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

[Guest Derek L]

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

as for your other "independent" DVIDS source:

nice source there, hey!

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

.

That was started by Douglas aircraft….that later became McDonnell Douglas……and was later bought out by Boeing…that independent source? A source that also is critical of the winner takes all approach associated with the program, the program that saw Boeing lose with their X-32 and will see the demise of the F-15 and F/A-18 lines shortly…….That independent source?

None the less, said cost won’t effect Canada……since we’ll be operating the least expensive “A” version…..as I’m sure you know.

[waldo]

That was started by Douglas aircraft….that later became McDonnell Douglas……and was later bought out by Boeing…that independent source? A source that also is critical of the winner takes all approach associated with the program, the program that saw Boeing lose with their X-32 and will see the demise of the F-15 and F/A-18 lines shortly…….That independent source?

let's see just how desperate you are to cover your propagandizing!

no - Rand wasn't "started" by Douglas Aircraft... it split off from Douglas Aircraft and became an independent non-profit organization. But let's closely follow your nonsense time frame:

- 1948: Rand splits from Douglas Aircraft to form an independent non-profit organization, "dedicated to furthering and promoting scientific, educational, and charitable purposes for the public welfare and security of the United States."

- 1967: Douglas Aircraft merges with McDonnell Aircraft to form, 'McDonnell Douglas'

- 1997: McDonnell Douglas merges with Boeing to form, 'The Boeing Company'

somehow... out of that history... going all the way back to its 1948 inception, you cast doubt on the independence of the Rand Corporation, while attempting to tie/link it with Boeing! InFreakingCredible! Clearly, you've got nothing else to attempt to discredit that referenced Rand report.

.

None the less, said cost won’t effect Canada……since we’ll be operating the least expensive “A” version…..as I’m sure you know.

what kind of gibberish are you throwing out here? That Rand report reference didn't speak to any particular variant. It's a report on the overall program cost and the lack of commonality between variants. Of course, as I highlighted, this was supposed to be the single driving reason for the F-35... to deliver a single platform infrastructure to be utilized across the Air Force, Navy and Marines... driving home "incredible capital and ongoing operational cost savings". Turns out that commonality is just another LockMart porkie! Apparently, attempting to build that so-called "single plane for all purposes" and the resulting delays... is just another LockMart pipe-dream!

.

[Guest Derek L]

let's see just how desperate you are to cover your propagandizing!

no - Rand wasn't "started" by Douglas Aircraft... it split off from Douglas Aircraft and became an independent non-profit organization. But let's closely follow your nonsense time frame:

I use to work for IDS:

http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2012/pdf/Bio_Smith_Fred_0712.pdf

FRED E. SMITH

Director, Business Development

Surveillance & Engagement

A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Smith also holds a master’s degree in

human resources development from George Washington University, and he served as a

Federal Executive Fellow with the RAND Corporation.

[Guest Derek L]

And some more news on the program:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-12/18/c_132978121.htm

TOKYO, Dec. 18 (Xinhua) -- Japan's Ministry of Defense (MOD) on Wednesday said it is mulling to increase the number of Lockheed Martin F-35 multirole stealth fighters it plans to add to its Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF) contingent, with an eye to making the fifth-generation jet its mainstay fighter.

Following approval by the Cabinet on Tuesday to broaden the scope of Japan's defense and security guidelines, the MOD is considering focusing more of its attention on achieving what it has described as "superior air-combat capability," as five year mid-term and longer-term defense and security protocols and the allocation of funds become pivotal focal points for the Cabinet and the MOD henceforth.

The MOD's new consideration is to possibly replace the ASDF's aging mainstay F-15 fighters with the F-35's, officials said, adding that they had already decided to retire the force's F-4 fighters and replace them with 42 F-35's.

The ASDF currently operates ~175+ F-15s........if they replaced just 2/3rds of the fleet with F-35s on top of the 42 F-35s they are going to replace their Phantoms with, after the Americans, The Empire of Japan would be the second largest operator of the F-35 in the world.....

Japan's MOD is particularly eyeing two of the F-35 models for their vertical and short take off and landing ability, and officials here have said that the jet could be used along with ground troops and amphibious vehicles for rapid deployment operations to remote islands off Japan.

Why what other then the F-35B would make a perfect fit for the JMSDF's brand spanking new class of "helicopter destroyers":

Kido Butai part II no doubt.......now how do you say Tora, Tora, Tora in Cantonese?

[bush_cheney2004]

The Netherlands gets jiggy with the F-35:

December 18, 2013 (by 1st Lt. Hope Cronin) - 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.

Edited December 19, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

let's see just how desperate you are to cover your propagandizing!

no - Rand wasn't "started" by Douglas Aircraft... it split off from Douglas Aircraft and became an independent non-profit organization. But let's closely follow your nonsense time frame:

- 1948: Rand splits from Douglas Aircraft to form an independent non-profit organization, "dedicated to furthering and promoting scientific, educational, and charitable purposes for the public welfare and security of the United States."

- 1967: Douglas Aircraft merges with McDonnell Aircraft to form, 'McDonnell Douglas'

- 1997: McDonnell Douglas merges with Boeing to form, 'The Boeing Company'

somehow... out of that history... going all the way back to its 1948 inception, you cast doubt on the independence of the Rand Corporation, while attempting to tie/link it with Boeing! InFreakingCredible! Clearly, you've got nothing else to attempt to discredit that referenced Rand report.

.

I use to work for IDS: http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2012/pdf/Bio_Smith_Fred_0712.pdf

FRED E. SMITH

Director, Business Development

Surveillance & Engagement

A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Smith also holds a master’s degree in human resources development from George Washington University, and he served as a Federal Executive Fellow with the RAND Corporation.

yours is an absolutely pathetic response! You've clearly outdone yourself... and that's a monumental feat in itself! Because you find a Boeing employee had past employment with Rand... that's your measuring bar to claim Rand is biased towards Boeing... that's your fall-back to dismiss the very pointed and critical Rand report? You can't be for real?

as I said, the whole premise of the F-35, as ingrained in its very "Joint Strike Fighter" name, was to deliver a more cost effective plane serving multiple military branch services... as compared to a 'single service', per respective military service, option. Aside from the cost savings that clearly didn't and won't materialize... aside from the decade+ scheduling over-runs... the oft stated design compromises of the F-35 can now be put into a more complete perspective. It's one thing to suggest design compromise makes sense for so-called "economies of scale", but when those actual economies, particularly at the full life-cycle costing (LCC) level, aren't realized, what was the value-add to the design compromises?

it's a common refrain from F-35 critics in the know... that the driving F-35 need to accommodate different military service branch requirements in a single design has led to overall design compromises, has lead to greater JSFail program complexity, increases in technical risk, and design/functional compromises. This latest Rand report simply qualifies and quantifies the underlying JSFail program premise is deeply flawed.

from the Rand report:

Indeed, our analysis indicates that JSF may cost the services the same or more in total LCC than if they had pursued separate, single-service programs, which might have produced differing designs better optimized to meet their unique individual service operating environments and requirements.

.

[waldo]

Kido Butai part II no doubt.......now how do you say Tora, Tora, Tora in Cantonese?

[Guest Derek L]

yours is an absolutely pathetic response! You've clearly outdone yourself... and that's a monumental feat in itself! Because you find a Boeing employee had past employment with Rand... that's your measuring bar to claim Rand is biased towards Boeing... that's your fall-back to dismiss the very pointed and critical Rand report? You can't be for real?

Hey you brought up the tin-foil hat propaganda angle over a report on a DoD funded news service……..

as I said, the whole premise of the F-35, as ingrained in its very "Joint Strike Fighter" name, was to deliver a more cost effective plane serving multiple military branch services... as compared to a 'single service', per respective military service, option. Aside from the cost savings that clearly didn't and won't materialize... aside from the decade+ scheduling over-runs... the oft stated design compromises of the F-35 can now be put into a more complete perspective. It's one thing to suggest design compromise makes sense for so-called "economies of scale", but when those actual economies, particularly at the full life-cycle costing (LCC) level, aren't realized, what was the value-add to the design compromises?

Did RAND contrast their report with past singular aircraft programs like the F-22 and A-12 Avenger and their historic outcomes? Or are they just assuming that 5 separate 5th generation programs would have been cheaper?

it's a common refrain from F-35 critics in the know... that the driving F-35 need to accommodate different military service branch requirements in a single design has led to overall design compromises, has lead to greater JSFail program complexity, increases in technical risk, and design/functional compromises. This latest Rand report simply qualifies and quantifies the underlying JSFail program premise is deeply flawed.

Yes, I know.......as I've been stating in the various threads (here) for several years, the STOVL requirement did add complexity, and in turn costs & time to the back end of the program......Of course Lockheed and the X-35 won over Boeing's X-32 namely because the X-35 STOVL aircraft was further along in it progress........

Indeed, our analysis indicates that JSF may cost the services the same or more in total LCC than if they had pursued separate, single-service programs, which might have produced differing designs better optimized to meet their unique individual service operating environments and requirements.

That depends…….the conventional F-35A, being the least technically complex and having the greatest potential for export no doubt would have been cheaper in some respects as a stand-alone program. With that said, the carrier version and STOVL version, that will namely be purchased by the Americans, wouldn’t receive cost synergies from much larger procurement numbers.

RAND has not provided any evidence that their view of 5 separate programs would have been cheaper then the F-35.……and of course, borrowing from the program itself, it was also determined that two parallel engine programs for the F-35 (P&W and GE power plants) would have benefited the program in terms of reducing costs and risk, but as historic, that did not prove the case.

And well we’re on the topic of history, decades back, the RAND corporation also advocated against the then largest multi-service aircraft in favour of further refinement of the then aging A-4 Skyhawk and lacklustre F-5 Freedom Fighter……..History ruled against RAND:

Only 4900 more F-35s to go.......

[On Guard for Thee]

It still comes down to the ever apparent reality that the F35 is a plane that does everything, but nothing really well, at huge cost.

[Guest Derek L]

The Netherlands gets jiggy with the F-35:

December 18, 2013 (by 1st Lt. Hope Cronin) - 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.

Yuppers.......not bad for a country that was going to leave the program eh?

Third out the door.....

[waldo]

Yuppers.......not bad for a country that was going to leave the program eh?

Third out the door.....

again, an appeasement to continuing to prop-up the existing coalition government. What's that original commitment number again? How many fewer planes are they willing to commit to? Of course, after the initial few, approval must again be pursued within that 'teetering' government. It's quite telling to see you crow over the fact the vote to drop/cancel was there, was taken... and only the forced election and resulting coalition has managed to keep the f-35 charade alive.

[waldo]

It still comes down to the ever apparent reality that the F35 is a plane that does everything, but nothing really well, at huge cost.

succinct and to the very point that MLW member 'Derek L' can never propagandize his way around!

[Guest Derek L]

again, an appeasement to continuing to prop-up the existing coalition government. What's that original commitment number again? How many fewer planes are they willing to commit to? Of course, after the initial few, approval must again be pursued within that 'teetering' government. It's quite telling to see you crow over the fact the vote to drop/cancel was there, was taken... and only the forced election and resulting coalition has managed to keep the f-35 charade alive.

Are you suggesting the cuts the Dutch army and navy face can also be attributed to the F-35 and coalition government?

[waldo]

Only 4900 more F-35s to go.......

are you unable to make a post without throwing in yet another useless pic image? It's bad enough you space your posts out the way you do! Is there a particular reason you must leave so much white space within your posts? Do you have an eye-sight impairment?

[waldo]

Are you suggesting the cuts the Dutch army and navy face can also be attributed to the F-35 and coalition government?

sorry... I have no intention of following yet another of your unrelated deflections/diversions.

[Guest Derek L]

sorry... I have no intention of following yet another of your unrelated deflections/diversions.

Good, then we're done here.

[Guest Derek L]

are you unable to make a post without throwing in yet another useless pic image? It's bad enough you space your posts out the way you do! Is there a particular reason you must leave so much white space within your posts? Do you have an eye-sight impairment?

Only a lasik procedure away

[waldo]

yours is an absolutely pathetic response! You've clearly outdone yourself... and that's a monumental feat in itself! Because you find a Boeing employee had past employment with Rand... that's your measuring bar to claim Rand is biased towards Boeing... that's your fall-back to dismiss the very pointed and critical Rand report? You can't be for real?

Hey you brought up the tin-foil hat propaganda angle over a report on a DoD funded news service.

nice dodge! Are you actually feeling the burn over your nonsense attempting to link Rand to Boeing? In any case, you should take up your nonsense further with the USAF... as it contracted Rand for that report! The Rand report prepared for the United States Air Force... with the research described in the report sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract FA7014-06-C-0001! Oh my... you should let the USAF know about your linking Rand & Boeing!

Did RAND contrast their report with past singular aircraft programs like the F-22 and A-12 Avenger and their historic outcomes? Or are they just assuming that 5 separate 5th generation programs would have been cheaper?

RAND has not provided any evidence that their view of 5 separate programs would have been cheaper then the F-35.……and of course, borrowing from the program itself, it was also determined that two parallel engine programs for the F-35 (P&W and GE power plants) would have benefited the program in terms of reducing costs and risk, but as historic, that did not prove the case.

the F-22? Why yes! Perhaps you should actually read the Rand report before making more of your unsubstantiated claims!

$1.5 Trillion Life Cycle Cost! Oh my! You're really going to need to dig deep into your LockMart propaganda bin to push back on that, hey! Of course, we've become somewhat acquainted with LCC given the initial Harper Conservative attempts to fudge costs around/away from it!

.

Edited December 19, 2013 by waldo

[On Guard for Thee]

Perhaps once again we should take a look at that military industrial complex. I spent a lot of time on Bagram airfield looking at rows of F 16's, 18's. 15's C17's Herc's and a ton of other older junk and wondering who the hell are they taking on with all this firepower. They weren't taking anybody on. Or maybe they were, but they screwed up royally, once again. However, Kellogg Brown and Root. Bell Helicopter, Boeing, etc etc etc made huge profits and flag waving taxpayers allowed billions to be pissed away once again with the outcome that they are more hated than ever.

Good going good going. Bring on the F35

[Guest Derek L]

nice dodge! Are you actually feeling the burn over your nonsense attempting to link Rand to Boeing? In any case, you should take up your nonsense further with the USAF... as it contracted Rand for that report! The Rand report prepared for the United States Air Force... with the research described in the report sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract FA7014-06-C-0001! Oh my... you should let the USAF know about your linking Rand & Boeing!

I knew that.........I thought you were the one with issues over DoD funded propaganda?

the F-22? Why yes! Perhaps you should actually read the Rand report before making more of your unsubstantiated claims!

$1.5 Trillion Life Cycle Cost! Oh my! You're really going to need to dig deep into your LockMart propaganda bin to push back on that, hey! Of course, we've become somewhat acquainted with LCC given the initial Harper Conservative attempts to fudge costs around/away from it!

I have read it.......where did they cost five separate aircraft procurement programs, in today’s dollars and accounting for the egregious amounts of inflation associated with all forms of defence procurement?

And care to separate costings associated with the F-35A versus a fleet comprising all three aircraft? Of course we can then delve into costs that will have an impact with the RCAF/DND....

[On Guard for Thee]

Buy Superhornets, be done with it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Or is Stephen Harper planning on attacking somebody?

[waldo]

I knew that.........I thought you were the one with issues over DoD funded propaganda?

seriously? I pointed out your source was operated by a branch of the U.S. military. How do you compare that to my example of the USAF funding/contracting an independent entity, the Rand Corporation, for that report? You've already ignorantly claimed a Rand-Boeing tie/linkage to attempt to discredit the report... you clearly can't claim the USAF contracted Rand to deliver a report that aligns with your JSFail F-35 LockMart propaganda machine!

I have read it.......where did they cost five separate aircraft procurement programs, in todays dollars and accounting for the egregious amounts of inflation associated with all forms of defence procurement?

the methodology is explained... inflation is accounted for. You say you've read the report, hey? But what's this "5" you keep mentioning? Just how many service branches/usages are you attempting to suggest the JSFail program is intended for? 5?

And care to separate costings associated with the F-35A versus a fleet comprising all three aircraft? Of course we can then delve into costs that will have an impact with the RCAF/DND....

obviously... you're purposely obfuscating! Just a few short posts back, you've already acknowledged the/a program impact caused by the attempt to create the multi-service intended plane! And now, in the face of the Rand report, you're going to attempt to isolate the 'A' variant from any program/cost implications related to it's multi-service compatibility aspects? You're all over the map here... but what else is news! Whenever its suited your purpose/agenda, you've forever leveraged any LockMart propaganda, regardless of service variant... while forever attempting to downplay overall cost implications for the complete 'all variant' program. Why not step-up and show the isolation of design/development/testing/LCC for the 'A' variant... sure you can!

[Guest Derek L]

seriously? I pointed out your source was operated by a branch of the U.S. military. How do you compare that to my example of the USAF funding/contracting an independent entity, the Rand Corporation, for that report? You've already ignorantly claimed a Rand-Boeing tie/linkage to attempt to discredit the report... you clearly can't claim the USAF contracted Rand to deliver a report that aligns with your JSFail F-35 LockMart propaganda machine!

I don’t know, DoD funded sources is your windmill

the methodology is explained... inflation is accounted for. You say you've read the report, hey? But what's this "5" you keep mentioning? Just how many service branches/usages are you attempting to suggest the JSFail program is intended for? 5?

No it’s not explained……..what are they basing their program costing, for not only one additional aircraft program, but 5 aircraft programs?

And the F-35 program plans to replace 5 primary aircraft (with numerous older and unique aircraft that wouldn’t warrant a separate replacement program i.e. F-5 and F-4 and the original F-117 stealth fighter) that currently serve with the Americans, British and current JSF partners……For reference: F-16, F/A-18, A-10, the Harrier II and the Tornado……All aircraft that the Americans and British (both of the tier 1 JSF partners) would have to fund separate replacements for under your cited (RAND) plan……

So prove that funding five unique designs would be cheaper then the F-35.

obviously... you're purposely obfuscating! Just a few short posts back, you've already acknowledged the/a program impact caused by the attempt to create the multi-service intended plane! And now, in the face of the Rand report, you're going to attempt to isolate the 'A' variant from any program/cost implications related to it's multi-service compatibility aspects? You're all over the map here... but what else is news! Whenever its suited your purpose/agenda, you've forever leveraged any LockMart propaganda, regardless of service variant... while forever attempting to downplay overall cost implications for the complete 'all variant' program. Why not step-up and show the isolation of design/development/testing/LCC for the 'A' variant... sure you can!

Of course I am…..DND will have to pay for one variant, well DoD will pay for all three…….you speak to commonality, my question to you, how does one achieve commonality with one type? And what impact will operating costs with the STOVL and Naval version have on the RCAF?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don’t know, DoD funded sources is your windmill

....So prove that funding five unique designs would be cheaper then the F-35.

Apparently even that would be easier than engaging relevant and actual costs for Canada's relatively modest needs. Continuing to channel U.S. DoD program costs is a meaningless exercise in the absence of real Canadian life cycle costs; the Americans have spent and will spend far beyond that which Canada can afford for ships or aircraft. If you have to ask how much........