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

[Guest Derek L]

Some more news, this time demonstrating how some might have used inaccurate numbers against the F-35.……I’ll assume by accident of course:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2013.page

For the annual updates to Parliament the Department uses two distinct data sources to derive the acquisition cost estimate for a fleet of Canadian F-35A aircraft and the associated life-cycle costs estimates. The F-35 Joint Program Office provides estimates for over 90 per cent of the acquisition and sustainment cost data. The remainder of the life-cycle cost data is dependent on how Canada would operate its fleet, and the cost estimate is based on data from Canadian sources. National Defence also takes into account actual and projected differences between the Canadian and United States currencies, and other such economic factors that affect cost estimates.

Canada received a bilateral cost estimate from the F-35 Joint Program Office on 7 June 2013. The bilateral sustainment cost estimate provided to Canada showed a significant year-over-year decrease in cost, in the order of 12%. However, this 12% reduction contrasted with the Selected Acquisition Report 2012 (SAR 12) that the US Department of Defense tabled in Congress on 23 May 2013, which showed no significant change in the sustainment cost estimate. The SAR sustainment estimate did not change because it was based on the 2011 estimate prepared by the office of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE), an independent US Government agency, which wasn't updated in 2012. The CAPE estimate is a more conservative position and does not take into account 2012 updates to the technical baseline and estimate inputs, whereas the F-35 program office estimate does. In SAR 12:

• the acquisition cost estimate is based on F-35 Joint Program Office calculations; and
• the most recent F-35 Joint Program Office sustainment cost estimate has not yet been reviewed by CAPE. As a result, the SAR 12 sustainment costs are essentially unchanged from the SAR 11 estimate.

In order to mitigate the situation wherein the 12% reduction in sustainment costs reported by the F-35 Joint Program Office were not independently confirmed by CAPE nor reported to Congress in the SAR 12 report, National Defence has significantly increased sustainment contingency, such that it is comfortably in the range recommended by KPMG and significantly higher than last year’s provision.

I trust the Canadian MSM will be reporting on this shortly.........As will the Official Opposition this Fall.

So even with that:

In order to mitigate the situation wherein the 12% reduction in sustainment costs reported by the F-35 Joint Program Office were not independently confirmed by CAPE nor reported to Congress in the SAR 12 report, National Defence has significantly increased sustainment contingency, such that it is comfortably in the range recommended by KPMG and significantly higher than last year’s provision.

So even with increasing a portion of their estimates to counter any future errors or “accidental omissions” on the part of CAPE, the overall conservative estimate puts sustainment cost down by over 100 million…..Couple this by the decreasing per plane price, I’m forced to wonder what all the anti-F-35 lobby will do once the Governments price estimates hold true…….god forbid the actual price tag comes in under the Governments estimates

Edited August 11, 2013 by Derek L

[Social Justice]

I am confused with this debate....84 pages of it. It seems we have spent money on this plane already, I think citizens should have a number to consider of how much we have spent on this effort to replace the F-18 to date. It is relevant in deciding what to do next, costing an alternative is a requirement, and it represents a portion of the total expense of the project.

Keeping in mind the total value of the project needs to be viewed as money exported out of the country in exchange for the products we choose to buy. That is a reality we need to consider. To prove that point we are now discussing buying an aircraft for use in the RCAF that costs 100 million dollars and an engine to use it is not included in the price. The entertaining thing about this is that it is supposed to be a serious debate. In other words back to square one, we don't really know how much this plane is going to cost the tax payer. Our government wants us to buy it anyway, I will suggest the question be answered by means of public mandate.

[Guest Derek L]

I am confused with this debate....84 pages of it. It seems we have spent money on this plane already, I think citizens should have a number to consider of how much we have spent on this effort to replace the F-18 to date. It is relevant in deciding what to do next, costing an alternative is a requirement, and it represents a portion of the total expense of the project.

Just under ~400 million in development fees to the F-35 program and support to Canadian industry....Canadian industry to date has received back roughly ~450 million:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html#a3C3

Keeping in mind the total value of the project needs to be viewed as money exported out of the country in exchange for the products we choose to buy. That is a reality we need to consider.

Yes and no, to date, these Canadian companies are involved in the program:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html#a4

To prove that point we are now discussing buying an aircraft for use in the RCAF that costs 100 million dollars and an engine to use it is not included in the price.

We are not buying aircraft from the current production order, as such, we will not be paying a the current price.

[Wilber]

Whatever we replace the F-18's with will be very expensive and will have to last us at least 30 years so we better get it right.

As I understand it, DND and Industry Canada have invested about 150 million in the F-35 project. This made us a level 3 industrial partner which have resulted in contracts currently valued at 490 million and could ultimately reach over 6 billion during the aircraft's life. It is a bit of gamble until the aircraft's future is settled but the potential payoff to Canadian industry is very large if it turns out to be a success.

It's a mystery to me why so many are going out of their way to slag it when the potential benefits to Canadian aerospace and educational institutions are so great. At least try and put their Harper hatred aside for a while, keep an open mind and try to get this right, because we will be living with the consequences long after Harper is gone whether we get the thing or not.

On edit:

Derek's numbers are more up to date than the ones I found.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest Derek L]

It's a mystery to me why so many are going out of their way to slag it when the potential benefits to Canadian aerospace and educational institutions are so great. At least try and put their Harper hatred aside for a while, keep an open mind and try to get this right, because we will be living with the consequences long after Harper is gone whether we get the thing or not.

Exactly…..well spreading out the benefits for decades to come…..It’s funny, the same people that bemoan the program are often the very same that speak to the manufacturing industry going overseas……..

[Social Justice]

Just under ~400 million in development fees to the F-35 program and support to Canadian industry....Canadian industry to date has received back roughly ~450 million:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html#a3C3

Yes and no, to date, these Canadian companies are involved in the program:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html#a4

We are not buying aircraft from the current production order, as such, we will not be paying a the current price.

So the numbers say the Canadian tax payer spent 400 million and Canadian companies made 450 million dollars. Interesting, somehow I seriously doubt those numbers. I find it odd that between the tax payers and the companies in Canada we somehow managed to get the companies in the United States pay us 50 million dollars to buy their airplanes.......really? Who knew that we would benefit that much from this program that has not yet even been approved by the Government of Canada. These guys are a lot smarter than I thought. The new price or the old price doesn't really matter other than to provide a fixed number for budget purposes. It seems that that particular number is hard to find, strange but true. If the price of the F-35 is supposed to be 100 million dollars without an engine....I believe that the next question should be a little more than merely obvious. How much does an actual flying aircraft cost? That was the question two decades ago when the program was getting off the ground and it is the same question today.

The reality is that we never were buying an aircraft, we have been from the start financing the development of the aircraft. We need to admit our first mistake was in investing in development instead of purchasing a product. We did this when we built the Arrow, then we did it behind the backs of the public with the F35.

[Guest Derek L]

So the numbers say the Canadian tax payer spent 400 million and Canadian companies made 450 million dollars. Interesting, somehow I seriously doubt those numbers. I find it odd that between the tax payers and the companies in Canada we somehow managed to get the companies in the United States pay us 50 million dollars to buy their airplanes.......really? Who knew that we would benefit that much from this program that has not yet even been approved by the Government of Canada. These guys are a lot smarter than I thought.

Perhaps you can share some insight into what causes you to foster doubt?

The new price or the old price doesn't really matter other than to provide a fixed number for budget purposes. It seems that that particular number is hard to find, strange but true. If the price of the F-35 is supposed to be 100 million dollars without an engine....I believe that the next question should be a little more than merely obvious. How much does an actual flying aircraft cost?

Why does that mater to you, three lines above you state:

The new price or the old price doesn't really matter other than to provide a fixed number for budget purposes.

The reality is that we never were buying an aircraft, we have been from the start financing the development of the aircraft. We need to admit our first mistake was in investing in development instead of purchasing a product. We did this when we built the Arrow, then we did it behind the backs of the public with the F35.

The reality is you don’t appear to understand that to purchase a product, one has to develop it first.

Two post and I'm rapidly losing interest.....

[Wilber]

Canada has always tried to get as much involvement as it can in the manufacture of it's military acquisitions. It only makes sense if you can't afford to develop these systems yourself. The only other way is to become a major arms exporter on our own which would take massive investment and involve huge risk. There are very few countries in the world that can afford to develop an advanced weapons system and have it fail in the international market. Canada is not one of them. The Arrow project was a perfect example, it was just not viable without large sales to other countries.

[Social Justice]

Perhaps you can share some insight into what causes you to foster doubt?

Why does that mater to you, three lines above you state:

The reality is you don’t appear to understand that to purchase a product, one has to develop it first.

Two post and I'm rapidly losing interest.....

I doubt those numbers because they were produced by the group avoiding answering the question. Those were government numbers, being what they are I expect them to reflect their position, don't you? Stats are very simple things, you design a question to fit the answer you want, the government has a very talented propaganda corps. Economic common sense does not lead a person to believe that the most powerful military industrial complex in the world does not function on a for profit basis. That said, Canada getting more out of the project than it puts in is a blatant misrepresentation of fact. Only a fool would believe that Canada will make money out of this deal. That same fool would believe we will somehow break even, but they are fools.

The price per delivered flying aircraft is the question, not whether or not Fred Barney or Joe believes it is worth it or not. What matters is how much it will cost the tax payer and how such a fleecing will occur. It is not a question of if but when we have to begin to pay for this program. The tax payers deserve to know the details of the program, that means costing it out. To do that we must know what each flying aircraft will cost to purchase, cost to fly, and cost to maintain over its planned lifespan.

The reality is that this program will cost a great deal of money over many years. It (the costs) was misrepresented from the beginning and that is a fact. That cannot be changed, yet the replacement program is a requirement of national defense, and as such it will take place. Logically the only viable question about the program then becomes completing it as quickly as possible at the lowest net cost to the tax payer. How that actually takes place is the real issue, regardless of the aircraft of choice. Value per dollar invested is the only true benchmark for the tax payer. The government cannot be accused of stretching out the process, the manufacturer has encountered delivery issues, and more to the point relatively limited investment has to date been the extent of the risk. Having said that, delivery dates become relevant factoring in inflationary considerations. From a purely economic stand point, the longer it takes the more expensive it will become. We can pretend otherwise, but historically speaking development is neither cost nor time sensitive, it is to say the least unpredictable. With that in mind I suggested that in my original posting which would have required the reader to accept the premise that we would have been further ahead to have taken something off the shelf instead of getting involved with the developmental process. There are many airframes and may choices available to fill our needs. The word needs is the crux of the problem in my view. That is because this nation has undefined goals and objectives and can therefore not determine which direction it should be undertaking. By this I mean before we decide that we replace the equipment we have . we must define what equipment we need on a priority basis. In this specific case we have decided we need to replace the F-18, a multi-role attack aircraft chosen for operation in our climate with an aircraft designed for compatibility with nations we are allied with. Sound reasoning if you are preparing for a war of attrition where munitions and supplies are produced for instant use in a military situation, That is not the case in reality, the use of this equipment is more likely to be a very short engagement with limited use of rearm on any kind of sustained basis. Thus the current theory that we would be using forward secure bases of operations in countries we are allied with. In the entire length of service of the F-18 it has seen active service once. The aircraft it replaced never did fire a shot in anger. That is a historic reality, this is not a nation that uses military force in anything but a rare instance. Resupply with allied forces is a very bad reason to choose any airframe. Our own operational requirements should take precedence over allied concerns.

So the essence of my doubt in the governments response and their numbers is based on what I believe to be their flawed approach to national defense. In my view, the defense of the nation has a greater priority than our ability to project force. For that reason alone I believe the government is undertaking a flawed procurrerment policy . If the nation is to be undertaking the development of an aircraft then it should be built in Canada, if the nation is to be buying an aircraft then it buys an aircraft. We did not learn enough from the failed Arrow program I guess for some. Developing aircraft is not our gig. We are really good at doing it, we just suck at selling the damned things. Its an expensive lesson we need to review. There are off the shelf alternatives that are being flown from factories as we speak, we can choose that option. It will be cheaper than sticking with this pre-production hanger queen.

[ReeferMadness]

I am confused with this debate....84 pages of it. It seems we have spent money on this plane already, I think citizens should have a number to consider of how much we have spent on this effort to replace the F-18 to date. It is relevant in deciding what to do next, costing an alternative is a requirement, and it represents a portion of the total expense of the project.

Keeping in mind the total value of the project needs to be viewed as money exported out of the country in exchange for the products we choose to buy. That is a reality we need to consider. To prove that point we are now discussing buying an aircraft for use in the RCAF that costs 100 million dollars and an engine to use it is not included in the price. The entertaining thing about this is that it is supposed to be a serious debate. In other words back to square one, we don't really know how much this plane is going to cost the tax payer. Our government wants us to buy it anyway, I will suggest the question be answered by means of public mandate.

The price of these useless birds was always a case of 3 card monte. It was dependent on the development costs and how many were sold and the price of tea in India and 38 other factors. The pricing algorithm was no doubt designed by the same Wall Street boys who specialized in mortgage backed securities.

[Guest Derek L]

I doubt those numbers because they were produced by the group avoiding answering the question. Those were government numbers, being what they are I expect them to reflect their position, don't you? Stats are very simple things, you design a question to fit the answer you want, the government has a very talented propaganda corps. Economic common sense does not lead a person to believe that the most powerful military industrial complex in the world does not function on a for profit basis. That said, Canada getting more out of the project than it puts in is a blatant misrepresentation of fact. Only a fool would believe that Canada will make money out of this deal. That same fool would believe we will somehow break even, but they are fools.

The price per delivered flying aircraft is the question, not whether or not Fred Barney or Joe believes it is worth it or not. What matters is how much it will cost the tax payer and how such a fleecing will occur. It is not a question of if but when we have to begin to pay for this program. The tax payers deserve to know the details of the program, that means costing it out. To do that we must know what each flying aircraft will cost to purchase, cost to fly, and cost to maintain over its planned lifespan.

The reality is that this program will cost a great deal of money over many years. It (the costs) was misrepresented from the beginning and that is a fact. That cannot be changed, yet the replacement program is a requirement of national defense, and as such it will take place. Logically the only viable question about the program then becomes completing it as quickly as possible at the lowest net cost to the tax payer. How that actually takes place is the real issue, regardless of the aircraft of choice. Value per dollar invested is the only true benchmark for the tax payer. The government cannot be accused of stretching out the process, the manufacturer has encountered delivery issues, and more to the point relatively limited investment has to date been the extent of the risk. Having said that, delivery dates become relevant factoring in inflationary considerations. From a purely economic stand point, the longer it takes the more expensive it will become. We can pretend otherwise, but historically speaking development is neither cost nor time sensitive, it is to say the least unpredictable. With that in mind I suggested that in my original posting which would have required the reader to accept the premise that we would have been further ahead to have taken something off the shelf instead of getting involved with the developmental process. There are many airframes and may choices available to fill our needs. The word needs is the crux of the problem in my view. That is because this nation has undefined goals and objectives and can therefore not determine which direction it should be undertaking. By this I mean before we decide that we replace the equipment we have . we must define what equipment we need on a priority basis. In this specific case we have decided we need to replace the F-18, a multi-role attack aircraft chosen for operation in our climate with an aircraft designed for compatibility with nations we are allied with. Sound reasoning if you are preparing for a war of attrition where munitions and supplies are produced for instant use in a military situation, That is not the case in reality, the use of this equipment is more likely to be a very short engagement with limited use of rearm on any kind of sustained basis. Thus the current theory that we would be using forward secure bases of operations in countries we are allied with. In the entire length of service of the F-18 it has seen active service once. The aircraft it replaced never did fire a shot in anger. That is a historic reality, this is not a nation that uses military force in anything but a rare instance. Resupply with allied forces is a very bad reason to choose any airframe. Our own operational requirements should take precedence over allied concerns.

So the essence of my doubt in the governments response and their numbers is based on what I believe to be their flawed approach to national defense. In my view, the defense of the nation has a greater priority than our ability to project force. For that reason alone I believe the government is undertaking a flawed procurrerment policy . If the nation is to be undertaking the development of an aircraft then it should be built in Canada, if the nation is to be buying an aircraft then it buys an aircraft. We did not learn enough from the failed Arrow program I guess for some. Developing aircraft is not our gig. We are really good at doing it, we just suck at selling the damned things. Its an expensive lesson we need to review. There are off the shelf alternatives that are being flown from factories as we speak, we can choose that option. It will be cheaper than sticking with this pre-production hanger queen.

Oh, ok, thanks.

[Guest Derek L]

Well not the greatest news, if the rumour is true, for Lockheed and the F-35 program:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130818/DEFREG03/308180003/Sources-F-35-Bid-Exceeds-S-Korean-Fighter-Budget?odyssey=nav%7Chead

SEOUL — Since South Korea launched a multibillion-dollar fighter acquisition plan in 2011, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 has always been regarded the leading candidate due to the “fifth-generation” jet’s stealth functions.

Just a few steps before the finish line, however, the front-runner is on the razor’s edge because the South Korean customer isn’t satisfied with the price guaranteed by the US government.

The other F-X bidders are Boeing with the F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Or apparently Eurofighter:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzeqYlm6rQu1NfXWMq4g9G20X1aQ?docId=CNG.d70750ed0f56e5e20f68518bfd0098aa.851

SEOUL — European aerospace consortium EADS has been eliminated from a bid to provide fighter jets worth $7.3 billion to South Korea due to a failure to meet some requirements, a report said Sunday.

The Eurofighter was dropped from the bid also sought by US company Boeing after the South's military found that the EADS proposal did not meet its key demands, Yonhap news agency said.

It cited an unidentified official at the Defense Acquisition Programme Administration (DAPA). A spokesman for DAPA was not immediately available for comment.

"A problem was found in the proposal document of one of two final bidders," Yonhap quoted the DAPA official as saying, adding the troubled bidder was known to be EADS.

"The company in question was deemed unfit (to join the final bid)," the official was quoted as saying.

Seoul is seeking 45 one-seater aircraft and 15 two-seaters. But EADS proposed only six two-seater aircraft, which are costly to produce, due to budget problems, Yonhap said.

It also quoted the estimated budget in British pounds instead of in US dollars as demanded by Seoul, the news agency said.

I’d think there to be many other reasons to eliminate the Typhoon, but if these reasons are true, it’s bordering on absurdity…..

In the end, the Republic of South Korea air force already operates several variants of the F-15, which would allow Boeing some synergies in reducing support, maintenance and training, all cost savings that couldn’t be achieved by both Lockheed and EADS, which would both be introducing a completely new aircraft and supply chain……So default goes to Boeing…..

Perhaps most importantly though, South Korea is a non-JSF partner nation (like us) with a similar requirement for the same number of aircraft, but set their acquisition budget nearly 2.5 Billion dollars less than Canada……For Lockheed in particular, there is no reasonable expectation to allow a non-partner, that hasn’t paid into the development of the F-35, to get a heavily discounted price when compared to what the JSF partners will be paying….

I will say though that Boeing has both yet to receive any real international interest in their F-15 Silent Eagle, and have yet to produce even a single flying prototype and the program is being funded by Boeing alone…..What will be interesting is to see who pays for any developmental issues with the canted tail surfaces, internal weapons bays and AESA radar developed for the F-15 family….Boeing? The United States Government? Or the South Koreans?

It is still possible that even the Silent Eagle won’t meet compliance with the South Korean program and they are left with no entries.

[Guest Derek L]

Well not the greatest news, if the rumour is true, for Lockheed and the F-35 program:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130818/DEFREG03/308180003/Sources-F-35-Bid-Exceeds-S-Korean-Fighter-Budget?odyssey=nav%7Chead

And Lockheed's response:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/18/usa-southkorea-fighter-idUSL2N0GJ0B720130818

Aug 18 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Sunday it would continue to work with the U.S. government on South Korea's huge fighter jet competition, despite reports that the firm's F-35 had been eliminated due to its high cost leaving onlyBoeing Co's F-15 in the running.

"Lockheed Martin has not received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding the results of the price bidding for the F-X Program," the company said in a statement.

"The F-X source selection process has multiple phases and we will continue to work closely with the U.S. government as they offer the F-35 to Korea," it said.

Well I guess like before, rumour surrounding the F-35 isn’t always true……

And in more direct Canadian F-35 news:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/computer+programming+facility+still+Canada+plans+documents/8804202/story.html

OTTAWA — Canada is still involved in the planning of a $650-million computer programming facility for the F-35 aircraft, but is holding off paying its share of the project until the government makes a decision on whether to buy the fighter aircraft.

The facility for reprograming the software-intensive stealth fighter would be operated by Canada, Britain and Australia. Canadian military officers are currently involved in the early stages of the project, according to Department of National Defence documents obtained by the Citizen.

So political interference within a Canadian defence procurement program is once again rearing it’s ugly head………

But Royal Canadian Air Force officers still privately express their confidence the Conservative government will eventually purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In 2012, Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, then commander of the air force, told a House of Commons’ committee the service still anticipated receiving the stealth fighter. “Currently, from an air force perspective, we are focused on delivery and transition to the F-35,” he noted.

I think it's one of the best worse kept secrets out there..........If not for political games, I'm certian we'd be in the early stages of negotiating the terms of the contract….Well also concreting the investment and next several decades of prosperity for the Canadian aerospace industry and the allowance of the RCAF to began open preparations for the transition to the 5th generation of fighter aircraft.

Only in Canada.....

[AlienB]

Thought I'd say the first article I've read about "competition" for f35 sales

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/09/27/china-says-j-31-fighter-will-compete-with-f-35-for-sales/

I wonder how much they are selling this for, and if it is less than the f35.. since it is based on the f35 technology that was pirated from the US.. maybe it will cost less due to cheap chinese labour and no R&D costs.

"the J-31 was never built with China’s military in mind, and it was highly unlikely that the PLA would ever operate J-31s off of its aircraft carriers. Instead, the J-31 was designed for export to China’s strategic partners and allies, particularly those that couldn’t purchase the F-35."

Maybe Canada can get a deal on it...

It has a cool name too "Falcon" F-60. 25 whole numbers higher than the F-35.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airshow-china-avic-proposes-stealth-fighter-for-export-378944/

This one from iran looks more saabish

http://www.defence.pk/forums/iranian-defence/232805-ghaher-313-fighter.html

very suit looks like it has wake rails on it for valkyrie effect.

Edited October 14, 2013 by AlienB

[PIK]

Buying form the euros is out of the question, parts would be a nightmare, they can't even run thier own countries.. We need to buy from N.A only.

[dre]

Buying form the euros is out of the question, parts would be a nightmare, they can't even run thier own countries.. We need to buy from N.A only.

I dont see why thats the case.

[Wilber]

Buying form the euros is out of the question, parts would be a nightmare, they can't even run thier own countries.. We need to buy from N.A only.

Better tell that to all the Airbus operators in the world. Guess I better dump my German car as well.

[waldo]

Better tell that to all the Airbus operators in the world. Guess I better dump my German car as well.

apparently member 'PIK' missed that key F-35 JSF talking point about 'foreign parts investment" opportunities for JSF member countries... I wonder if one were to show 'PIK' a grouping of the JSF country flags, whether he would recognize any of them, especially all those European flags?

[Guest Derek L]

Better tell that to all the Airbus operators in the world. Guess I better dump my German car as well.

This is true, but with that said, there is a worldwide supply chain already established for Airbus and German cars……..Not so much with the Eurofighter and the French Riff-Raff………The same could be said of their avionics, engines, weaponry etc………..The point is moot though, since the F-35A within it’s current LRIP framework, is already cheaper than both of the European offerings…..

[GostHacked]

Buying form the euros is out of the question, parts would be a nightmare, they can't even run thier own countries.. We need to buy from N.A only.

Situation does not seem much better over here. When was the last time national debt of Canada was reduced? If ever? They have budgets and income, but are always borrowing from tomorrow, so they can have it today. Then what happens tomorrow?

[waldo]

The point is moot though, since the F-35A within it’s current LRIP framework, is already cheaper than both of the European offerings…..

notwithstanding your continued LockMart propaganda, it is always heartening to read you compare a pre-production offering... a very, very, very limited offering... to real legitimate production alternatives that have been flying for some time.

[Guest Derek L]

notwithstanding your continued LockMart propaganda, it is always heartening to read you compare a pre-production offering... a very, very, very limited offering... to real legitimate production alternatives that have been flying for some time.

You desire a trip back into the weeds? As it stands with the recent deal between DoD and Lockheed, the F-35A (What we'll be getting) is cheaper then the two touted European production aircraft........Two aircraft that during the conflict in Libya still required 70s vintage aircraft alongside to "paint" targets so as to drop 70s vintage laser guided bombs, or in the case of the RAF's Eurofighter, 70s vintage Tornados and Harriers to do the entire mission.......As to the F-35 and LGBs:

[waldo]

You desire a trip back into the weeds?

when have you ever dared to enter into the real weeds? You know, real ones... not your LockMart propaganda laced weeds!

[Guest Derek L]

when have you ever dared to enter into the real weeds? You know, real ones... not your LockMart propaganda laced weeds!

Did you not speak to the "legitimacy" of the Eurofighter and Rafale?

[waldo]

Did you not speak to the "legitimacy" of the Eurofighter and Rafale?

I didn't speak directly to any plane... I referenced "pre-production vs. production". In any case, you're consistent if nothing else! You consistently trot out the LRIP (in whatever the hell state the F-35 truly is in... who knows!) and presume to cost compare it to anything/everything. Fwiw, I did chuckle at your 'B' video reference; considering you've been the guy to forever chastize others for daring to speak to anything other than the 'A' version! Go figure.