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

[Guest Derek L]

So, while we may have roughly 80+ planes in our fleet, the number that we would have available for use at any one time (for air patrols, missions, training, etc.) is much less.

If/when we buy new planes (whether the F35 or some alternative that's currently in production) we will no longer need to baby them; we won't have to let some of the planes sit idle to extend their life time, And when things DO break, we will be able to obtain spare parts relatively quickly. So, of the proposed 65-plane fleet, a much higher number will be available at any one time (as compared to the CF18s).

Two things to add:

First it's 80- Hornets.......Second, the F-35 program is designed to ensure that all partner nations fleets will remain at a systematic and equal level of modernity…..No longer will smaller air forces have to fund, develop and implement a series of upgrades for their own fleets, fore with the F-35, continual upgrades will be funded, developed and implemented by the entire user base, with each user paying a portion based on percentage of fleet ownership……

This, together with the F-35’s logistics and maintenance programs, things often overlooked by the media, politicians and public, are one of the benefits that will put the F-35 ahead of all current 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

Some further news: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/lockheed-fighter-korea-idUSL2N0JB24120131126

None the less more good news that further alienates the critics from reality……Oh and:

By 2019, the Pentagon projects the cost of each new F-35 fighter plane will be around $85 million, putting it on a par with the cost of current fighter planes, said Jim McAleese, a Virginia-based defense consultant.

keep rolling out that LockMart PR machine, hey! Your linked article where, "the only two sources identified in the story are self-avowed Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson and Jim McAleese, “a Virginia-based defense consultant” whose website states that a large portion of McAleese’s clients hold—or are seeking—Federal government contracts with DoD…".

I've seen a few countering comebacks to that article... I'm somewhat partial to this one... it lines up with the repeated challenges I put to you to provide a full accounting of all the reduced commitments (U.S. military & JSFail partner nations) and comment on what impact you thought that would on costing. Of course, you ignored those repeated challenges as they simply get in the way of your LockMart PR campaign/agenda. In that regard, the following article:

More Creative F-35 Bookkeeping: Backers Play Fast and Loose with F-35 Costs

Quoting “sources familiar with the program,” the author further writes that South Korea's buy of 40 F-35 fighters “will save the U.S. military about $2 billion by driving down the per-plane price of the new plane.”

If South Korea’s order for 40 F-35s does indeed save the Pentagon about $2 billion, then each aircraft lowers Pentagon costs by $50 million. By the same logic, each lost order should increase the cost to the Pentagon by the same $50 million.

Following the same logic, we can now estimate how much the reduced orders by other customers have increased the price the Pentagon will pay for its F-35s.

A short look at recent changes in the foreign order book is thus instructive.

- United Kingdom:

Initially slated to buy 150 aircraft, the UK government has now amended its plans and will only buy 48 F-35Bs for its new aircraft carriers, any possible buy for the Royal Air Force being pushed off well into the future. At $50m each, the loss of 102 UK orders adds $5.1 billion to what the Pentagon will pay for its F-35s.

- Italy:

Italy initially planned to buy 130 F-35s, but this was reduced to 90 because of budget cuts. This is a loss of 40 orders, which will add $2 billion to the Pentagon’s F-35 bill.

- Netherlands:

The Dutch air force initially planned to buy 85 F-35s, but the current government has decided to reduce the number to 37, a loss of 48 orders and a price increase of $2.4 billion for the Pentagon.

- Canada:

Initially due to buy 65 F-35s, Canada has now reopened its new fighter replacement program. While the F-35 might still be selected, but in smaller numbers as there is a price cap on the program. For the time being Canada is officially no longer a buyer, and the loss of its 65 orders translates into a cost increase of $3.25 billion for the Pentagon.

- Norway:

While it also initially planned to buy 85 F-35s, Norway has now decided it will buy only 52, a reduction of 33 and thus a cost increase of $1.65 billion for the Pentagon’s own F-35s.

So, in total, the program has so far lost 228 orders from the above international partners.

At $50m a pop, these cancellations have so far added $14.4 billion to the cost of the Pentagon’s own F-35s – something that Lockheed’s P.R. machine has failed to point out, even though it was quick to stress the $2 billion savings entailed by that future Korean order.

And here’s another thought. In 2001, when the program was launched, total F-35 orders were estimated by Lockheed at 5,179 aircraft. This has now been reduced to about 3,000 – no one knows the final figure – so the loss of these 2,179 aircraft will have increased acquisition costs by $108.95 billion.

[Guest Derek L]

keep rolling out that LockMart PR machine, hey! Your linked article where, "the only two sources identified in the story are self-avowed Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson and Jim McAleese, “a Virginia-based defense consultant” whose website states that a large portion of McAleese’s clients hold—or are seeking—Federal government contracts with DoD…".

I've seen a few countering comebacks to that article... I'm somewhat partial to this one... it lines up with the repeated challenges I put to you to provide a full accounting of all the reduced commitments (U.S. military & JSFail partner nations) and comment on what impact you thought that would on costing. Of course, you ignored those repeated challenges as they simply get in the way of your LockMart PR campaign/agenda. In that regard, the following article:

More Creative F-35 Bookkeeping: Backers Play Fast and Loose with F-35 Costs

Ahh, a piece penned by Giovanni de Briganti......One of his most famous quotes:

In any case, detection by radar matters less and less because by switching on its radar a fighter becomes as visible as someone turning on a flashlight in a dark room.

You heard it here first!!!

[waldo]

Ahh, a piece penned by Giovanni de Briganti......

nice deflection... care to speak to the article? I mean, c'mon... if the LockMart PR machine is going to claim $50 million per plane Pentagon cost savings for each new plane procurement, doesn't that same logic dictate the same per plane Pentagon cost increases for each previously committed plane reduction?

.

[Guest Derek L]

nice deflection... care to speak to the article?

.

Nope.

[waldo]

Nope.

"if the LockMart PR machine is going to claim $50 million per plane Pentagon cost savings for each new plane procurement, doesn't that same logic dictate the same per plane Pentagon cost increases for each previously committed plane reduction?"

no problem - logic dictates... your unwillingness to address a counter to you perpetuating the LockMart PR cost campaign, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

"if the LockMart PR machine is going to claim $50 million per plane Pentagon cost savings for each new plane procurement, doesn't that same logic dictate the same per plane Pentagon cost increases for each previously committed plane reduction?"

no problem - logic dictates... your unwillingness to address a counter to you perpetuating the LockMart PR cost campaign, hey?

I've no reason to pay heed to a piece written by a hack.

[waldo]

I've no reason to pay heed to a piece written by a hack.

you can ignore who wrote it... you're being called on your linked articles logic used to arrive at (presumed) U.S. Pentagon cost savings; again, by that same logic... your linked article's logic, shouldn't there be a similar cost increase for reductions in previous commitments? Logic dictates, yes? Your linked article's logic, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

you can ignore who wrote it... you're being called on your linked articles logic used to arrive at (presumed) U.S. Pentagon cost savings; again, by that same logic... your linked article's logic, shouldn't there be a similar cost increase for reductions in previous commitments? Logic dictates, yes? Your linked article's logic, hey?

Inconsequential with additional purchasers of the F-35 outside of the program calculus (Israel, Japan, South Korea etc), coupled with some orders not necessarily being reduced, but deferred.

[waldo]

Inconsequential with additional purchasers of the F-35 outside of the program calculus (Israel, Japan, South Korea etc), coupled with some orders not necessarily being reduced, but deferred.

ya, you only likee LockMart PR math! By the by, is that with or without engines?

[waldo]

uhhhh.... out of the mouths of babes!

[On Guard for Thee]

ya, you only likee LockMart PR math! By the by, is that with or without engines?

ENGINE. They only have one.

[waldo]

ENGINE. They only have one.

of course... the with or without engines reference was with respect to Derek L's repeated attempts... multiple times... to present cost reductions in the F-35 program where he didn't actually realize he was speaking to quoted costs that didn't include engine costs. I caught him attempting this at least twice, as I recall.

[Guest Derek L]

uhhhh.... out of the mouths of babes!

Cute video..of course you failed to mention that it was produced by RaceRocks3D, in it’s attempt to leverage work from AeroInfo…..And who is AeroInfo? Why none other then Boeing’s Canadian propaganda information arm…….Of course Boeing is smarting after it’s loss in the South Korean competition, a loss that will see the near end of the F-15 line……and of course, the Super Hornet won’t be far behind….

So what is your financial concern with Boeing Waldo?

[waldo]

Cute video..of course you failed to mention that it was produced by RaceRocks3D, in it’s attempt to leverage work from AeroInfo…..And who is AeroInfo? Why none other then Boeing’s Canadian propaganda information arm…….Of course Boeing is smarting after it’s loss in the South Korean competition, a loss that will see the near end of the F-15 line……and of course, the Super Hornet won’t be far behind….

ya, it was nothing more than a funny dig... one you clearly took offence to! It doesn't take much to juice your JSFail sensitivities, does it?

I'd suggest you don't count your chickens before they hatch.

So what is your financial concern with Boeing Waldo?

my... 'financial concern' with Boeing??? Does being critical of JSFail suggest an automatic financial interest in Boeing? Will ragging on you help with that presumed financial position?... did not know MLW had such reach! But hey now, aren't you the guy who regularly touts your rising LockMart stocks? Just what is your, as you say, "financial concern" with LockMart? Full disclosure, hey!

[Guest Derek L]

ya, it was nothing more than a funny dig... one you clearly took offence to! It doesn't take much to juice your JSFail sensitivities, does it?

Offence....not at all, I laughed.....their Boeing C-17 agitprop was even better.

I'd suggest you don't count your chickens before they hatch.

From your link:

Randy Forbes, a key member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Thursday urged Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to rethink the U.S. Navy’s current plan to allow Boeing Co’s F/A-18 fighter jet production to close in 2016.

Randy Forbes? This Randy Forbes:

http://wtvr.com/2013/12/09/randy-forbes-gay-candidates/

Rep. Randy Forbes has been trying to persuade the National Republican Congressional Committee not to back gay Republican House candidates. The story was first reported by Politico, and confirmed by CNN.

Between hitching their wagon to Forbes and using children to curry favour in their Defence programs, I think it is clear that Boeing is getting desperate……….None the less, as has been conveyed to you numerous times, the F-35C is not currently intended to replace the Super Hornet fleet, but the legacy Hornet fleets of the Navy and Marine Corps….

my... 'financial concern' with Boeing??? Does being critical of JSFail suggest an automatic financial interest in Boeing? Will ragging on you help with that presumed financial position?... did not know MLW had such reach! But hey now, aren't you the guy who regularly touts your rising LockMart stocks? Just what is your, as you say, "financial concern" with LockMart? Full disclosure, hey!

I never claimed the fortunes of Boeing and Lockheed rest on the several folks that post in this discussion……I do get a laugh out of your continued usage of obscure bloggers, the anti-defence establishment and Boeing propaganda to disparage the F-35 though……..

Full disclosure…..sure….I’ve got buckets of Lockheed shares, but their financial value is outweighed by my Boeing ESO portfolio

[waldo]

Offence....not at all

if you weren't offended why was it so necessary for you to label it Boeing propaganda, to speak of your presumed Boeing rationale behind the video and to LOL about your expectations on shutting down Boeing F-15 & Super Hornet lines? No..... you weren't offended at all - not one bit! It is interesting that you acknowledge the company behind the video isn't Boeing; that it's a company looking to garner work from a Boeing subsidiary... and yet you have no qualms with labeling it Boeing propaganda and speaking to a Boeing rationale behind the video. Just how confused offended were you?

.

Randy Forbes? This Randy Forbes: http://wtvr.com/2013/12/09/randy-forbes-gay-candidates/

hey now... if you think your link has bearing! I'll stick with the related article that presumes on the GOP rep's influential position as chairman of a U.S. Congressional Armed Services committee.

.

Between hitching their wagon to Forbes and using children to curry favour in their Defence programs, I think it is clear that Boeing is getting desperate……….None the less, as has been conveyed to you numerous times, the F-35C is not currently intended to replace the Super Hornet fleet, but the legacy Hornet fleets of the Navy and Marine Corps….

because of that article, are you now claiming, "Boeing is hitching its wagon to that GOP rep"... because of that article? And again, the video with children in it wasn't created by Boeing. Talk about (you) getting desperate! You certainly have no qualms in speaking to any variant, particularly if you feel you can leverage it. The article speaks to the significance of any alternate purchases... speaks to a concern the GOP rep has over a potential sole-source reliance on a single manufacturer.

.

I never claimed the fortunes of Boeing and Lockheed rest on the several folks that post in this discussion……I do get a laugh out of your continued usage of obscure bloggers, the anti-defence establishment and Boeing propaganda to disparage the F-35 though……

obscure bloggers? When you reference bloggers, as you've done regularly in these JSFail related threads, your bloggers are... not so obscure, hey? As I've stated to you several times now when you pull this whine, I've put up a long, long list of official military and government documents that have been most critical of the cost, scheduling, performance, testing results, etc., of JSFail. I may have thrown down a few links that could be labeled as, as you say, "Boeing propaganda". But, tell me, how does that compare to your established pattern of regularly trotting out actual LockMart, JSF program (aka LockMart) originated material, articles from persons with ties to LockMart... I guess, to you, that isn't "LockMart propaganda", hey?

.

[Guest Derek L]

And further (Canadian) news:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/slightly-more-benefits-would-flow-from-f-35-deal-if-canada-signs-on-report-1.1583987

OTTAWA -- Canada's aerospace industry could be in line for slightly more benefits than previously estimated, if the Harper government decides to buy the oft-maligned F-35.

Documents tabled late Tuesday, as Parliament adjourned for its Christmas break, project that businesses in this country could land as much as $9.9 billion in contracts to construct and sustain parts for the Lockheed Martin-built stealth fighter.

The last estimate, tabled in the summer, pegged the potential industrial benefits at $9.4 billion.

I think officially by Spring we’ll be able request a thread title change for accuracy.

[waldo]

And further (Canadian) news:

I think officially by Spring we’ll be able request a thread title change for accuracy.

talk about recycling! They trot this out every 6 months or so... it was $9.2 Billion last go around, with an actual (claimed) $488 million in (claimed) contracts to-date. Aside from there being this little thing called bid competition from other JSF partners, notwithstanding the contract carrots LockMart keeps dangling to anyone/everyone to secure sales, I'd be curious to have you suggest what percentage of that hypothetical $9 Billion opportunity number you can see U.S. lawmakers allowing/accepting to go outside their home districts.... in your thread title change accuracy estimation!

[Guest Derek L]

Some more news:

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/118411/first-dutch-f-35-pilot-takes-skies#.UrIrf9JDuCI

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. – The first Netherlands pilot took to the skies here in the F-35A Lightning II, making the Netherlands the second partner country to operate the fifth-generation multirole fighter.

Maj. Laurens J.W. Vijge, Royal Netherlands Air Force F-35 Integrated Training Center training lead, completed his first flight after 210 hours of classroom training and 13 flights in the simulators.

That seems near parity with the RCAF’s current Hornet recertification training and far, far less time spent (8+ months, plus lead in training) on initial operational training for our Hornet zoomies…..I wonder where operational training for the F-35 will land? Astounding.

[waldo]

That seems near parity with the RCAF’s current Hornet recertification training and far, far less time spent (8+ months, plus lead in training) on initial operational training for our Hornet zoomies…..I wonder where operational training for the F-35 will land? Astounding.

how difficult is it to train on a plane that can't actually do anything? Astounding!!!

[waldo]

commonality??? What commonality? Hey now... I thought that was the big deal... the big selling point... the big cost advantage point forever trotted out!

Rand Corporation: Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal as One Jet for All

Lockheed Martin Corp.’s (LMT) F-35 jet fighter, designed by the Pentagon to serve the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, is likely to end up costing more than it would to build separate planes for each service, a Rand Corp. study has found.

“Under none of the plausible conditions we analyzed did” the F-35 “have a lower life-cycle cost estimate,” Rand, a nonprofit research institution, said in the report released this week on the plane known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

The report questions a fundamental tenet of the Pentagon’s costliest weapons program -- that building different versions on a common base will reduce costs. Rand analyzed an estimated $1.5 trillion “life-cycle cost” that includes acquisition plus long-term support of the fleet.

While the initial goal for the F-35 was to have 80 percent of the airframe components in common for the three versions, Rand found that by 2008 that had dropped to between 27 percent and 43 percent because of development difficulties and increasing weight.

“As of this writing, it is not clear how common the mission systems, avionics, software and engine will be among the three service variants,” said Rand, based in Santa Monica, California.

“The tension between maintaining maximum commonality and meeting different service requirements has been difficult to resolve,” Rand said. That’s resulted “in less common variants, greater technical complexity and risk”, as well as difficulty in “achieving the promised savings.”

.

[Guest Derek L]

how difficult is it to train on a plane that can't actually do anything? Astounding!!!

Just over month for an experienced Dutch F-16 pilot to convert over to the F-35A…….Or for comparison, the same time for an RCAF Hornet pilot to re-qualify on the very same Hornet that he/she is already experienced on.......21st century training is here.

[Guest Derek L]

And further news:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131218/DEFREG02/312180018/Lockheed-Works-Toward-4th-Gen-Prices-F-35

FORT WORTH, TEXAS — The cost of a fully equipped F-35A joint strike fighter will drop to $85 million by 2019, according to a top Lockheed official, as long as the program continues to increase quantities.

That figure, calculated at $75 million in 2013 dollars, includes engines and all weapon systems for the conventional-takeoff-and-landing fifth-generation fighter, said Lorraine Martin, the head of Lockheed’s F-35 program, during a Dec. 13 press briefing.

And fully expect new orders to pour in once the Obama administration gives the green light to purchases by the Gulf States………What was Harper’s estimate again?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

costs coming down says LockMart!!! You're on quite the roll with your propaganda sources today!


as for your other "independent" DVIDS source:

Just over month for an experienced Dutch F-16 pilot to convert over to the F-35A…….Or for comparison, the same time for an RCAF Hornet pilot to re-qualify on the very same Hornet that he/she is already experienced on.......21st century training is here.

nice source there, hey!

DVIDS Organization

Is DVIDS run by the military?
The Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) is provided as a public service operated by Third Army/U.S. Army Central (ARCENT) on behalf of the Department of the Army in support of all branches of the U.S. military and its Coalition partners serving with U.S. Forces in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility and throughout the world.

Who pays for DVIDS?
The DVIDS service is paid for by the US Department of Defense via the Department of the Army, Third Army/US Army Central (ARCENT).

Where does this content come from?
All content on the DVIDS hub website is created and submitted by US Military personnel, US Government agencies, and contractors operating in the US Army Central Area of Responsibility, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world.

but hey now... have you nothing to say about that linked Rand report reference I just put up?... you know, Rand... the independent source!
.