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

[waldo]

Gee... if you read my post you would realize that it wasn't your post, there was no link and it wasn't your quote I was responding to.

that's my point... you responded to a nothing post with an emoticon... that's it, that was your complete response. Meanwhile you completely ignored the quote/link I provided to the report from the US Department of Defense Inspector General... the report that speaks to significant concerns over quality/assurance within the JSFail program. Clearly you wanted nothing... clearly you want nothing... to do with that report.

[Wilber]

that's my point... you responded to a nothing post with an emoticon... that's it, that was your complete response. Meanwhile you completely ignored the quote/link I provided to the report from the US Department of Defense Inspector General... the report that speaks to significant concerns over quality/assurance within the JSFail program. Clearly you wanted nothing... clearly you want nothing... to do with that report.

My response wasn't to you. When I want to respond to you, I will.

[waldo]

My response wasn't to you. When I want to respond to you, I will.

again, my point entirely. You didn't want to respond to the scathing report from the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General... that report kind of gets in the way of the narrative, right?

[Smallc]

oh... you've spoken! You absolutely know that $75M per plane figure will be realized... you just know it! No where in those Harper Conservative $75M per plane costs was there ever any distinction offered between LockMart and contractors... no where was there any suggestion that additional (engine) costs were "over and above". You could show that... or you could just continue to state your unqualified and unsubstantiated opinion.

Do you not admit that the procurement budget is $9B? Or will you just keep dodging?

[Wilber]

again, my point entirely. You didn't want to respond to the scathing report from the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General... that report kind of gets in the way of the narrative, right?

When did you become On Guard for Thee?

[waldo]

Do you not admit that the procurement budget is $9B? Or will you just keep dodging?

nice! Any time you're ready to step forward and show that Harper Conservatives stated the cost per plane (without engine cost) was $75M per... please do so. Any time you're ready to step forward and show that Harper Conservatives spoke of a delineated LockMart versus "over and above" sub-contractor price, within that $75M per context... please do so. At that time the "official" engine cost was in that $20M-$25M range... so, your challenge is to show that Harper Conservatives left off ~30% additional costing while, forcefully and adamantly, stating the cost to Canadian taxpayers. Speaking of engine cost, the recent P&W contract signing, once again, had P&W refusing to identify per unit costing (per variant)... claiming, once again, that "competition" is the reason they refuse to identify actual engine costing. What competition? As I said, this is a very convenient way for the program to keep the actual cost of the plane "uncertain"... why, it's the very means that this board's head F-35 cheerleader has improperly compared costs (on at least two occasions, where I caught him so doing). Now, step up and take the challenge, or, as you say, "will you just keep dodging"?

Edited October 27, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

When did you become On Guard for Thee?

noted: you refuse to address... even acknowledge... a recently released official report that speaks very critically of the JSFail program.

[Smallc]

nice! Any time you're ready to step forward and show that Harper Conservatives stated the cost per plane (without engine cost) was $75M per... please do so. ]

Any time you're ready to admit that the procurement budget has always been set at $9B...I'll be waiting.

[waldo]

Any time you're ready to admit that the procurement budget has always been set at $9B...I'll be waiting.

as will I... be waiting for you... to meet the challenge put to you. You know, the challenge you refuse to take-up. Perhaps you could work it into that procurement number you keep nattering about!

[Wilber]

Any time you're ready to admit that the procurement budget has always been set at $9B...I'll be waiting.

I'm not going to read all 136 pages just because you say so and I doubt you have. Just looking at the findings and recommendations, it looks like they have quality assurance problems that are worse than normal and need to be addressed. However, the findings didn't say the F-35 was a poor aircraft and the recommendations didn't say it should be cancelled.

Satisfied? I doubt it.

[Guest Derek L]

And I fully expect that Boeing, for it’s own fiscal solvency, will also drop the self funded Super-Duper-Hornet in the months ahead due in large part to the realization that they lost to Lockheed over a decade ago…….

Going forward, I truly feel sorry for the plant workers and engineers that very well could lose their jobs, and I’d hope any losses could be made up through natural attrition and early retirements, but ultimately Boeing needs to now concentrate their resources into the next generation bomber, strategic lifter and of course, the eventual 6th generation fighter that will compete in the 2030s with the F-35 in replacing the Super Hornet, Strike Eagle and eventually the Raptor……

What do they say about broken clocks:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corpwill team up to bid on a new U.S. Air Force long-range bomber program, a multibillion-dollar project that U.S. Air Force officials have described as a top acquisition priority..n>.n>

Boeing, which has played a role in every U.S. bomber program since World War Two, would be the prime contractor on the next-generation bomber program, with Lockheed as its primary subcontractor, the companies said on Friday.

versus:

Northrop Grumman Corp , maker of the B-2 stealth bomber, is also expected to compete to build the new long-range strike bomber, a program that's expected to reap billions of dollars of revenue for the winning bidder..n>

But:

The teaming agreement brings together the Pentagon's two largest suppliers: Lockheed, ranked No. 1, and Boeing, the second-largest, which some analysts said would present Northrop with stiff competition.

"A Boeing-Lockheed teaming arrangement leaves Northrop as the odd man out," said Virginia-based defense consultant Loren Thompson. "It would be tough for Northrop to compete against a Boeing-Lockeed Martin bomber team, which would have greater resources and probably a greater ability to bid aggressively."

Shares of Boeing, Lockheed and other major defense contractors traded higher Friday after a round of better-than-expected recent earnings in the sector.

Lockheed shares were up more than 1 percent at $133.81 on the New York Stock Exchange, while Boeing shares were up 1.6 percent at $131.04. Northrop shares rose 0.8 percent to $108.34.

Great success

.n>

[waldo]

I'm not going to read all 136 pages just because you say so and I doubt you have. Just looking at the findings and recommendations, it looks like they have quality assurance problems that are worse than normal and need to be addressed. However, the findings didn't say the F-35 was a poor aircraft and the recommendations didn't say it should be cancelled.

Satisfied? I doubt it.

touchy much? Yes, the JSFail program has huuuuuge quality assurance problems.... as you say, "worse than normal". Of course, like other official U.S. government reports that negatively critique the program, this one just gets another hand-wave from cheer-leaders! As in past reports, whether criticizing cost overruns, or delays, or operational deficiencies, or testing results, etc., nothing phases proponents of this dog. 12+ years since program initiation and there isn't a single fully production level, fully operational plane (per original design intent/capability).

[Wilber]

touchy much? Yes, the JSFail program has huuuuuge quality assurance problems.... as you say, "worse than normal". Of course, like other official U.S. government reports that negatively critique the program, this one just gets another hand-wave from cheer-leaders! As in past reports, whether criticizing cost overruns, or delays, or operational deficiencies, or testing results, etc., nothing phases proponents of this dog. 12+ years since program initiation and there isn't a single fully production level, fully operational plane (per original design intent/capability).

Eurofighter development started in 1983, the first Typhoon flew in 1994 and it didn't enter service until 2003. The Rafale took about the same amount of time, so what's your point? These aircraft and their systems are incredibly complicated and stretch the limits of todays technology, materials and construction techniques. Boeing is doing the same thing with the 787 Dreamliner and having the same kinds of problems as they enter new territory in aircraft design and construction. They aren't just rolling out a new model car or the latest iPad.

[waldo]

Eurofighter development started in 1983, the first Typhoon flew in 1994 and it didn't enter service until 2003. The Rafale took about the same amount of time, so what's your point? These aircraft and their systems are incredibly complicated and stretch the limits of todays technology, materials and construction techniques. Boeing is doing the same thing with the 787 Dreamliner and having the same kinds of problems as they enter new territory in aircraft design and construction. They aren't just rolling out a new model car or the latest iPad.

apologists abound! Care to speak to a date for your interpretation of a fully developed (non-LRIP), completely retrofitted F-35... and when one of those would be available to Canada?

(as an aside, I can also read wikipedia!... seems that lil' ditty, the end of the Cold War, significantly altered demand for and prioritization of both the Eurofighter and the Rafale... notwithstanding the French Rafale didn't involve a conglomerate of nations).

[Wilber]

apologists abound! Care to speak to a date for your interpretation of a fully developed (non-LRIP), completely retrofitted F-35... and when one of those would be available to Canada?

Of course not. I'm not building the thing and have no say in the requirement. I'd just be blowing smoke out of my ass if I did. Like some other people.

[Guest Derek L]

And some more F-35 news from South Korea:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/uk-korea-fighter-idUKBRE99S0HP20131029

(Reuters) - A task force formed by South Korea's defence ministry to re-examine its fighter jet requirements is likely to reaffirm the need for a stealthy fifth generation fighter, giving a boost to Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 programme, according to several industry sources familiar with the tender.

No surprise, namely due to the planned proliferation of the Chinese stealth aircraft underdevelopment, namely the potential of a sale of said aircraft to the North Koreans……..

and of course:

A final contract could be signed by the third quarter of 2014 after the negotiations over the offset requirements, one source said. South Korea has not asked for an assembly line to be built in the country, and instead wants the winner of the competition to help with the development of its KF-X light fighter programme.

That will allow South Korea to get initial delivery of the F-35 by its original target of 2017 if it is chosen, given that the U.S. government and Lockheed need a three-year lead time from orders to the first deliveries.

Why I think this is worth mentioning, is that the same circumstances will also befall Canada, in that like the South Koreans, we to will have to commit soon if we want to start receiving the initial orders in the 2017-2018 timeframe. With the Americans, British, Dutch, Norwegians, Israelis, Japanese, Italians, Australians, Danes, Turks and now South Koreans having signed or are expected to sign within months their initial purchases, the time for Canada to piss or get off the pot is approaching if we wish to maintain our own timeframe for the Hornet replacement, well ensuring no capability holiday.

[eyeball]

fifth generation fighter

Holy Crap!

the time for Canada to piss or get off the pot is approaching

You're right. Canada should announce it's intent to develop multi-generational warp drive capable starfighters armed with chronoton-based weapons.

The thought of trying to meet the costs of keeping up with that will surely cause the world to bow before us in a fearful submissive awe.

[waldo]

And some more F-35 news

the latest days buzz has the suggestion that the ever doubtful USN, as a part of it's "Plan B", looking to order another 36 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler jets. Notwithstanding the USN's keen attention to Boeing's progress with the new advanced Super Hornet. Go Navy!

I've detailed the USN's past uncertainties with JSFail. Optics! It's all about optics. Of course, the real concern to F-35 cheerleaders is what this latest USN "hedging move" means to eventual USN F-35 procurement numbers.

You listed a lot of countries... does this suggest you're finally ready to put together that comparative list of initial procurement numbers... versus reduced commitment numbers... versus actual commitment numbers? Are you ready for that yet?

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. Navy uses "optics" for far more practical concerns involving applied physics, like ATFLIR targeting pods. "Optics" in any Canadian military procurement context is the usual three ring circus one has come to expect, from rotary winged aircraft to used diesel electric submarines.

Go "Optics" !

Edited October 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

the latest days buzz has the suggestion that the ever doubtful USN, as a part of it's "Plan B", looking to order another 36 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler jets. Notwithstanding the USN's keen attention to Boeing's progress with the new advanced Super Hornet. Go Navy!

I've detailed the USN's past uncertainties with JSFail. Optics! It's all about optics. Of course, the real concern to F-35 cheerleaders is what this latest USN "hedging move" means to eventual USN F-35 procurement numbers.

You listed a lot of countries... does this suggest you're finally ready to put together that comparative list of initial procurement numbers... versus reduced commitment numbers... versus actual commitment numbers? Are you ready for that yet?

Just curious Waldo but why do you never have anything to say about this. A real horror story.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=99de5056-1d13-4d31-8ff7-6135b652cd40

This article was written in 2008. Still no helicopters. Maybe 2015 they say. Maybe.

Now if I were a rabid partisan, I might be blasting the CH-148 as a piece of crap and wishing it to be a dismal failure, but regardless of the cynical politics and incompetence that resulted in the cancellation of the EH-101 and embarked us on this farce that has been Canada's attempt to replace our Navy's helicopters, the best thing for the Navy and the country would be for the CH-148 to be a success.

I feel the same way about the F-35. I really don't care which aircraft they buy as long as it is the best available to fill the Air Force's requirements. The best thing for the RCAF and the country would be for this aircraft to go ahead successfully because I don't see an advantage in spending the same kind of money for a design that is already at least ten years older, which we will be operating for more than thirty years.

[waldo]

I feel the same way about the F-35. I really don't care which aircraft they buy as long as it is the best available to fill the Air Force's requirements. The best thing for the RCAF and the country would be for this aircraft to go ahead successfully because I don't see an advantage in spending the same kind of money for a design that is already at least ten years older, which we will be operating for more than thirty years.

30 years? Really? You presume on "modern design"... yet, apparently, discount technological advances that most certainly will push manned flight aside... to the curb. You really think any "buzzword generation" plane will be around in... 30 years? 20 years? 15 years? 10 years? Pick a number!

as an aside you've yet to speak to my challenge question - 'why does Canada need a so-called strike fighter'?

[DogOnPorch]

30 years? Really? You presume on "modern design"... yet, apparently, discount technological advances that most certainly will push manned flight aside... to the curb. You really think any "buzzword generation" plane will be around in... 30 years? 20 years? 15 years? 10 years? Pick a number!

as an aside you've yet to speak to my challenge question - 'why does Canada need a so-called strike fighter'?

Manned flight will be pushed to the curb? It will be pushed to the curb the same way the manned bomber was pushed to the curb as result of the perfection of the ICBM.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada needs a strike fighter as part of its NATO obligations. Do we plan on letting the other members do the dirty work for us?

[waldo]

Manned flight will be pushed to the curb? It will be pushed to the curb the same way the manned bomber was pushed to the curb as result of the perfection of the ICBM.

ya ya, the Cold War lives on... in your fond memories! Any comment on the "specs" for the latest U.S. bomber aspirations including an unmanned flight option/capability?

[waldo]

Canada needs a strike fighter as part of its NATO obligations. Do we plan on letting the other members do the dirty work for us?

interesting... could you quote/cite that NATO obligation? Dirty work? Why would you want Canada to engage in... dirty work? Oh my!