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

[waldo]

No, Winslow has been a hack since the 70s, and when even past critics (like the GAO) of the F-35 are rolling their eyes at his boobery, I won’t waste any further time on him.

ya, ya... so you won't dispute his critique of the GAO's critique of his 'error report'. There's only 3 items - the GAO only came back with 3 items in response... a short list. Surely even you could manage that short list!

[waldo]

ah yes, now the F-35 image-porn show starts!

[waldo]

I'm partial to this depiction..........

given it's piddly range, where's the pics of the accompanying fuelers? You know, the one's Canada has none of?

[bush_cheney2004]

ah yes, now the F-35 image-porn show starts!

Well, the U.S. does have the best F-35 porn....look how much you gaze upon the GAO. Or maybe you meant the Canadian GAO ?

[bush_cheney2004]

given it's piddly range, where's the pics of the accompanying fuelers? You know, the one's Canada has none of?

U.S. has plenty, and is getting more "fuelers" (tankers). Wanna buy some ?

[Guest Derek L]

said links? Who said?

show the link you now state you provided in this very thread... show the link that supports your claim that F-35 costs have come down? Show it!

that's a projection... doesn't support your claim on the existing program costs coming down. Is there a problem here for you?

but oh my! You really, really need to get your talking points lined up better here. You can't be throwing down a link that speaks to a $1.5 Trillion dollar cost for the F-35.... not while dog&pony show LockMart executives are disputing an estimate... even when it was only pegged at $1 Trillion!

As I posted several pages back.........The next reduced cost deal between Lockheed/P&W will be signed later this summer:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-unitedtechnologies-pratt-fighterb-idUSBRE95F06Q20130616

And the costing of all F-35 deals has seen savings over preceding deals……these links have been provided in the numerous F-35 threads, including this thread……..I have no inclination to link to them again for you.

[waldo]

One would have to compare Australian contract pricing as opposed to past USN purchases, then account for the fact that there were some savings to be found with the RAAF since their purchase several years ago took place well Boeing was producing a much larger USN order……..Boeing won’t be producing such an order for the Americans in the 2017+ timeframe, since the Super Hornet line in St Louis will be ceasing in the next several years.

get real! You're the one that's been to the trough many times over... comparing cost purchases between countries/between variants.

[Guest Derek L]

given it's piddly range, where's the pics of the accompanying fuelers? You know, the one's Canada has none of?

Piddly range, on internal fuel alone it's greater then our current Hornets with external drop tanks..........

As to tankers, we currently have several of the converted former Canadian Airlines Airbus, of course, they too will be reaching the end of their lives by the time the F-35 enters service with the RCAF.

[Guest Derek L]

U.S. has plenty, and is getting more "fuelers" (tankers). Wanna buy some ?

We will, either from Boeing or Airbus Boeing

[bush_cheney2004]

Two F-35Cs take station behind a "fueler" above Pax River (January 2013) :

Edited June 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

As I posted several pages back.........The next reduced cost deal between Lockheed/P&W will be signed later this summer:

which has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the actual overall iterative ongoing program development costs. You know, the thing you keep claiming, unsubstantiated, has been reduced.

.

And the costing of all F-35 deals has seen savings over preceding deals……these links have been provided in the numerous F-35 threads, including this thread……..I have no inclination to link to them again for you.

Of course! You clearly know how to use MLW search... find the post(s) you claim support your repeated claims the overall F-35 program costs have come down.

.

[Guest Derek L]

Two F-35s take station behind a "fueler" :

Exactly........Well the picture depicts the Naval variant (F-35C) that like the Marines variant (F-35B) will rely on Hose & Drogue arrangement (like our current Hornets/tankers), the F-35A currently uses the Boom (like the rest of USAF aircraft)……..Our choices will be either/or equipping our F-35As with the F-35C’s refuelling architecture or replacing our aging tankers with several boom equipped tankers tacked onto a USAF order later this decade…….With the added benefit of being able to refuel our current Globemaster fleet, which we can’t currently do with our current tankers.

[Guest Derek L]

which has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the actual overall iterative ongoing program development costs. You know, the thing you keep claiming, unsubstantiated, has been reduced.

.

Of course! You clearly know how to use MLW search... find the post(s) you claim support your repeated claims the overall F-35 program costs have come down.

.

Then why do you continually cite current purchase prices of LRIP aircraft by the United States with the future Canadian purchase of full rate production aircraft? Well both are apple & oranges comparisons, the current LRIP aircraft costs as much (or slightly less then) full production French and European aircraft often cited as F-35 alternatives………As such, the F-35 currently in LRIP production is cheaper then the two European 4th generation aircraft……….Now couple this with Saab’s recent withdrawal of their Gripen from Canadian contention, that leaves a horse race between the Super Hornet and F-35.…….Now if the Super Hornet production line is closing in several years that leaves us with what?

[waldo]

Piddly range, on internal fuel alone it's greater then our current Hornets with external drop tanks..........

c'mon... if the best you can do is compare to the most aged 80s gen Hornet!!! By the by, have they fixed this lil' concern yet (584nm)? Ya, ya, it's a couple of years dated but I just looked at the 2013 SAR and it does show an estimate for 690nm... estimate! The 2013 SAR includes a reference to 'Demonstrated Performance' as "TBD" (to be determined). Don't tell me you're throwing down and relying upon another... not another... of your estimate/do be determined figures! Say it ain't so!!!

on edit: linkee fixed!

Edited June 17, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

Then why do you continually cite current purchase prices of LRIP aircraft by the United States with the future Canadian purchase of full rate production aircraft?

me? Me alone? You've never done that? Ever? But again, what does this have to do with your PW contractor linked article and the overall cost of the program development... year-to-year/LRIP-to-LRIP? You know, the thing you keep claiming, unsubstantiated, has come down... the thing you keep refusing to substantiate.

[Guest Derek L]

c'mon... if the best you can do is compare to the most aged 80s gen Hornet!!! By the by, have they fixed this lil' concern yet (584nm)? Ya, ya, it's a couple of years dated but I just looked at the 2013 SAR and it does show an estimate for 690nm... estimate! The 2013 SAR includes a reference to 'Demonstrated Performance' as "TBD" (to be determined). Don't tell me you're throwing down and relying upon another... not another... of your estimate/do be determined figures! Say it ain't so!!!

Fix your link...

[Guest Derek L]

me? Me alone? You've never done that? Ever? But again, what does this have to do with your PW contractor linked article and the overall cost of the program development... year-to-year/LRIP-to-LRIP? You know, the thing you keep claiming, unsubstantiated, has come down... the thing you keep refusing to substantiate.

It already has been provided.

[waldo]

It already has been provided.

easy to say - just another of your unsubstantiated claims! Just show it! Be all you can be!

[waldo]

Fix your link...

linkee fixed

[Guest Derek L]

linkee fixed

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/f35/f-35a-ctol-variant.html

Range

(internal fuel)

>1,200 nm /

2,200 km

versus:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

Range: Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (1252.4 miles/2,003 km)

[Guest Derek L]

And some more late breaking Lockheed & Canadian harmony:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/june/130617ae_lockheed-martin-cae-establish-training-alliance.html

During a ceremony held at the Canadian Pavilion at the Paris Air Show, O’Bryan and Gene Colabatistto, group president, Defence and Security at CAE, signed the MOU that identifies Quebec-based CAE as a preferred provider of in-country F-35 training support, training system integration, operations and maintenance.

So in one days time, Lockheed has signed two new major deals linking the F-35 with Canada’s aviation industry, in this case one firm in Quebec and the other Ontario………What party is going to run against high tech jobs in Ontario and Quebec?

[waldo]

versus:

I fixed the link you pointed out... the one detailing the F-35 combat radius concern. So, of course, you ignore it and continue on with flight range. Ok, ok... I initially said "range" - I guess me thinking you might get clued in from the provided link (and the related statement provided stating the combat radius figure) was a reach! In any case, range (proper) isn't a SAR performance metric... but combat radius is.

surely you're not avoiding my link and the combat radius reference... because that's one performance metric the Pentagon had to relax to simply allow the F-35 to reach an objective goal. That's not why you're ignoring it, is it?

but again, why compare to the aged CF-18? By the by, is your LockMart provided range number tested/proven? (/snarc)

on edit: linkee fixed

Edited June 17, 2013 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

I fixed the link you pointed out... the one detailing the F-35 combat radius concern. So, of course, you ignore it and continue on with flight range. Ok, ok... I initially said "range" - I guess me thinking you might get clued in from the provided link (and the related statement provided stating the combat radius figure) was a reach! In any case, range (proper) isn't a SAR performance metric... but combat radius is.

surely you're not avoiding my link and the combat radius reference... because that's one performance metric the Pentagon had to relax to simply allow the F-35 to reach an objective goal. That's not why you're ignoring it, is it?

but again, why compare to the aged CF-18? By the by, is your LockMart provided range number tested/proven? (/snarc)

Oops! This link appears to be broken.

[waldo]

Oops! This link appears to be broken.

2nd linkee fixed in recent posts.. juggling too many things right now!

[waldo]

And some more late breaking

speaking of... oh my, oh my! Italy... it's a F-35 tier 2 partner right? Italy's ruling party divided over order for F-35 combat jets

Italian opposition parties and some lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party called on the government on Thursday to abandon its plans to buy 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets.

Italy's total planned investment in the new Lightning II Joint Strike fighters (JSF) exceeds 10 billion euros ($12.97 billion) even though it cut its order last year to 90 aircraft from the 131 it had originally penciled in to buy more than a decade ago, a move it said would save 5 billion euros.

However, the project is seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over initial cost estimates. Other countries have also cut their provisional orders for the plane because of the economic crisis that has shrunk defense budgets worldwide.

.