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

[On Guard for Thee]

way to reinforce your personal attachments... clearly, the obviously acknowledged "jobs program" reach of the MIC (and the impact on your much touted personal LockMart stock portfolio), is more important to you than the real measure (over budget, under delivery, under performance, over hype) of the failed F-35!

"Too big/too expensive too kill"..... clearly, LockMart learned the lesson from the F-22 cancellation.

by the by... what are these "murmurs" starting to float about the much touted/vaunted F-35 "win" in South Korea? Is there a problem? Around go-around with all players coming back for... round 3? Wassup?

Yeah, SK wants 40. Any ideas where the money is coming from?

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is the answer to Canada's F-35 conundrum...the Super Arrow! Twice the performance for half the cost of the F-35 flying brick. Built by Canadians...for Canadians, and that means everything...airframe, avionics, fire control, weapons, comms and nav suite, and engines. That's right...TWO ENGINES, which is what Canada must have to rule the frozen north. It's in this YouTube video so it must be true (ignore the spelling errors...the world's greatest 5th gen fighter from Canada doesn't need to be good at spelling).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaNnX2C4qfY

Edited January 2, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

way to reinforce your personal attachments... clearly, the obviously acknowledged "jobs program" reach of the MIC (and the impact on your much touted personal LockMart stock portfolio), is more important to you than the real measure (over budget, under delivery, under performance, over hype) of the failed F-35!

If the F-35 is such a failure as you ascribe, why oh why are the partners staying and new nations joining the program? Real simple question.

"Too big/too expensive too kill"..... clearly, LockMart & Boeing learned the lesson from the F-22 cancellation.

Fixed that for you...........And the comparison between both programs isn’t really apt……..even if the US Government had of allowed the export of the Raptor, there is a very small international market for such a high performance, air superiority fighter…..At most Israel, Japan and possibly Australia and Saudi Arabia. Even with the USAF itself, the Raptor was forced the inclusion of an Air-to Ground role (this includes the prior mentioned Ada code shared between the F-22 and F-35) to allow some semblance of versatility.

To circle back to your posts pertaining to the recent RAND paper and the suggestion that it would have been cheaper to develop unique aircraft for the various services, from the start of the JSF program it was recognised the defence procurement inflation wouldn’t make feasible the development of 4-5 separate aircraft for the various services. This was demonstrated both with A-12 Avenger II cancellation (which subsequently led to McDonnell Douglas being swallowed up by Boeing) and the joint effort between Lockheed and Boeing, the F-22 Raptor.

Hence Boeing developing the X-32 and Lockheed the X-35 for the multi-service, and multi-role, JSF competition.

by the by... what are these "murmurs" starting to float about the much touted/vaunted F-35 "win" in South Korea? Is there a problem? Around go-around with all players coming back for... round 3? Wassup?

Not at all, the deal should be inked late Spring or earlier Summer of this year.........you might be confused with another planned purchase for ~several dozen aircraft, which all three previous players are apart.....Though Eurofighter has next to nil chance of winning.

[On Guard for Thee]

Here is the answer to Canada's F-35 conundrum...the Super Arrow! Twice the performance for half the cost of the F-35 flying brick. Built by Canadians...for Canadians, and that means everything...airframe, avionics, fire control, weapons, comms and nav suite, and engines. That's right...TWO ENGINES, which is what Canada must have to rule the frozen north. It's in this YouTube video so it must be true (ignore the spelling errors...the world's greatest 5th gen fighter from Canada doesn't need to be good at spelling).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaNnX2C4qfY

Well there ya go. It was the best airplane in it's day, unfortunately we had a typical shortsighted conservative government who nixed it. I say we kick Harper out and reinvent the Arrow. Happy days Au Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

Here is the answer to Canada's F-35 conundrum...the Super Arrow! Twice the performance for half the cost of the F-35 flying brick. Built by Canadians...for Canadians, and that means everything...airframe, avionics, fire control, weapons, comms and nav suite, and engines. That's right...TWO ENGINES, which is what Canada must have to rule the frozen north. It's in this YouTube video so it must be true (ignore the spelling errors...the world's greatest 5th gen fighter from Canada doesn't need to be good at spelling).

I think we should hold out for these:

Both grounded in the same reality

[waldo]

Yeah, SK wants 40. Any ideas where the money is coming from?

apparently... from those wascally "inside F-35 bloggers" that MLW member 'Derek L' is so against (cause they're too/so often right), it's not just money. Apparently, the South Koreans thought they would be receiving a real transfer of "intellectual property". Surely, the LockMart sales front-end didn't promise what they can't deliver? Surely? Or perhaps... South Korea is just playing hardball by threatening another round of negotiations with "all comers".

[waldo]

If the F-35 is such a failure as you ascribe, why oh why are the partners staying and new nations joining the program? Real simple question.

list the fully committed/purchased numbers? Compare those to the original commitment numbers. Compare the original program target costs to the actual costs (to-date) and what the loss of committed purchase numbers actually means to the original (projected) target costs? You know... do what you've been challenged to do several times now... you know, the request you refuse to respond to.

[Guest Derek L]

list the fully committed/purchased numbers? Compare those to the original commitment numbers. Compare the original program target costs to the actual costs (to-date) and what the loss of committed purchase numbers actually means to the original (projected) target costs? You know... do what you've been challenged to do several times now... you know, the request you refuse to respond to.

What's the +/- of international participation since the programs onset?

[waldo]

Fixed that for you...........And the comparison between both programs isn’t really apt……..even if the US Government had of allowed the export of the Raptor, there is a very small international market for such a high performance, air superiority fighter…..At most Israel, Japan and possibly Australia and Saudi Arabia. Even with the USAF itself, the Raptor was forced the inclusion of an Air-to Ground role (this includes the prior mentioned Ada code shared between the F-22 and F-35) to allow some semblance of versatility.

the prior mentioned shared Ada code? Sorry, I thought your original mentioning of it was to impress the point that all the F-35 code was Ada... cause that was your feeble response to why there is such a continued delay in software delivery... cause "Ada is so little used there are few programmers who know it". Care to revisit that again. As I said, as I'm aware, the majority of the F-35 code is written in C/C++ with only about 5% written in Ada (from what could be transferred/reused from the F-22). About that F-22 superiority... you mean the plane never seen in actual combat? Just read an article that spoke of those relatively recent games in Alaska... that actually showed the Eurofighter matched the F-22 once real engagement began. More LockMart propaganda, hey?

To circle back to your posts pertaining to the recent RAND paper and the suggestion that it would have been cheaper to develop unique aircraft for the various services, from the start of the JSF program it was recognised the defence procurement inflation wouldn’t make feasible the development of 4-5 separate aircraft for the various services.

you kind of dropped off the Rand study debate when we started to get into the meat of the technical appendices... you still have an outstanding post (that you chose to ignore). Apparently, you think your nonsensical attempt to tie Rand to Boeing was all you had to do to actually address the study! Or was it your suggestion Rand tailored the report to meet the USAF sponsor's want/expectation?

.

[waldo]

What's the +/- of international participation since the programs onset?

apparently... program participation has it's advantages! You get to remain uncommitted in actually purchasing/paying... while you wait a decade+ for "a dream" to actually materialize.

[On Guard for Thee]

If the F-35 is such a failure as you ascribe, why oh why are the partners staying and new nations joining the program? Real simple question.

Fixed that for you...........And the comparison between both programs isn’t really apt……..even if the US Government had of allowed the export of the Raptor, there is a very small international market for such a high performance, air superiority fighter…..At most Israel, Japan and possibly Australia and Saudi Arabia. Even with the USAF itself, the Raptor was forced the inclusion of an Air-to Ground role (this includes the prior mentioned Ada code shared between the F-22 and F-35) to allow some semblance of versatility.

To circle back to your posts pertaining to the recent RAND paper and the suggestion that it would have been cheaper to develop unique aircraft for the various services, from the start of the JSF program it was recognised the defence procurement inflation wouldn’t make feasible the development of 4-5 separate aircraft for the various services. This was demonstrated both with A-12 Avenger II cancellation (which subsequently led to McDonnell Douglas being swallowed up by Boeing) and the joint effort between Lockheed and Boeing, the F-22 Raptor.

Hence Boeing developing the X-32 and Lockheed the X-35 for the multi-service, and multi-role, JSF competition.

Not at all, the deal should be inked late Spring or earlier Summer of this year.........you might be confused with another planned purchase for ~several dozen aircraft, which all three previous players are apart.....Though Eurofighter has next to nil chance of winning.

Partners are down, that mans costs go up. The real questionis, who needs 'em?

[bush_cheney2004]

Partners are down, that mans costs go up. The real questionis, who needs 'em?

Nope....costs are actually going down because of how the contracts are structured for variant cost, putting more LM skin in the game. Canada "needs them" for jobs programs in the provinces. Ontario has been bleeding manufacturing jobs for over 10 years.

Edited January 2, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

the prior mentioned shared Ada code? Sorry, I thought your original mentioning of it was to impress the point that all the F-35 code was Ada... cause that was your feeble response to why there is such a continued delay in software delivery... cause "Ada is so little used there are few programmers who know it". Care to revisit that again. As I said, as I'm aware, the majority of the F-35 code is written in C/C++ with only about 5% written in Ada (from what could be transferred/reused from the F-22). About that F-22 superiority... you mean the plane never seen in actual combat? Just read an article that spoke of those relatively recent games in Alaska... that actually showed the Eurofighter matched the F-22 once real engagement began. More LockMart propaganda, hey?

I never said the F-35's source code was solely Ada, but the differing requirements and complexity between commercial and military software has contributed to delays……and of course with Ada specifically, the lack of programmers that still work with it.

As to Red Flag, the Luftwaffe Eurofighter’s claimed kills when in a “dogfight” (visual range), of course to get into a dogfight, one must somehow defeat the Raptor’s Beyond Visual Range tactical advantage……

you kind of dropped off the Rand study debate when we started to get into the meat of the technical appendices... you still have an outstanding post (that you chose to ignore). Apparently, you think your nonsensical attempt to tie Rand to Boeing was all you had to do to actually address the study! Or was it your suggestion Rand tailored the report to meet the USAF sponsor's want/expectation?

I’m still waiting for you to explain RAND’s methodology in determining the costs associated with 5 other aircraft programs…….that has yet to be forthcoming, as such, RAND admitted that costs could be less, not that it was a certainty.

So did RAND’s projections just build upon then ongoing programs? Did they base costing on a F-15 Silent Eagle? A Harrier III? A Super-duper-Hornet? Or did they account for five similar programs like the F-35?

[Guest Derek L]

apparently... program participation has it's advantages! You get to remain uncommitted in actually purchasing/paying... while you wait a decade+ for "a dream" to actually materialize.

Is that your reasoning as to why no partners have left, all the while, new countries have joined the program?

It would stand to reason that if the F-35 was such a failure as you suggest, all these other nations would be jumping overboard and purchasing Eurofighters, Riff-Raffs and Uber Hornets......or better yet, per RAND, develop their own programs from the ground up, all the while saving money

Yet, none of this has happened with the F-35......now why is that?

[Guest Derek L]

Nope....costs are actually going down because of how the contracts are structured for variant cost, putting more LM skin in the game. Canada "needs them" for jobs programs in the provinces. Ontario has been bleeding manufacturing jobs for over 10 years.

Hell, Avcorp and ASCO are both making the outer wing portions of the carrier version ......they're only about a 15-20 minute drive from me.

[Guest Derek L]

In some aspects, but overall deployable numbers of F-35s will equal current Hornets numbers, or 48 aircraft…….Though numerically a sideways move, in terms of actual capability, the Lightning will bring many new capabilities to the RCAF and Canadian Forces that we have not had prior, namely as a linked ISTAR platform that will be a boon not only for the RCAF, but follow on (positive) effects for everything from deployed naval assets, battlefield awareness for mechanized & light ground forces, all the way to a indirect targeting aide for artillery……..

And of course, the F-35 will compliment the utility of next generation UCAVs….

http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/uavs-and-the-f-35-partners-in-air-power/

The question of how UAVs will contribute to air superiority goes to the core of the utility not just of the UCLASS, but also of the F-35C. If we envision the JSF as the centerpiece of a networked system-of-systems that includes subsurface, surface, and unmanned aerial assets, part of a chain of capabilities between see-er and shooter, it begins to look like a much more formidable weapon, its drawbacks as a fighter notwithstanding.

All abilities that strengthen the Canadian Forces is all three elements as I mentioned in my above post…….abilities that 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft can’t match and only a select number of air forces currently can through AWACS and JSTAR like aircraft…….Though we’ve done yeoman’s work with our CP-140s in recent missions, the F-35 will be a much needed improvement in many areas.

The practical objections to the use of UAVs for air superiority are well known. UAVs lack the situational awareness of piloted aircraft, and are extremely vulnerable to electronic counter-measures that can disrupt communications with their operators. Even a few seconds delay in relaying commands can prove fatal for a UAV. At the same time, developing drones sufficiently autonomous to manage themselves in air-to-air combat is genuinely scary; no one wants a drone that can kill on its own.

And this was demonstrated with several near missies in Afghanistan when Predators came very close several times to colliding with manned aircraft when operating within the same airspace…….and this is also why UCAVs won’t replace manned flight for decades, but can be a useful compliment to manned flight in a great many ways:

But if we evaluate the contribution of the drone not in isolation, but rather as part of a system-of-systems for air dominance, its utility becomes clearer. Stealthy F-35s operate in contested environments, identifying and tracking targets, with the UAVs supplying the missiles that the JSFs can’t carry on their own. Even the payload challenged F-35B can contribute in this context; having as many F-35s in the air as possible increases the clarity of the picture offered to pilots and commanders.

Indeed, this is precisely the type of aerial warfare that the developers of the F-35 envisioned. Although this vision has been part of the Joint Strike Fighter program for some time, it has not, for whatever reason, been articulated clearly to the public. Our public conversation still struggles to conceptualize specific weapons as part of a larger system, rather than with respect to their individual characteristics. This hardly means that programs such as the F-35 or the UCLASS should be above criticism, but it does suggest ways to add nuance to the critique.

And it needs further mention that such a system of systems also has great importance to future coalition warfare, in which a Danish F-35 could provide targeting information to a USN UCAV, an Australian destroyer, a Royal Navy nuclear sub, a USAF B-2 stealth bomber and a Canadian artillery battery. All the while relaying a real-time gods-eye view of a battlefield to anything from the flag facilities aboard a Royal Navy aircraft carrier, the back of Canadian LAV III command post, aboard a NATO E-3 Sentry or the basement of the Pentagon in Washington.

The F-35 is truly the cornerstone of the next generation in warfare as made evident by the fact that all the partner nations (and nations that have since joined the program and those that are clamouring to) have stayed with it, despite in some cases economic issues that have caused cuts in other defence related areas.

The F-35 is here to stay.

[waldo]

I never said the F-35's source code was solely Ada, but the differing requirements and complexity between commercial and military software has contributed to delays……and of course with Ada specifically, the lack of programmers that still work with it.

you most certainly implied it... again, it was your lame excuse for the year-over-year software delays. Meanwhile you keep dropping the LockMart propaganda every other post with a sole purpose to falsely project development has actually delivered something todate. Tell me... how does a F-35 perform to any significant level before the "3F" package that's still years... years... away? Again, I gave you suggestion that, as I'm aware, there is at best 5% of the code written in Ada... if you'd like to dispute that and actually qualify your lame excuse that "few Ada programmers exist", please... do so!

As to Red Flag, the Luftwaffe Eurofighter’s claimed kills when in a “dogfight” (visual range), of course to get into a dogfight, one must somehow defeat the Raptor’s Beyond Visual Range tactical advantage……

ah yes! Which brings us back to the much touted F-35 stealth... apparently, the only go-to left to offset the known F-35 design (and expected performance) limitations. Who you gonna call when the stealth busters arrive? Oh right... all of a sudden with your latest post, you are a real proponent of UCAV. Your big-time shift is noted! Wassthat... F-35s leading... or following, the drones?

Edited January 5, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

I’m still waiting for you to explain RAND’s methodology in determining the costs associated with 5 other aircraft programs…….that has yet to be forthcoming, as such, RAND admitted that costs could be less, not that it was a certainty.

So did RAND’s projections just build upon then ongoing programs? Did they base costing on a F-15 Silent Eagle? A Harrier III? A Super-duper-Hornet? Or did they account for five similar programs like the F-35?

I thought you said you read the report? I've already spoken to your nonsense concerning "5 other aircraft programs"... aside from the Rand report itself, somehow you managed to drop the Tornado into that mix. Care to step-up and show the official JSF program documentation that speaks to the Tornado as one of the target replacements? But really, c'mon! Are you going to add another to your count, into your mix for every unique plane a country might presume to replace the F-35 with? Given all your puffery concerning Korea replacing its F-15s, why not make that count 6? Or 7... if Brazil had opted for the F-35 to replace its Mirage jets!

as for the Rand report... the report you clearly didn't read, in spite of all your bluster-bus, I gave you a couple of clues that should have allowed you to save yourself further embarrassment. The Rand report methodology clearly follows the claims made by LockMart; clearly sets out to test the claims made by LockMart. Here, let me quote you from... the report you claim to have read:

To estimate baseline RDT&E, we accepted the JSF JPO and contractor’s estimate that JSF would be able to carry out the RDT&E of three different fighter variants for 60 percent of the cost of three single service programs combined. Thus, RDT&E for three single-service programs would be 67 percent higher than the RDT&E estimate for JSF at MS B. (Expressed algebraically, RDT&E for three single-service fighters (x) equals 1.67 times that for JSF (y), or x = 1.67y. Thus, the percentage of x represented by y is (y/x) = (1/1.67), or 60 percent.)

now, why would LockMart have settled on targeting 3 different single service variants..... can we say, 3 JSF variants and 3 services? Sure we can! As I showed in earlier posts, the JSFail program failed big time in meeting it's own target "joint versus single service" cost projections when life-cycle costing (LCC) is taken into account; specifically: "as shown in Figure 3.4, the O&S estimate for JSF (normalized for original procurement quantities) grew substantially in the nine years between MS B and 2010. Compared with the notional single-service programs, assuming F-22 O&S cost-growth percentages at 9.7 years past MS B, the JSF total LCC is 65 percent higher."

and, again, when doing straight-up comparisons between assorted joint programs versus single-service offerings:

...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, of course, not only did the Rand report bust the claims of LockMart concerning cost advantages for joint programs, it also busted another long-standing claim that LockMart quite regularly trotted out... that of a projected commonality of shared resource/material/parts; specifically, again:

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.

.

[waldo]

Yeah, SK wants 40. Any ideas where the money is coming from?

apparently... from those wascally "inside F-35 bloggers" that MLW member 'Derek L' is so against (cause they're too/so often right), it's not just money. Apparently, the South Koreans thought they would be receiving a real transfer of "intellectual property". Surely, the LockMart sales front-end didn't promise what they can't deliver? Surely? Or perhaps... South Korea is just playing hardball by threatening another round of negotiations with "all comers".

I guess when it hits the mainstream (per English language Korea Times)... MLW member 'Derek L' might give it a lil' credence... maybe. Nah, not a chance!

But the problem is that Seoul is expected to finalize the F-35 order this year, aiming for the first delivery of the stealth jet in 2018.

Since aging F-4s and F-5s are to retire soon, it would mean a big hole in Air Force’s fleet of fighter jets.

The Air Force, by some estimates, would be in need of 100 new fighters by 2020.

The current budget can secure only 40 F-35s with 8.3 trillion won ($7.8 billion) 60 F-X IIIs, but Lockheed says that amount could secure 52 or 53 F-35s.

.

.

“If I were the Korean Air Force, I would actually do a 20-40 split-buy. That way you give yourself a chance to assess the F-35s and you might also get 40 newer aircraft at a much better price,” said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly.

“The split-buy makes sense because there is still some uncertainty about the software development timeline of the F-35. Most of its advanced capabilities are only due to come with the Block 3F software, which isn’t likely to be deployed until 2017. Software has been perhaps the most challenging aspect of the F-35’s development thus far,” said Greg Waldron, Asia managing editor of FlightGlobal, an aviation and aerospace industry website.

sure makes you wonder about the margin play when LockMart can so presume to sweeten the Korean pot from a cost equivalency of 40 planes... to 52/53... for the same $7.8 billion!

[Guest Derek L]

you most certainly implied it... again, it was your lame excuse for the year-over-year software delays. Meanwhile you keep dropping the LockMart propaganda every other post with a sole purpose to falsely project development has actually delivered something todate. Tell me... how does a F-35 perform to any significant level before the "3F" package that's still years... years... away? Again, I gave you suggestion that, as I'm aware, there is at best 5% of the code written in Ada... if you'd like to dispute that and actually qualify your lame excuse that "few Ada programmers exist", please... do so!

Where?

ah yes! Which brings us back to the much touted F-35 stealth... apparently, the only go-to left to offset the known F-35 design (and expected performance) limitations. Who you gonna call when the stealth busters arrive? Oh right... all of a sudden with your latest post, you are a real proponent of UCAV. Your big-time shift is noted! Wassthat... F-35s leading... or following, the drones?

Read the article.

[Guest Derek L]

I thought you said you read the report? I've already spoken to your nonsense concerning "5 other aircraft programs"... aside from the Rand report itself, somehow you managed to drop the Tornado into that mix. Care to step-up and show the official JSF program documentation that speaks to the Tornado as one of the target replacements? But really, c'mon! Are you going to add another to your count, into your mix for every unique plane a country might presume to replace the F-35 with? Given all your puffery concerning Korea replacing its F-15s, why not make that count 6? Or 7... if Brazil had opted for the F-35 to replace its Mirage jets!

1. F-16

2. F/A-18

3. A-10

4. Harrier II

5. Tornado

Five aircraft for the two tier 1 partners.

With the Tornado, you can reference the Future Offensive Air System program

Why would the F-15 or the Mirage be counted?

now, why would LockMart have settled on targeting 3 different single service variants..... can we say, 3 JSF variants and 3 services? Sure we can! As I showed in earlier posts, the JSFail program failed big time in meeting it's own target "joint versus single service" cost projections when life-cycle costing (LCC) is taken into account; specifically: "as shown in Figure 3.4, the O&S estimate for JSF (normalized for original procurement quantities) grew substantially in the nine years between MS B and 2010. Compared with the notional single-service programs, assuming F-22 O&S cost-growth percentages at 9.7 years past MS B, the JSF total LCC is 65 percent higher."

I have no idea why RAND wouldn't include two of the five stated aircraft to be replaced by the JSF program.

But basic math indicates their methods are clearly flawed......as is your claim.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I have no idea why RAND wouldn't include two of the five stated aircraft to be replaced by the JSF program.

But basic math indicates their methods are clearly flawed......as is your claim.

Furthermore, they are irrelevant to Canada, which does not operate single-role tactical aircraft or redundant types of multi-role tactical aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

Furthermore, they are irrelevant to Canada, which does not operate single-role tactical aircraft or redundant types of multi-role tactical aircraft.

Good thing, too...can you imagine all the different CF's (et al) and all the silly aircraft names involving Canadiana?

CA-10 Thunderdiefenbaker

CSR-71 Lord Black of Crossharbour

C-OV-1 First Nations

C-OV-10 Bucking Beaver

etc...

[waldo]

I have no idea why RAND wouldn't include two of the five stated aircraft to be replaced by the JSF program.

But basic math indicates their methods are clearly flawed......as is your claim.

more of your purposeful silly-buggar act, hey? I quoted you exactly why that methodology was used. Again, it matched exactly the claim made by LockMart; accordingly, Rand tested that claim... and busted it! Again, the LockMart claim from the report... you claimed to have read:

To estimate baseline RDT&E, we accepted the JSF JPO and contractor’s estimate that JSF would be able to carry out the RDT&E of three different fighter variants for 60 percent of the cost of three single service programs combined. Thus, RDT&E for three single-service programs would be 67 percent higher than the RDT&E estimate for JSF at MS B. (Expressed algebraically, RDT&E for three single-service fighters (x) equals 1.67 times that for JSF (y), or x = 1.67y. Thus, the percentage of x represented by y is (y/x) = (1/1.67), or 60 percent.)

more pointedly, according to our good friend Sweetman, the actual Joint Strike Fighter program office has “no real issues” with the Rand report and most pointedly, the Joint Strike Fighter program office won't confirm any of the figures LockMart is using in an attempt to dispute the Rand report! That's right, LockMart is so desperate it has now resorted to claiming Rand is using "outdated data"... but LockMart won't provide detail/background as to where it's pulling its data from to presume to challenge the Rand report:

A Rand Corp. report produced to guide future U.S. Air Force program plans has concluded that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will cost more than three single-service programs would have done. That conclusion drew a sharp riposte from Lockheed Martin, which accused the report's authors of using “outdated data” that overstated the F-35's projected operating costs by a factor of two.

Lockheed Martin based its criticism on numbers that cannot be found in the report. The company declined to give a source for those numbers, stating that they were “government data.” The Joint Strike Fighter program office distanced itself from the argument, saying it had “no real issues” with the report, and did not confirm any of the company's figures.

so, again... 2 LockMart claims busted by Rand:

- #1 busted => that the cost of the joint program would be 65% less than the cost of 3 single-service offerings, and

- #2 busted => that there would be 80% commonality between the respective variants

.

[Guest Derek L]

more of your purposeful silly-buggar act, hey? I quoted you exactly why that methodology was used. Again, it matched exactly the claim made by LockMart; accordingly, Rand tested that claim... and busted it! Again, the LockMart claim from the report... you claimed to have read:

.

Five separate aircraft Waldo, 1-2-3-4-5. As I said, the RAND report and their revisionist history is not inclusive of what the JSF program set out to replace from the onset for the United States and the United Kingdom.

Please, square that circle

more pointedly, according to our good friend Sweetman, the actual Joint Strike Fighter program office has “no real issues” with the Rand report and most pointedly, the Joint Strike Fighter program office won't confirm any of the figures LockMart is using in an attempt to dispute the Rand report! That's right, LockMart is so desperate it has now resorted to claiming Rand is using "outdated data"... but LockMart won't provide detail/background as to where it's pulling its data from to presume to challenge the Rand report:

From your link:

A Rand Corp. report produced to guide future U.S. Air Force program plans has concluded that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will cost more than three single-service programs would have done. That conclusion drew a sharp riposte from Lockheed Martin, which accused the report's authors of using “outdated data” that overstated the F-35's projected operating costs by a factor of two.

But would it have cost more than the 5 aircraft types the JSF program was intended to replace.....that is the question?