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

[Guest Derek L]

keep this up and not only will I reach for Winslow... I'll go for Koop too!!! Why don't you throw down another LockMart video... that was a nice touch a few posts back!

.

Go for it.........Winslow's a little sour, since his F-16 actually does have inferior flight performance to the F-35.......Of course, when comparing the two side-by-side, he often omits that the F-16 requires it’s afterburners to keep pace with the F-35.………..Koop…….What’s he nattering about? Why the RAAF should have kept the F-111 and how Migs are the future

Now come on Waldo, I was actually trying to be nice to you by confirming your statement, and you threaten me with dribble

[waldo]

Now come on Waldo, I was actually trying to be nice to you by confirming your statement, and you threaten me with dribble

I don't need/require your self-proclaimed 'niceness'... it's not genuine, anyway! (I don't validate myself from your post approvals!).

of course, to you (and all LockMart fanboys) Winslow & Koop are dribble... I gave you a chance to rip Winslow a new one just a few posts back. You know, his counter to the GAO's critique of his own 'F-35 error report'. Since the GAO only came back with 3 items they didn't contest, I was sure you could have managed... just 3 items. Of course, that would have meant getting into the mix... into things like the actual SAR reports. You know - the reports you have avoided from day one! Wonder why... hmmmm.

anyway, carry on!

[Guest Derek L]

I don't need/require your self-proclaimed 'niceness'... it's not genuine, anyway! (I don't validate myself from your post approvals!).

of course, to you (and all LockMart fanboys) Winslow & Koop are dribble... I gave you a chance to rip Winslow a new one just a few posts back. You know, his counter to the GAO's critique of his own 'F-35 error report'. Since the GAO only came back with 3 items they didn't contest, I was sure you could have managed... just 3 items. Of course, that would have meant getting into the mix... into things like the actual SAR reports. You know - the reports you have avoided from day one! Wonder why... hmmmm.

anyway, carry on!

I'm shocked........I try to extend the olive branch, In a sincere manner, interjecting myself in your exchange with the porch dog, sans any sly emoticons or videos, well speaking to the science relating to aerodynamics…….not attempting to undermine your post, but reaffirm it………What can I say……..

Well’ here’s your requested video Waldo……Enjoy (I really do mean it)

Buy Lockheed

[DogOnPorch]

I'm shocked........I try to extend the olive branch, In a sincere manner, interjecting myself in your exchange with the porch dog, sans any sly emoticons or videos, well speaking to the science relating to aerodynamics…….not attempting to undermine your post, but reaffirm it………What can I say……..

Well’ here’s your requested video Waldo……Enjoy (I really do mean it)

Buy Lockheed

That Kelly Johnson legacy in action. The F-35 can trace its roots to the P-38 Lightning. Another aircraft that faced numerous setbacks before becoming the perfect killing machine of WW2.

[waldo]

Buy Lockheed

as member GH pointed out a few posts back... there is a dedicated thread for that kind of propaganda/porn! I guess no other manufacturers put out glossies like that vid, hey? I did start to watch it... for about 45 secs - what hits home is 'what happened with the F-35'? Why all the problems, delays, huge cost over-runs... and we, quite literally, have no real successful target performance metrics to speak of to this day! A decade+ of iterative failure to the point, a variant was canned... then brought back, the USN has (for all purposes abandoned the F-35), partner countries have significantly cut back purchase intentions, branches of the U.S. military have done the same, and the program itself was (some say still is) in jeopardy given tight... and tighter U.S. Congressional oversight and budget constraints. Skunk-works? That phrase can be taken several ways, can't it?

[DogOnPorch]

The Skunk Works consistently produces bleeding edge aircraft. The SR-71, for example, was one of those things you had to have seen (and heard) before you'd believe such a thing could be real...and from 1962. It was very expensive...but very successful. Also consistent is the fact that in the air war biz, quality beats quantity every time. Ask an Arab pilot post Mole Cricket 19...if you can find an eyewitness.

[waldo]

The Skunk Works consistently produces bleeding edge aircraft.

yup... there's a lot of F-35 blood oozing the last decade+

[DogOnPorch]

yup... there's a lot of F-35 blood oozing the last decade+

I already know your opinion on the F-35 but I doubt your personal dislike of the project will matter that much. There's not much else to buy that doesn't make even less sense. At least not that you can come-up with, it seems. So, ultimately, time will tell. Perhaps JT will get the throne and he'll cancel it outright and we can try something cheaper and older. Or nothing at all if that's what the Liberals decide.

[waldo]

I already know your opinion on the F-35 but I doubt your personal dislike of the project will matter that much.

it will matter as much as your personal rah-rah favoritism of the project - yes? A favoritism that seems less founded on actual results than on a presumption of success - yes? A favoritism that seems less founded on measured balance to Canadian requirements - yes? A favoritism that seems akin to a desire for a shiny bauble... regardless of the cost - yes? A favoritism that relies upon your manufactured menaces still tied to the distant cold-war - yes? Etc., etc., etc..

[Guest Derek L]

as member GH pointed out a few posts back... there is a dedicated thread for that kind of propaganda/porn! I guess no other manufacturers put out glossies like that vid, hey? I did start to watch it... for about 45 secs - what hits home is 'what happened with the F-35'? Why all the problems, delays, huge cost over-runs... and we, quite literally, have no real successful target performance metrics to speak of to this day! A decade+ of iterative failure to the point, a variant was canned... then brought back, the USN has (for all purposes abandoned the F-35), partner countries have significantly cut back purchase intentions, branches of the U.S. military have done the same, and the program itself was (some say still is) in jeopardy given tight... and tighter U.S. Congressional oversight and budget constraints. Skunk-works? That phrase can be taken several ways, can't it?

What Happened? In my opinion, a great many of your concerns were planted from the very start into the initial concept of what became the Joint Strike Fighter, not the fault of Lockheed (X-35) or Boeing (X-32), but of Government requirements to make the concept all singing and dancing………

At issue, is not the requirement for the Air Force and Navy to share a design, they’ve proven that plausible in the past with the F-4, when both services have similar requirements. In my view, the requirement of the inclusion of the STOVL variant for the USMC, Royal Navy & Air Force and several other members seeking to eventually replace their Harriers.

The required inclusion of STOVL into the design/concept of both companies aircraft degraded/limited the amount of synergies and advancements both Boeing and Lockheed could borrow from their combined effort on the F-22 Raptor. Ultimately Lockheed proved better with their design to cram a STOVL aircraft into a conventional design…….

This is not to say the intent of savings and interoperability in making a single aircraft work for all partner nations was not noble, and in all probability, The United States would have ended up funding three separate designs at added cost…….That’s how it panned out…….

Now many of the delays, cost overruns etc etc, can again be attributed to changing requirements by not only the United States Government, but other partner nations, coupled with the requirement of it’s international flavour to spread the pork amongst all the other nations within the program……..Couple this with advancing technology and the sensible inclusion into the design, throw in a pinch of mistakes made by the builders and their subcontractors and here we are.

Ultimately though, the design will succeed because it has to, there are no other viable, long-term alternatives available today………As I’m sure you can appreciate, near all defence programs “go over budget”, for many of the same reasons outlined above, in the case of the JSF, the problems and costs are heightened by it’s Global impact………To reduce future cost overruns in defence programs, reduce political and economical largess in said programs…….Go back to basics, and forget with reinventing the very simple concept put forth decades ago by the late Colonel John Boyd:

[DogOnPorch]

it will matter as much as your personal rah-rah favoritism of the project - yes? A favoritism that seems less founded on actual results than on a presumption of success - yes? A favoritism that seems less founded on measured balance to Canadian requirements - yes? A favoritism that seems akin to a desire for a shiny bauble... regardless of the cost - yes? A favoritism that relies upon your manufactured menaces still tied to the distant cold-war - yes? Etc., etc., etc..

I really don't know if the F-35 is going to be the right aircraft for Canada and I've stated this before. It certainly is quite the high tech package that will make meat of 99% of its opponents. But, at a price. My choice of the Super Tucano for overseas dedicated organic air support was ignored by you and others pages and months ago. Build 'em here on license. Drawbacks are that they'd likely take more casualties than any comparable group of F-35s. But, if it's savings you want while filling that NATO strike requirement...here's your plane. Comparable to the T-28 Trojan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

Another choice might be this machine for the same type of work. I've heard rumors they're going back into production with updated everything. Like with the Super Tucano, you'd need to be operating from forward bases which, luckily could be primitive and work...or even a good stretch of highway...Fulda Gap style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco

Edited June 19, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

it will matter as much as your personal rah-rah favoritism of the project - yes? A favoritism that seems less founded on actual results than on a presumption of success - yes? A favoritism that seems less founded on measured balance to Canadian requirements - yes? A favoritism that seems akin to a desire for a shiny bauble... regardless of the cost - yes? A favoritism that relies upon your manufactured menaces still tied to the distant cold-war - yes? Etc., etc., etc..

No.....domestic "rah-rah favoritism" will win the day because it is supported by defined military, political, and labour objectives. Canada tried the home grown "Canadian requirements" approach almost 60 years ago only to crash and burn when the going got tough and costs exceeded program budgets with no foreign sales in sight. The Americans and their JSF partners will not fold so easily. The F-35 is in production, not Lake Ontario.

[DogOnPorch]

No.....domestic "rah-rah favoritism" will win the day because it is supported by defined military, political, and labour objectives. Canada tried the home grown "Canadian requirements" approach almost 60 years ago only to crash and burn when the going got tough and costs exceeded program budgets with no foreign sales in sight. The Americans and their JSF partners will not fold so easily. The F-35 is in production, not Lake Ontario.

Last I checked, "my manufactured menaces" are still busy making/selling aircraft, as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Last I checked, "my manufactured menaces" are still busy making/selling aircraft, as well.

Obviously they lack the expertise and wisdom of certain MLW F-35 naysayers. Maybe those "manufactured menaces" are too busy playing stealth catch-up to read web forums.

[DogOnPorch]

Obviously they lack the expertise and wisdom of certain MLW F-35 naysayers. Maybe those "manufactured menaces" are too busy playing stealth catch-up to read web forums.

They're busy doing official work in Syria...which, of course, isn't menacing at all. Now if we can just put a big dome over the joint...

[GostHacked]

Obviously they lack the expertise and wisdom of certain MLW F-35 naysayers. Maybe those "manufactured menaces" are too busy playing stealth catch-up to read web forums.

This rock I currently have in my hand offers me more protection than the F-35.

When do we take possession of the F-35? All of this talk means nothing if we do not actually have a functional aircraft.

Hundreds of millions already spent, and nothing to show for it.

[Guest Derek L]

This rock I currently have in my hand offers me more protection than the F-35.

When do we take possession of the F-35? All of this talk means nothing if we do not actually have a functional aircraft.

Hundreds of millions already spent, and nothing to show for it.

We told you that already..........As for hundreds of millions (~$350 million to date) spent invested, the Canadian aerospace industry has received $438 million in contracts (not counting the two large deals signed this week at the Paris Air Show, coupled with the P&W contract that should be signed within the next 30 days)........And that's with ~100 aircraft produced or in production......

[waldo]

And that's with ~100 aircraft produced or in production......

which means nothing in terms of their respective capabilities through the iterative LRIP phases the particular aircraft associate to... most pointedly tied to the problem of development/testing concurrency and the need to retrofit each and every one of those LRIP aircraft to get them to the "latest and greatest"... which isn't anywhere near "the end of development". Of course, in keeping with the recent months "everything's peachy news blitz" emanating from LockMart, from the F-35 Program Office,and even now emanating from the Pentagon, in recent days we get a revised estimate on the retrofit costs for those existing aircraft just to (supposedly) get them to the LRIP 6 stage... of course, with all the usual behind covering caveats:

Pentagon Says Cost to Retrofit F-35s Drops $500 Million

The estimate on upgrades for the first five contracts of 90 aircraft has dropped to about $1.2 billion from $1.7 billion, the Pentagon said in a new report to Congress on “concurrency.” That’s the system under which the fighters are being built even as they’re still in development.

Retrofitting involves changes to aircraft that have already been built to fix shortcomings or incorporate improvements.

from a somewhat distant past discussion, are you now willing to throw out your 'guess' on just how many LRIP phases we'll actually see? Not the LockMart spun number, your guess... don't pay any attention to my earlier references that were, given all the known problems... just the known ones... "speculating" on the likelihood of 12-to-14 LRIP phases. Your guess, if you will?

.

[Guest Derek L]

which means nothing in terms of their respective capabilities through the iterative LRIP phases the particular aircraft associate to... most pointedly tied to the problem of development/testing concurrency and the need to retrofit each and every one of those LRIP aircraft to get them to the "latest and greatest"... which isn't anywhere near "the end of development". Of course, in keeping with the recent months "everything's peachy news blitz" emanating from LockMart, from the F-35 Program Office,and even now emanating from the Pentagon, in recent days we get a revised estimate on the retrofit costs for those existing aircraft just to (supposedly) get them to the LRIP 6 stage... of course, with all the usual behind covering caveats:

Pentagon Says Cost to Retrofit F-35s Drops $500 Million

from a somewhat distant past discussion, are you now willing to throw out your 'guess' on just how many LRIP phases we'll actually see? Not the LockMart spun number, your guess... don't pay any attention to my earlier references that were, given all the known problems... just the known ones... "speculating" on the likelihood of 12-to-14 LRIP phases. Your guess, if you will?

.

Your point?

[waldo]

Your point?

your point?

[Guest Derek L]

your point?

My lack of understanding as to why you’re providing an update that details a reduction of costs in later upgrading current F-35s.

As to my guess, of the three models, I’d say another 3 or 4 stages of LRIP aircraft until full rate production in ~2017, or one batch/stage per year………This of course would be indicative of all aircraft reaching full rate production at the same time…….It’s possible the F-35A could do so sooner, thusly skipping a LRIP stage, well the F-35C requires an additional phase (or two) well conducting initial carrier/sea trials.

With that said, unlike all previous aircraft that were limited to one or two major block upgrades over the course of their lives, the F-35 program will be one of “living upgrades”, in that as new technology etc becomes available, it will be added to the entire fleet.

[waldo]

My lack of understanding as to why you’re providing an update that details a reduction of costs in later upgrading current F-35s.

my reply is self-explanatory and a direct response to yours. You spoke of the current number of planes produced... you did not emphasize the state of those planes. I responded emphasizing the problems with concurrency (combined testing and development) and the need to retrofit each and every one of those existing planes to bring them all to the latest LRIP stage (6). Of course, LRIP stages build successively upon each other... only 30 of those existing 90 are even at LRIP 5. The linked article states, as an estimate, $1.2 billion will be required to retrofit all the planes to LRIP-6.

As to my guess, of the three models, I’d say another 3 or 4 stages of LRIP aircraft

when the acknowledged MLW F-35 cheerleader suggests another 4 stages... I am inclined to go with those speculating on 14!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

With that said, unlike all previous aircraft that were limited to one or two major block upgrades over the course of their lives, the F-35 program will be one of “living upgrades”, in that as new technology etc becomes available, it will be added to the entire fleet.

This being a basic design feature, software releases will update avionics, comms, nav, fire control, EW, etc. These aren't grandpa's CF-18's.

[AlienB]

We told you that already..........As for hundreds of millions (~$350 million to date) spent invested, the Canadian aerospace industry has received $438 million in contracts (not counting the two large deals signed this week at the Paris Air Show, coupled with the P&W contract that should be signed within the next 30 days)........And that's with ~100 aircraft produced or in production......

ok so what is the return on this 350 million subsidy.. to american companies. How much income do workers get, how much of that is taxable..

The federal government subsidizing american controlled corporations is counter productive to the Canadian economy.

how much is actually going to be returned to the federal government?

Its a bit like saying I'll invest $100,000 in stock and get $30,000 back in dividends and the stock resale... math does not compute.

making a grand minus seventy thousand in the exchange.

people who invest that way end up bankrupt.

Is that what you suggest for the federal government?

go ahead show the figures.

giving money to american companies doesn't make much sense, why should Canadians be giving money away to Lockheed martin investors?

Also if you then take into account P&W contracts under the premise of pay 16 billion by buying the aircraft or we won't give you that 5 million in taxes.. doesn't make much sense mathimatically also.

how does subsidizing UTC help the canadian economy, it sounds more like it will kill the canadian economy in favour of us control of the canadian economy by americans.

your logic makes no sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Technologies_Corporation

This isn't empty rhetoric I'd like an answer.

Edited June 20, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

This being a basic design feature, software releases will update avionics, comms, nav, fire control, EW, etc. These aren't grandpa's CF-18's.

Exactly, and this is what makes the F-35 unique when compared with other aircraft, including the F-22 Raptor…….Case in point, Canada and Australia upgraded a portion of their respective Hornet fleets last decade, brining them inline with USN & USMC Hornets that were produced in the late 80s and 90s…..nearly 15 years behind in some aspects………..With the F-35, all users will achieve parity with one another as upgrades become available, in that a RAAF F-35 could be flown by a USAF pilot, maintained by a Canadian ground crew and utilizing Norwegian weapons…