) beyond -5 and +18 degrees (e.g. not the +50 degrees the aircraft is capable of)

- Maneuvering at more than -1 or +5 gs (nowhere near the stated +9g capability)

- Take offs or landings in formation

- Flying at night or in weather

- Using real or simulated weapons

- Rapid stick or rudder movements

- Air-to-air or air-to-ground tracking maneuvers

- Refueling in the air

- Flying within 25 miles of lightning

- Use of electronic countermeasures

- Use of anti-jamming, secure communications, or datalink systems

- Electro-optical targeting

- Using the Distributed Aperture System of sensors to detect targets or threats

- Using the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Interrogator

- Using the helmet mounted display system as a "primary reference"

- Use of air-to-air or air-to-ground radar modes for electronic attack, sea search, ground-moving targets or close-in air combat modes

that's quite the, uhhh... "in service" plane you have there, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

yes... you are distracting and deflecting - as you quite regularly do! Are you disputing the DND rep quote advising of the need to replace the CT-155 to facilitate F-35 training requirements? Care to point out what part of the NFTC agreement puts the cost onus completely and solely on Bombardier to upgrade?

The part where they supply aircraft, instructors and maintenance........

[Guest Derek L]

WTF!!! I re-quoted my post... the one you replied to... the one you quoted and replied to. Nothing in my post has diddly-squat to do with the CBC article/numbers. How desperate are you? Oh right, you're in mega-deflection mode now!

speaking of golden! How about today's leaked U.S. Pentagon report revealing the F-35 has a major blind-spot... and this time it's not the HarperConservative blind-spot! Let's be very clear here; the following relates specifically to significant F-35A flaws, inclusive of significant design concerns... the F-35A - Canada's version!

Pentagon report warns of F-35 visibility risks

wasn't it you, just a couple of posts back, hyping the "in service" numbers of F-35s? That was you right? Well, by golly... don't try to fly the plane at night... or in clouds!!! The current state of the F-35A is so lacking in maturity that the following are not allowed to be performed by the training pilots... not only is the plane no where near flight/combat readiness, it's not even ready for training! The fragile state of the F-35A dictates that the following are prohibited for training pilots:

that's quite the, uhhh... "in service" plane you have there, hey?

A leaked report citing data from last year? Too big a head rest? And since last year, said aircraft have entered service with the USAF and USMC…………As to the CBC……….Didn’t you use them, and Boeing’s figures, to demonstrate that the Super Hornet was 50% off

From the halls of Yuma, Arizona............

http://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/Units/MAG13/VMFA121.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh5OlT-cslQ

Edited March 7, 2013 by Derek L

[Signals.Cpl]

The part where they supply aircraft, instructors and maintenance........

Why are you continuing with this argument? You know very well that the problem is not the F-35 itself but rather the Conservatives wanting the F-35. It is irrelevant to this argument wether it is the best aircraft for us or not, what is relevant is that most of the people opposing the aircraft purchase don't care about getting the best bang for our buck or the quality and abilities of the aircraft but rather they care about the politics, if the Conservatives started favouring Super Hornet or whichever other aircraft the opposition will oppose the choice on political grounds not technical.

[shortlived]

Why are you continuing with this argument? You know very well that the problem is not the F-35 itself but rather the Conservatives wanting the F-35. It is irrelevant to this argument wether it is the best aircraft for us or not, what is relevant is that most of the people opposing the aircraft purchase don't care about getting the best bang for our buck or the quality and abilities of the aircraft but rather they care about the politics, if the Conservatives started favouring Super Hornet or whichever other aircraft the opposition will oppose the choice on political grounds not technical.

And what happens if all your eggs are in the f35 basket and there is a flaw like a faulty engine design, or flight systems not being as reliable as stated?

[bush_cheney2004]

And what happens if all your eggs are in the f35 basket and there is a flaw like a faulty engine design, or flight systems not being as reliable as stated?

Gee, those sound like issues that were plenty good enough for the Avro Arrow !