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

[Guest Derek L]

you have the list, all 4 causal ties were mentioned. Please proceed to show where 3 of those 4 can be addressed with your, "six guys and a Sears socket set"!

I'm not the one that defined the difficulty level......

[waldo]

It can't? Waldo, clearly your rush to respond has failed you.............Fore you clearly don't know what trainers the USN/USMC, RAF/RN and RAAF use

that's what I read... that the current CT-155s won't support F-35 training - as is. (are you wanting to quibble over upgrades versus replacements... why would you since you claim Bombardier has to cover the costs - right? That was your many times expressed assertion, right? As for the U.S. circumstance, I believe I linked you the article that spoke to the U.S. training constraint... and quoted from it. In both of these, please feel free to showcase your authoritative best... something other than your personal say, hey?

[waldo]

I'm not the one that defined the difficulty level......

you're a waste of time. Since you so readily leaped to trivialize the overall problem as simply being a "head rest", why don't you take it to the next level and assert your authority to categorically state these causal ties are, "no biggee"... and support it. Of course, you could of done that from the onset - if you actually knew what you were talking about. Instead, we get your anally-retentive junkyard dog act asking me to qualify... "anxious or apprehensive" fixes!!!

Edited March 9, 2013 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

that's what I read... that the current CT-155s won't support F-35 training - as is. (are you wanting to quibble over upgrades versus replacements... why would you since you claim Bombardier has to cover the costs - right? That was your many times expressed assertion, right? As for the U.S. circumstance, I believe I linked you the article that spoke to the U.S. training constraint... and quoted from it. In both of these, please feel free to showcase your authoritative best... something other than your personal say, hey?

What, from a blog?

What aircraft to you think current USN/USMC/RN FAA/RAF pilots flying the F-35 trained on?

Please Waldo, stop, for your own good....

[waldo]

What aircraft to you think current USN/USMC/RN FAA/RAF pilots flying the F-35 trained on?

Please Waldo, stop, for your own good....

T-38 Talons & F-16s (as bridge training)... as I said, they want the T2 Hawk but the fiscal hammer came down. As I said/quoted, they can't continue with this Talon/F-16 arrangement. Please, for my own good, can ya learn me!

[Guest Derek L]

T-38 Talons & F-16s (as bridge training)... as I said, they want the T2 Hawk but the fiscal hammer came down. As I said/quoted, they can't continue with this Talon/F-16 arrangement. Please, for my own good, can ya learn me!

That's the USAF...........The Navy and Marines have been training with Goshawks since the early 90s.........The RAF and RN FAA, with Hawks since the 70s...................All current flying members of the RAF/RN will have received their training on Hawks decades older then ours.........And they've seemed to make the switch to the F-35s ok...........As the current commander of the Marine F-35 squadron, based on his age, would have likely trained on USN Hawks in the 90s............Both users Hawks are older then ours, using analog avionics, unlike Bombardiers’ Hawks with glass cockpits……….. So are you doubling down with your meme that our current training arrangements are insufficient?

I will also add, Italian and Spanish naval pilots, both nations with designs on the F-35B for their current carriers, are trained on USN Goshawks……….As the Danes, Norwegians and Dutch have their pilots trained on Bombardier owned Hawks in Saskatchewan and Alberta….

[bush_cheney2004]

....That's the USAF...........The Navy and Marines have been training with Goshawks since the early 90s.........

LOL....don't hurt 'em too bad....googling blogs is no substitute for your real world experience. It's really not fair. I miss the T2 Buckeye, which I flew from the back seat in 1977. Goshalks replaced them in 2004.

[Guest Derek L]

LOL....don't hurt 'em too bad....googling blogs is no substitute for your real world experience. It's really not fair. I miss the T2 Buckeye, which I flew from the back seat in 1977. Goshalks replaced them in 2004.

And I was never employed by Lockheed………..I wonder if I sent them a link/resume combo

The wife and I are planning to retire to Arizona…………Hop, skip and a jump from Yuma and Luke.....

[waldo]

T-38 Talons & F-16s (as bridge training)... as I said, they want the T2 Hawk but the fiscal hammer came down. As I said/quoted, they can't continue with this Talon/F-16 arrangement. Please, for my own good, can ya learn me!

That's the USAF...........

yes, as I identified several times now... given the past many page discussion centered around the F-35A version... the airforce version... Canada's chosen version. But, what's this? You chose, once again, to distract away from the discussion... and the real point of interest/alignment for Canada.- well done, Dr. Distracto! I'm not taking the bait

you keep dancing around this; I pointedly asked you... let me ask again: are you categorically stating that the Hawk 100 (Canada's CT-155 version), as is, is capable to train for the F-35? Just a straight YES or NO - your further distractions are not wanted/necessary... YES, or NO?

[Guest Derek L]

yes, as I identified several times now... given the past many page discussion centered around the F-35A version... the airforce version... Canada's chosen version. But, what's this? You chose, once again, to distract away from the discussion... and the real point of interest/alignment for Canada.- well done, Dr. Distracto! I'm not taking the bait

you keep dancing around this; I pointedly asked you... let me ask again: are you categorically stating that the Hawk 100 (Canada's CT-155 version), as is, is capable to train for the F-35? Just a straight YES or NO - your further distractions are not wanted/necessary... YES, or NO?

Have you stopped beating your dead horse? Yes or No?

Bombardier’s current Hawk, like the older versions used by the USN/RAF etc is more than sufficient for intermediate flight training, with later stages, including conversion training, not solely inclusive of the Hawk, but also simulators and training aides as outlined in the DND F-35 piece I linked to several pages back……….

[waldo]

Have you stopped beating your dead horse? Yes or No?

Bombardier’s current Hawk, like the older versions used by the USN/RAF etc is more than sufficient for intermediate flight training, with later stages, including conversion training, not solely inclusive of the Hawk, but also simulators and training aides as outlined in the DND F-35 piece I linked to several pages back……….

my dead horse! Go back and look at your posts... I'm simply responding to your nonsense. Your personal say carries no weight/standing. At one point you accepted the need to replace the CT-155 but discounted it in that you were most adamant that CT-155 replacement costs would be civilian contractor Bombardier's responsibility - you beat on that one, real good, right? Of course you weren't able to support your statements/assertion. Now... now... something has changed! Apparently, you must have fired up googly, big time! Now... now... you've backed entirely away from accepting the replacement is necessary, and to top it all off, you've undertaken a most creative wordsmith exercise, reaching incredibly to distinguish, "intermediate training, later stages, conversion training, not solely inclusive, simulators, training aides...". And then, you wrap that all around a wide-open link reference, without specifically qualifying within that reference. I've engaged too many of your go-hunt&fetch exercises. If you can't fully identify your source and fully quote/qualify it, this simply becomes nothing more than your personal say.

[Guest Derek L]

my dead horse! Go back and look at your posts... I'm simply responding to your nonsense. Your personal say carries no weight/standing. At one point you accepted the need to replace the CT-155 but discounted it in that you were most adamant that CT-155 replacement costs would be civilian contractor Bombardier's responsibility - you beat on that one, real good, right? Of course you weren't able to support your statements/assertion. Now... now... something has changed! Apparently, you must have fired up googly, big time! Now... now... you've backed entirely away from accepting the replacement is necessary, and to top it all off, you've undertaken a most creative wordsmith exercise, reaching incredibly to distinguish, "intermediate training, later stages, conversion training, not solely inclusive, simulators, training aides...". And then, you wrap that all around a wide-open link reference, without specifically qualifying within that reference. I've engaged too many of your go-hunt&fetch exercises. If you can't fully identify your source and fully quote/qualify it, this simply becomes nothing more than your personal say.

I provided my source several pages back, with the table breaking down costs..............In it, monies allocated to purchasing new training aides for the F-35................And yes, the eventual replacement of the aircraft will be the responsibility of Bombardier.......You know, as highlighted by the NFTC agreement and terms..........

http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp

[waldo]

no - those referenced DND/Canadian Forces training costs cover 2 facets: 1- the "immediate" training costs to cover the extended period of time Canadians must train/learn in the U.S., presuming to at some point transition that training/support back into Canada, and 2- what's termed "Sustainability Set-up" costing. The latter includes no costing... none whatsoever... to cover upgrade/replace options for the current CT-155 trainer jets. And again, you can keep assuming upon and spending Bombardier's money for them... you have yet to show anything that categorically states that a civilian contractor, Bombardier, would be on the hook for CT-155 upgrade/replacement costs... costs dictated by a separate, unrelated decision by HarperConservatives/DND/Canadian Forces to replace the CF-18 Hornets.

[bush_cheney2004]

...You know, as highlighted by the NFTC agreement and terms..........

http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp

Yes...you already provided that. So as an aside, what is / where is the training pipeline for rotary wing and multi-engine cargo ? How were Herc pilots transistioned to CC-177's ?

Edited March 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

no - those referenced DND/Canadian Forces training costs cover 2 facets: 1- the "immediate" training costs to cover the extended period of time Canadians must train/learn in the U.S., presuming to at some point transition that training/support back into Canada, and 2- what's termed "Sustainability Set-up" costing. The latter includes no costing... none whatsoever... to cover upgrade/replace options for the current CT-155 trainer jets. And again, you can keep assuming upon and spending Bombardier's money for them... you have yet to show anything that categorically states that a civilian contractor, Bombardier, would be on the hook for CT-155 upgrade/replacement costs... costs dictated by a separate, unrelated decision by HarperConservatives/DND/Canadian Forces to replace the CF-18 Hornets.

And what is sustainability set-up costing?

Again, who owns the CT-155s?

[Guest Derek L]

Yes...you already provided that. So as an aside, what is / where is the training pipeline for rotary wing and multi-engine cargo ? How were Herc pilots transistioned to CC-177's ?

Everyone starts off in the Grobs & Harvard’s for basic flight………….Those selected for fast-air continue in Saskatchewan on the Hawk, then move to Cold Lake on the Hawk, the foreign pilots (Dutch, Danes etc) head home to their respective air forces for conversion training on their forces type (F-16s currently), our pilots move on to our Hornet conversion squadron, then to the gun squadrons………..

Multi engine types go from the Harvard’s, to Beechcraft’s (King Air?) then to either Trenton (Ontario) for training on the Hercs, Greenwood (Nova Scotia) for training on the Auroras (Canadian version of P-3s) or Comox (BC) for training on the Buffalo……….I’m not sure the process for the C-17s or Polaris. edit to add: the initial C-17 crews trained with USAF, not sure if that is still the case.

Rotary Wing types go from the Harvard’s to Jet Rangers and Griffons (Bell 412), then TacHel types make their way to Kingston (Ontario), Maritime (Sea Things) types to Shearwater and SAR types I believe go to Griffon equipped SAR squadrons prior to moving on to Cormorants………..The aircrew for the CHAPS Chinooks we purchased were a combination of former Chinook crews and Griffon crews drawn from the TacHel environment and given refresher/conversion training by the US Army………I’ll assume once we get our new Chinooks, they’ll do conversion training in-house.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

... of course, the F-35: a developmental aircraft with an unproven design and unproven performance... with a legacy of a decade+ of ever soaring costs and ever increasing delays... bundled around ever present hype and unfulfilled promises!

not only is JSFail now faced with ever tightening budgets, ever intensified scrutiny, and ever increasing purchase delays by respective U.S. military branches, LockMart is now (finally) beginning to be more forcibly held accountable with additional funding tied to performance delivery - where LockMart will be required to 'eat more of its costs' for further/continued delays. With that backdrop, JSFail is moving into a most critical timeline - one that absolutely needs JSF partner countries to begin to step-up and fully commit by placing purchase orders. What's that? No committed placed purchase orders... what's that? Australia just gave up waiting! But really, c'mon... why would exorbitant costs, unknown delivery dates, unproven design and unproven performance hold any member country back? What are they all waiting for?

***bump*** (apparently, the usual suspects were too busy distracting to acknowledge the following):

oh my! Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact

The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35 was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report. Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. "What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[it's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."
.
.
Pilots will have to make extensive use of the F-35's stealth characteristics and sensors to compensate for performance areas where the jet has weaknesses, sources familiar with the aircraft say. But engagement zones and maneuvering ranges will most likely be driven even further out against the most dangerous surface-to-air threats.

[bush_cheney2004]

F-35's have started to arrive at Nellis AFB for the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES). This is for the USAF and has nothing to do with Canada, which has no procurement contract for F-35 Lightning IIs.

[ReeferMadness]

F-35's have started to arrive at Nellis AFB for the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES). This is for the USAF and has nothing to do with Canada, which has no procurement contract for F-35 Lightning IIs.

You keep 'em. Up here, we'd like some birds that actually work!

[bush_cheney2004]

You keep 'em. Up here, we'd like some birds that actually work!

Maybe that's why your birds, missiles, and bombs are largely American. Try the rest...then buy the best.

[bush_cheney2004]

F-35 production for The Netherlands (paying customers...not tire kickers) at the Fort Worth plant:

[bush_cheney2004]

Second Netherland's F-35 rolling out of the plant. Note AN02 tail number. Again, this has nothing to do with Canadian aircraft procurements that may and most likely will not happen now or in the future, but the world moves on:

[waldo]

F-35 production for The Netherlands (paying customers...not tire kickers) at the Fort Worth plant:

all 2 of them... and the only reason those went forward is because it was said to be too late to stop them! Of course, prior to the most recent election, the Dutch Parliament voted to cancel their involvement in JSFail... with an election result that brought in a new coalition, given more pressing (economic) concerns, the government announced a 'final' decision would be announced in 2015. (nice pics though... good to realize you're so taken with vapourware)

[bush_cheney2004]

The Royal Netherlands Air Force now has more F-35's than Canada, and is still laughing about the Chinooks that Canada sold them in a fit of colossal rotary wing aircraft stupidity. Meanwhile back at the ranch, the USMC likes to play with F-35B's, also rolling off the line:

[waldo]

all the rules the F-35 broke:

1. Fighters must be fast and agile
2. ‘Multi-role’ aircraft seldom are, don’t try
3. You can’t make a fighter out of a bomber (make it a fighter first, then later develop a ground-attack version)
4. Never rely on any unproven concepts as linchpins
5. Don’t start production until the aircraft works

and that last one deserves some special attention, particularly given the penchant for F-35 cheerleaders to rave about and post pics of early LRIP aircraft! The F-35 plan - Acquisition Malpractice!

The man now in charge of buying weapons for the U.S. military said that the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter -- one of the most expensive defense programs in U.S. history at three quarters of $1 trillion -- was put in production so prematurely the error amounted to "acquisition malpractice."

"I can spend quite a few minutes on the F-35, but I don't want to," Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, said Monday. "Putting the F-35 into production years before the first test flight was acquisition malpractice. It should not have been done, OK? But we did it, OK?" "Now we're paying the price for being wrong about that," he said.