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

[Guest Derek L]

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........

Exactly

[waldo]

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

keep on trying to deflect from your stoopid attempt to link Rand with Boeing!

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.

the methodology and results are there... for you to ignore, as you are! On a specific F-35 JSF joint program focus, cost growth rates are applied and comparison is made to 3 single service offerings. Your attempt to obfuscate with your 5 number is noted... the Tornado reference is gold! Of course, the crux of the joint program cost disadvantage lies in the longer-term Operational and Support costing; i.e., the full Life-Cycle Costing (LCC). You know, the LCC... the cost Harper Conservatives have, from day one, been attempting to either ignore or downplay.

on a broader level, joint program versus single-service, nothing says it better than this Rand graphic analysis comparing 4 single-service offerings to 4 joint programs (costs 9 years after the industry recognized 'milestone B' point):

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?

you still don't get it! There is commonality between the variants; unfortunately, it's acting as a detriment to costs/delivery... affecting the program at large and carrying over into each respective variant. As is your forever way, you continue to speak of the 'A' variant in isolation of the program... that somehow Canada choosing the 'A' variant holds some magical protectorate against cost impact/increase! Your implied/leveraged isolation is a false-front, one you continually play upon to falsely project your agenda/propagandizing.

the JSF program target, the underlying premise behind the joint nature of the program, was to realize 80% commonality between variants. All those tight grandiose projections that LockMart touted (and still flogs) are based on the presumption that economies of scale cost advantages exist within the program... they don't... and the Rand analysis speaks directly to that. As it turns out, as of the analysis date point, the actual levels of commonality reached vary from 27% to 43% (depending on respective variant. Equally, of course, as the intensely scrutinized JSF program now strives for an even greater concentrated focus on concurrency as it attempts to meet pressing schedules... both acquisition and longer-term full-cycle operational & support costing will increase.

.

[DogOnPorch]

So has anybody figured out how many F-35s can dance on the head of a pin yet?

[waldo]

So has anybody figured out how many F-35s can dance on the head of a pin yet?

you first need to factor in concurrency costs... "building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing - and the retrofit costs and scheduling impacts to bring past LRIP planes forward"... a key point MLW F-35 cheerleaders have ignored from day one, no matter how many times I've mentioned it. As I stated in my last post, there is an ever greater ramp-up reliance on concurrency in JSFail today; a reliance driven by the intense scrutiny and penalty conditions the U.S. military has brought to bear on LockMart. This article speaks to the beginnings of realizing some of those costs on the program as the early LRIP planes must now be retrofitted with new developments and corrections... a mere $0.5 billion for just a handful of those early LRIP planes - the one's continually hyped by this threads usual suspects! Concurrency’s Costs: An F-35 Example

Issues that have shown up in testing so far have been addressed in the current batch — the 100th JSF just rolled off the production line earlier this week — but the government must go back and retrofit the Lot 2 planes to fix problems that only showed up after they were built. This is part of the very impressive $496.2 million that will pay for cost overruns on Lots 1 to 3

this little data point demonstrates quite clearly why Adm. David Venlet told us two years ago in his exclusive interview that relying so heavily on concurrency was “a miscalculation.” --- JSF’s Build And Test Was ‘Miscalculation,’ Adm. Venlet Says; Production Must Slow

and, of course, all the "down and dirty" development... and related testing... has yet to be done. R-E-T-R-O-F-I-T!!!

.

[DogOnPorch]

So....five? Six?

[waldo]

So....five? Six?

don't reach too hard... don't put too much thought/effort into your posts!

Edited December 20, 2013 by waldo

[DogOnPorch]

don't reach too hard... don't put too much thought/effort into your posts!

I'd rather not count F-35s and pin heads. That's more your realm.

[waldo]

So has anybody figured out how many F-35s can dance on the head of a pin yet?

So....five? Six?

I'd rather not count F-35s and pin heads. That's more your realm.

your eloquent and commanding input to this thread is noted!

[bush_cheney2004]

So has anybody figured out how many F-35s can dance on the head of a pin yet?

LOL ! Not yet...we have our best minds still working on it.

[DogOnPorch]

LOL ! Not yet...we have our best minds still working on it.

I'd chat with you about aircraft and such...but, the best minds tend to run for the mods if thoust doesn'th mentionth yon F-35 bulleth sheet.

If I don't get a chance...Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[waldo]

I'd chat with you about aircraft and such...but, the best minds tend to run for the mods if thoust doesn'th mentionth yon F-35 bulleth sheet.

no 'mod running' here... I tell you straight-up! You have nothing to offer and continually shit on threads, as you've just now done!

[DogOnPorch]

no 'mod running' here... I tell you straight-up! You have nothing to offer and continually shit on threads, as you've just now done!

One hundred and eight pages of nothing, frankly. You're no closer to 'winning' your argument than you were at page one. Meanwhile, what besides the F-35 suits you again? Another F-18? Right.......

[waldo]

One hundred and eight pages of nothing, frankly. You're no closer to 'winning' your argument than you were at page one.

winning? What's to win? The purpose of this thread is to highlight the 'fail' in JSFail, to emphasize the manipulation and falsehoods perpetuated by Harper Conservatives/DND and to showcase the lengths taken by this threads cheer-leading fanboys to prop-up/propagandize... like you! Clearly, you felt threatened when the recent discussion calls into question two fundamental tenets of the failed program (concurrency and full-LCC)... so you did what fanboys do. You attempted to steer the thread away from any semblance of real critical discussion, on real topics, of real relevance; i.e., you shat upon it!

[DogOnPorch]

winning? What's to win? The purpose of this thread is to highlight the 'fail' in JSFail, to emphasize the manipulation and falsehoods perpetuated by Harper Conservatives/DND and to showcase the lengths taken by this threads cheer-leading fanboys to prop-up/propagandize... like you! Clearly, you felt threatened when the recent discussion calls into question two fundamental tenets of the failed program (concurrency and full-LCC)... so you did what fanboys do. You attempted to steer the thread away from any semblance of real critical discussion, on real topics, of real relevance; i.e., you shat upon it!

Oh dear...now we'll never know if the F-35's wheel nuts are locking or not.

[bush_cheney2004]

If I don't get a chance...Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Thanks, and I hope you and yours have a wonderful Festivus Season as well.

As for this F-35 thingy and other fun topics, don't give up on us yet....still plenty of laughs to be had in 2014.

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks, and I hope you and yours have a wonderful Festivus Season as well.

Back at you again. Now if it would stop snowing...

As for this F-35 thingy and other fun topics, don't give up on us yet....still plenty of laughs to be had in 2014.

As long as my opinion matches that of the trigger-happy of our MLW members, I should be around in 2014.

:lol:

[Guest Derek L]

the methodology and results are there... for you to ignore, as you are! On a specific F-35 JSF joint program focus, cost growth rates are applied and comparison is made to 3 single service offerings. Your attempt to obfuscate with your 5 number is noted... the Tornado reference is gold! Of course, the crux of the joint program cost disadvantage lies in the longer-term Operational and Support costing; i.e., the full Life-Cycle Costing (LCC). You know, the LCC... the cost Harper Conservatives have, from day one, been attempting to either ignore or downplay.

on a broader level, joint program versus single-service, nothing says it better than this Rand graphic analysis comparing 4 single-service offerings to 4 joint programs (costs 9 years after the industry recognized 'milestone B' point):

But the F-35 was not intended to replace “three single service offerings”………… F-16 & A-10 for the USAF, the F/A-18 Hornet for the Navy and Marines, the Harrier for the RAF, RN, Italian navy and USMC and the Tornado for the RAF and Italians…All five above mentioned aircraft are unique in nature and would require separate replacements if not for the F-35 family …….as such, your cited methodology is flawed.

you still don't get it! There is commonality between the variants; unfortunately, it's acting as a detriment to costs/delivery... affecting the program at large and carrying over into each respective variant. As is your forever way, you continue to speak of the 'A' variant in isolation of the program... that somehow Canada choosing the 'A' variant holds some magical protectorate against cost impact/increase! Your implied/leveraged isolation is a false-front, one you continually play upon to falsely project your agenda/propagandizing.

I "get it" all to well.......What variants will Canada operate?

And please explain how the development of the STOVL and Naval aircraft will effect Canada?

[bush_cheney2004]

I "get it" all to well.......What variants will Canada operate?

And please explain how the development of the STOVL and Naval aircraft will effect Canada?

Good questions.....what does any of this U.S. minutiae have to do with Canadian procurements, which are quite elementary in comparison, but still mis-managed to screwed up levels regardless of what happens in other nations?

[Guest Derek L]

Good questions.....what does any of this U.S. minutiae have to do with Canadian procurements, which are quite elementary in comparison, but still mis-managed to screwed up levels regardless of what happens in other nations?

Exactly, Waldo is poorly attempting to draw parallels, using a flawed study done for the DoD, and applying it to Canada……..

Well we’re on the topic of RAND, do you remember a paper they released about 5-10 years ago or so, that prophesied a Sino-American war in ~2020-2030 timeframe, with the Chinese “winning”……..Here to they applied a flawed method by using modern day (American) technology (circa 2005) against Chinese technology yet to be developed…..All the while, assuming an unrealistic threat matrix against the “West”, well contending that the Chinese will face zero developmental issues and said technology will actually come to fruition……..Well also failing to mention (as you alluded to in the China thread) the all important training and doctrine, to what I’ll had actual combat experience…..Aside from offing Tibetans and collage students, it should be pointed out that the Chinese have not fought in a conflict since their failed invasion of Vietnam……

[waldo]

But the F-35 was not intended to replace “three single service offerings”………… F-16 & A-10 for the USAF, the F/A-18 Hornet for the Navy and Marines, the Harrier for the RAF, RN, Italian navy and USMC and the Tornado for the RAF and Italians…All five above mentioned aircraft are unique in nature and would require separate replacements if not for the F-35 family …….as such, your cited methodology is flawed.

no - again, you're obfuscating... purposely now! You keep missing the point of the analysis. It's the LCC that pushes up the costs for the joint program... the cost impact of that increased complexity shines past the actual initial acquisition phase. I note you've now avoided this latest graphic entirely... the one comparing 4 joint undertakings to 4 single-service offerings. Is there a problem? Is there a reason you're avoiding this latest one?

it is pretty balsy of you to think you can actually argue against the Rand Corporation simply based on your word/opinion!

And please explain how the development of the STOVL and Naval aircraft will effect Canada?

you said you read the study, right? I already challenged you to speak to the isolation of the 'A' variant. I already pointed out you've already acknowledged there is increased complexity/risk/cost associated with the nature of a joint program. Again, as follows, a part of the post you conveniently ignored - the isolation challenge you just decided to ignore:

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!

[waldo]

Exactly, Waldo is poorly attempting to draw parallels, using a flawed study done for the DoD, and applying it to Canada……..

it's a flawed study... because you say so! If you're going to challenge the study, I'd suggest you actually do so. Again, put up the JSFail costs you'd prefer to use, put up the costs for the respective single-service offerings you'd prefer to target, provide your methodology and show the results. Easy-peasy, hey! Just remember to take it full life-cycle, hey!

Well we’re on the topic of RAND

don't know the paper you're referring to... don't care - it has nothing to do with this thread. But nice try anyways. As I said recently, I'll no longer engage you in your purposeful deflection/distraction from the topic at hand.

[Guest Derek L]

no - again, you're obfuscating... purposely now! You keep missing the point of the analysis. It's the LCC that pushes up the costs for the joint program... the cost impact of that increased complexity shines past the actual initial acquisition phase. I note you've now avoided this latest graphic entirely... the one comparing 4 joint undertakings to 4 single-service offerings. Is there a problem? Is there a reason you're avoiding this latest one?

it is pretty balsy of you to think you can actually argue against the Rand Corporation simply based on your word/opinion!

I most certainly did look at the graph………look to the F/A-22 Raptor’s ranking and multiply it by five similar programs and contrast to the referenced F-35 figure……..that alone disproves “your point” and is likely why RAND never said with certainty that separate aircraft programs would be cheaper then the F-35.

you said you read the study, right? I already challenged you to speak to the isolation of the 'A' variant. I already pointed out you've already acknowledged there is increased complexity/risk/cost associated with the nature of a joint program. Again, as follows, a part of the post you conveniently ignored - the isolation challenge you just decided to ignore:

And who was the study for? Probably the same folks that paid for it right

So again, what impact does the STOVL and Naval aircraft play on Canada's purchase?

[Guest Derek L]

don't know the paper you're referring to... don't care - it has nothing to do with this thread. But nice try anyways. As I said recently, I'll no longer engage you in your purposeful deflection/distraction from the topic at hand.

Said post was a reply to member BC-2004........isn't someone full of themselves

[waldo]

I most certainly did look at the graph………look to the F/A-22 Raptor’s ranking and multiply it by five similar programs and contrast to the referenced F-35 figure……..that alone disproves “your point” and is likely why RAND never said with certainty that separate aircraft programs would be cheaper then the F-35.

oh my! Why didn't Rand think of that! Perhaps you should actually read the study. No sooner had I put up the study... just the study, not even the technical appendices... and you shortly came back to claim you had "read it". Clearly, you're a quick study!

And who was the study for? Probably the same folks that paid for it right

So again, what impact does the STOVL and Naval aircraft play on Canada's purchase?

who was the study for? Say what? I already highlighted the study was one contracted by the USAF... contracting the independent Rand Corporation, to do analysis on joint versus single-service costing. You've already shown your bizzaro underpinning by suggesting Rand/Boeing ties... by implying the study is flawed because... "Rand is Boeing biased"! Are you now going to extend on that and suggest some underlying relationship between the USAF and Rand... one you'd, presumably, like to attack the study with? Are you suggesting Rand tailored some study outcome that the USAF was calling for? Tinfoil time for you, hey!

you can keep asking that same question: "So again, what impact does the STOVL and Naval aircraft play on Canada's purchase?"... I've already answered it... the study has already answered it... you've already acknowledged the impact of the joint program. And, again, you refuse to take up the challenge to deliver on your claimed isolation of the 'A' variant.

[waldo]

Said post was a reply to member BC-2004........isn't someone full of themselves

so what? It was just another example of your tried-and-true approach to deflect/distract from the topic at hand. It's what you do, continually do, over and over.