On Guard for Thee Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has existed for many years and has broad support from the US Congress because of district spending. Whatever Canada decides to do with yet another fiasco defense procurement will have little if any impact on the "program", save for the loss of a minor Tier 3 player and related subcontracts. The F-35 program is not "cancelled" for the rest of the JSF world. Over 100 total units of all three variants have been produced. Partner nations are taking delivery with crews training in the U.S., just as planned. The only "Duh!" here is deserved by the relentless wannabe parroting of American defense procurements and production schedules as if they have anything whatsoever to do with Canada's typically stalled procurement decision, now back at square zero because of the usual political infighting and contract debacles that Canada is famous for. As for the USN, I don't care what it decides to do for replacement strike aircraft, and again, that has nothing to do with Canada's stalled procurement. Canada ended up buying the USN's decision last time anyway. Have you had a look at the various folks cancelling or scaling down orders? Let's see, the Pentagon, The USN, Italy, Canada, Aus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Have you had a look at the various folks cancelling or scaling down orders? Let's see, the Pentagon, The USN, Italy, Canada, Aus. Have you looked at new partner nations buying the aircraft ? Not a single original partner has bailed from the program, as member Derek often pointed out. The production line in Ft. Worth is still cranking out aircraft, not too shabby for a "cancelled" program. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Whatever Canada decides to do with yet another fiasco defense procurement will have little if any impact on the "program", save for the loss of a minor Tier 3 player and related subcontracts. hey scoop, no need to get all chest-puffy here! The issue was/is what effect the U.S. military/contractors have on the program... have on Canada and other JSFail partners. Perhaps you should try reading posts before you get all super sensitive. The F-35 program is not "cancelled" for the rest of the JSF world. Over 100 total units of all three variants have been produced. Partner nations are taking delivery with crews training in the U.S., just as planned. who said it was cancelled? Ya, ya... early LRIP planes that all need to undergo mega refit at mega dollars to bring them forward. You know, that lil' ole concurrency thing that keeps biting the program in the keester! Partner nations are not taking delivery... unless you count the onesy-twosey's that were already paid for before partner nations started to get wise to the charade. Your "just as planned" is a joke! Have you no actual understanding of the initial "committed" procurement numbers, what's actually been bought & paid for, what's actually been delivered? Perhaps you should have another read of that POGO link I dropped. It might give you a dose of reality and clue you in on the Pentagon FY2015 budget... and the 5 years going forward it covers. The only "Duh!" here is deserved by the relentless wannabe parroting of American defense procurements and production schedules as if they have anything whatsoever to do with Canada's typically stalled procurement decision, now back at square zero because of the usual political infighting and contract debacles that Canada is famous for. duh! How could American F-35 procurements and production schedules impact on Canada or any other nation seriously looking at the decade+ delay/failure of the F-35? Are you for real? Why do think those partner nations have dramatically cut back on initial order numbers... even presuming the cut back numbers are actually ever followed through on? Do ya think it might have anything to do with just where in the schedule the program is... the ongoing mega-problems that keep percolating forward... the ones that are actually spoken of/revealed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) hey scoop, no need to get all chest-puffy here! The issue was/is what effect the U.S. military/contractors have on the program... have on Canada and other JSFail partners. Perhaps you should try reading posts before you get all super sensitive. Nonsense...you got nothing to offer that is actually substantive to the actual Canadian procurement, so as usual, another run for the border is made to find and parrot back U.S. program history and progress to date. It's so laughable, Canada was quoting/comparing American flight hour costs because it could not or would not compile and present credible figures for its own CF-188 aircraft. If Canada is not and has not ever been "under contract" for F-35 aircraft, then all you can do is to continue kicking the tires and play with American numbers. .... Perhaps you should have another read of that POGO link I dropped. It might give you a dose of reality and clue you in on the Pentagon FY2015 budget... and the 5 years going forward it covers. Why? It has nothing to do with Canada's procurement. American (and partner) budget constraints are expected to impact all unprotected procurements, but that has nothing to do with Canada or the price of tea in China. Canada's budget for such things is just a Pentagon rounding error. duh! How could American F-35 procurements and production schedules impact on Canada or any other nation seriously looking at the decade+ delay/failure of the F-35? Are you for real? Why do think those partner nations have dramatically cut back on initial order numbers... even presuming the cut back numbers are actually ever followed through on? Do ya think it might have anything to do with just where in the schedule the program is... the ongoing mega-problems that keep percolating forward... the ones that are actually spoken of/revealed? No...it has a lot more to do with fiscal realities for all partner nations, even the ones who never actually had the F-35 under contract. Hoping and praying that the F-35 program is "cancelled" may be your only hope to stop Canada from joining the party, complete with other stalling tactics and games that Canada is famous for...from ships to helicopters to Iltis jeeps to submarines to tactical aircraft. It's a comedy act that never ends. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Two F-35Bs operate lift fans in close formation at Pax River to test operational performance (Feb 2014). Note: the F-35B has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's "cancelled" procurement, as Canada will not be purchasing STOVL aircraft, but facts like that don't seem to matter around here. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Nonsense...you got nothing to offer that is actually substantive to the actual Canadian procurement, so as usual, another run for the border is made to find and parrot back U.S. program history and progress to date. you sure are fixated with your new toy... you new fav word you keep blustering on about --- the "border"! that's fine... you keep up your nonsensical claim that delays and problems with the F-35 program have no bearing on other nations decisions to purchase... or when to purchase... or how much to purchase. . If Canada is not and has not ever been "under contract" for F-35 aircraft, then all you can do is to continue kicking the tires and play with American numbers. all rightee then... no need for you to sully this thread any longer. . Why? It has nothing to do with Canada's procurement. American (and partner) budget constraints are expected to impact all unprotected procurements, but that has nothing to do with Canada or the price of tea in China. Canada's budget for such things is just a Pentagon rounding error. no - again, it has everything to do with any partner nations participation in the program. Actual U.S. military commitments, budgeted commitments, translate into what you just huffed and puffed over... you know, just how many LRIP planes come out of that Texas line. That actual number translates into the effective unit costs of each plane/variant. And yes, since Canada has no contract... no signed contract... should Canada decide to actually go with the 'flying butterball', the effective cost per plane will reflect upon volume produced. Why is this so difficult for you to actually grasp? . No...it has a lot more to do with fiscal realities for all partner nations, even the ones who never actually had the F-35 under contract. Hoping and praying that the F-35 program is "cancelled" may be your only hope to stop Canada from joining the party, complete with other stalling tactics and games that Canada is famous for...from ships to helicopters to Iltis jeeps to submarines to tactical aircraft. It's a comedy act that never ends. a lot more to do with fiscal realities? Why so?... what metrics today would give any country any confidence in the F-35? I've thrown down the internal U.S. government/Pentagon reports that have provided the scathing indictments on the program... on its cost overruns, on it's delays, on its problems. What progress today can you actually provide... notwithstanding the plane hasn't even moved into testing the real critical metrics... all those much hyped selling points that are simply vapourware! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Two F-35Bs operate lift fans in close formation at Pax River to test operational performance (Feb 2014). Note: the F-35B has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's "cancelled" procurement, as Canada will not be purchasing STOVL aircraft, but facts like that don't seem to matter around here. sorry... apparently you missed the update a few pages back. 'B' has been delayed, at least a year... IOS shifted out... you know, it's all about those cracks in the bulkhead! Of course, that delay just ripples on out! Speaking of your puffery, do you have any updates on just how many the UK is actually going to take... there seems to be a little hesitation there, hey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 sorry... apparently you missed the update a few pages back. 'B' has been delayed, at least a year... IOS shifted out... you know, it's all about those cracks in the bulkhead! Of course, that delay just ripples on out! Speaking of your puffery, do you have any updates on just how many the UK is actually going to take... there seems to be a little hesitation there, hey! See what I mean....more bloviating about an aircraft that has nothing to do with Canada's procurement decision. This has been a consistent behaviour pattern, hoping to invoke the total scale of the international F-35 JSF program in general, and the U.S. program specifically, as if Canada's decision is critical to and will bring the entire program to its knees. Tire kickers...gotta love 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) you sure are fixated with your new toy... you new fav word you keep blustering on about --- the "border"! The border...to the border...always...The Border. Be it NASA or NOAA or Pentagon or POGO or even Puget Sound tanker traffic studies....always get thee to the USA border. that's fine... you keep up your nonsensical claim that delays and problems with the F-35 program have no bearing on other nations decisions to purchase... or when to purchase... or how much to purchase. Actually, more nations have decided to purchase or are considering such a purchase. Meanwhile, Canada does what Canada always does. And yes, since Canada has no contract... no signed contract... should Canada decide to actually go with the 'flying butterball', the effective cost per plane will reflect upon volume produced. Why is this so difficult for you to actually grasp? Canada has never had a firm contract, so why are you so worried ? Why invest so much time and effort for the procurement decisions of other nations ? Why parrot back numbers for aircraft variants that have nothing to do with Canada's considerations ? Why ? . a lot more to do with fiscal realities? Why so?... what metrics today would give any country any confidence in the F-35? I've thrown down the internal U.S. government/Pentagon reports that have provided the scathing indictments on the program... on its cost overruns, on it's delays, on its problems. What progress today can you actually provide... notwithstanding the plane hasn't even moved into testing the real critical metrics... all those much hyped selling points that are simply vapourware! Hmmm...let's see...what example would compare and explain it best. I know...a simple question will do. How many CF-105's were built ? Now that's what I would call a "cancelled" program ! Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 See what I mean....more bloviating about an aircraft that has nothing to do with Canada's procurement decision. This has been a consistent behaviour pattern, hoping to invoke the total scale of the international F-35 JSF program in general, and the U.S. program specifically, as if Canada's decision is critical to and will bring the entire program to its knees. Tire kickers...gotta love 'em. so it's 'bloviating' when someone other than you mentions it hey? I guess you shouldn't have just been the first to 'bloviate' about the 'B' variant, right? the progress of the JSFail program reflects directly upon the progress of its respective variants. For someone with your uber-posturing, I would have thought you understood the dependencies within/between the respective variants... apparently, you have no clue as to what is shared between the respective variants. Go figure! Canada's decision is Canada's decision... there's no need for you to elevate the significance of that decision. Other than your ultra-sensitivities and absolute need to make everything and anything about the U.S. (USA, USA, USA), it's only in your imagination/fabrication that anyone in these threads is making Canada's decision out to be anything more than... Canada's decision. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) so it's 'bloviating' when someone other than you mentions it hey? I guess you shouldn't have just been the first to 'bloviate' about the 'B' variant, right? I mockingly did so to demonstrate just how silly this debate has become, directly stating so. Maybe you missed that. the progress of the JSFail program reflects directly upon the progress of its respective variants. For someone with your uber-posturing, I would have thought you understood the dependencies within/between the respective variants... apparently, you have no clue as to what is shared between the respective variants. Go figure! Nope...won't work...you live in Canada...remember ? No variants for you...hell...nothing is under contract and never has been. I know it's easy to get all excited with what happens "south of the border", but the JSF program is not going to die just to save Canada from having to make a decision...to save Canada from itself. Canada's decision is Canada's decision... there's no need for you to elevate the significance of that decision. Other than your ultra-sensitivities and absolute need to make everything and anything about the U.S. (USA, USA, USA), it's only in your imagination/fabrication that anyone in these threads is making Canada's decision out to be anything more than... Canada's decision. I guess you typed that...but the evidence in this thread says otherwise. No other member has invoked so much American content with respect to a Canadian procurement. One would think that the "Pentagon" was Canadian based on such posts. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Canada has never had a firm contract, so why are you so worried ? Why invest so much time and effort for the procurement decisions of other nations ? Why parrot back numbers for aircraft variants that have nothing to do with Canada's considerations ? Why ? then why are you so ultra-sensitive... why are you so involved in this thread? Why do you insist that total and/or individual nation procurement numbers mean nothing? If that's the case, why does LockMart incessantly parade it's sales numbers, real and/or projected, across any media outlet it can reach? Why? . Hmmm...let's see...what example would compare and explain it best. I know...a simple question will do. How many CF-105's were built ? Now that's what I would call a "cancelled" program ! hey now! There's a veritable cottage industry detailing the absolute failures in U.S. military procurement..... it's a long, long list... over a long, long history. Are you sure you'd like to dance... that dance? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) then why are you so ultra-sensitive... why are you so involved in this thread? Why do you insist that total and/or individual nation procurement numbers mean nothing? If that's the case, why does LockMart incessantly parade it's sales numbers, real and/or projected, across any media outlet it can reach? Why Because that's what LockMart stockholders want them to do. It's not complicated. Is A. V. Roe still in business ? hey now! There's a veritable cottage industry detailing the absolute failures in U.S. military procurement..... it's a long, long list... over a long, long history. Are you sure you'd like to dance... that dance? The U.S. has already scrapped more programs than Canada has ever started. And your nation still flies American kit. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Still, that does not discourage navies from operating single engine aircraft off carriers in the middle of oceans. That is because of the carrier as a mobile airstrip. Also with search and rescue easily at hand. One example I used was the US and the amount of carriers and bases they operate out of. Canadian pilots have a lot of ground to cover and an air base is far and few between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 I mockingly did so to demonstrate just how silly this debate has become, directly stating so. Maybe you missed that. ya, ya... nice ass-covering on your part! Hey now, when I followed up on your claimed mocking... was I mocking you? Nope...won't work...you live in Canada...remember ? No variants for you...hell...nothing is under contract and never has been. I know it's easy to get all excited with what happens "south of the border", but the JSF program is not going to die just to save Canada from making a decision. you're a waste of time... why keep repeating the same nonsense you've just sprayed a few posts back? I guess you typed that...but the evidence in this thread says otherwise. No other member has invoked so much American content with respect to a Canadian procurement. One would think that the "Pentagon" was Canadian based on such posts. you're simply making shyte up now! No, the evidence does not. I'm not aware of anyone who has projected anything Canada might choose to do back on the program proper. You keep stumbling over the most basic and fundamental aspect of the program... again, as goes U.S. procurement, so goes the program. Again, why is this so difficult for you to understand, to grasp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Don't feed the trolls people. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Not for Canada...it has no aircraft under contract. It is a Tier 3 partner, grubbing for offset subcontracts. The "program" for Canada has been a nearly 1:1 investment trade for subcontracts...a little over $500 million. Chump change in the larger scheme of things. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Because that's what LockMart stockholders want them to do. It's not complicated. bingo! Cause, like... uhhhh... those LockMart stockholders want LockMart to sell more. You just claimed the procurement numbers mean nothing! Make up your mind. It's not complicated. The U.S. has already scrapped more programs than Canada has ever started. And your nation still flies American kit. that's fine and dandy... but you seemed to want to dance the cancelled/failed procurement dance. You thought you could get a rise out of me by flogging the Avro Arrow. Like I said, I'll certainly dance that dance... if you'd like! I've already found a gem of a site that really lays down a veritable wasteland of failed U.S. endevours! After you, Alphonse! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Don't feed the trolls people. Be part of the solution, not the problem. thanks for the reminder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) that's fine and dandy... but you seemed to want to dance the cancelled/failed procurement dance. You thought you could get a rise out of me by flogging the Avro Arrow. Like I said, I'll certainly dance that dance... if you'd like! I've already found a gem of a site that really lays down a veritable wasteland of failed U.S. endevours! After you, Alphonse! The point has already been made, and not in your favour. Lockheed Martin has aircraft under contract with more procurements planned for DECADES. The Avro Arrow sleeps with the fishes. F-35 prime contractor stock performance: Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT) -NYSE52wk Range: $89.70 - $168.41 Prev Close: $166.84 EPS (ttm): $ 9.14 Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Why do we think that we will ever get “state of the art” military aircraft? Does anybody really think that any nation which is capable of building high tech military aircraft would allow their latest technology and research to be purchased by another nation? Would even the USA, our neighbour and “big brother”, really sell us their latest technology and trust Canada to keep it secret? I suggest that we will be able to purchase only technology that is inferior to the Americans and designed to support the American approach to foreign policy. It might save us a lot of time and money if we tell the Americans how much we are willing to spend and let them design, build and deliver the kind of aircraft that they need in support of their future excursions. Does anybody really think that we will ever be in a military confrontation where we are not following the USA and supporting their battle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Would even the USA, our neighbour and “big brother”, really sell us their latest technology and trust Canada to keep it secret? No....as demonstrated by the F-22 Raptor...not exportable to any nation by U.S. public law. No foreign military sales (FMS). Does anybody really think that we will ever be in a military confrontation where we are not following the USA and supporting their battle? No, or at least a NATO derivative that requires "unique" American assets, principally initial anti-air defense suppression. We have discussed this before...there is no scenario wherein Canada would act alone in a foreign theatre, and even domestically, intercept and patrol sorties are coordinated with NORAD (yipes...more Americanos). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 That is because of the carrier as a mobile airstrip. Also with search and rescue easily at hand. One example I used was the US and the amount of carriers and bases they operate out of. Canadian pilots have a lot of ground to cover and an air base is far and few between. A fighter cruises at around 500 kts, a carrier at less than 30. For practical purposes, the carrier is stationary and as I already stated a dead stick landing is not an option on a carrier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Why do we think that we will ever get “state of the art” military aircraft? Does anybody really think that any nation which is capable of building high tech military aircraft would allow their latest technology and research to be purchased by another nation? Would even the USA, our neighbour and “big brother”, really sell us their latest technology and trust Canada to keep it secret? I suggest that we will be able to purchase only technology that is inferior to the Americans and designed to support the American approach to foreign policy. It might save us a lot of time and money if we tell the Americans how much we are willing to spend and let them design, build and deliver the kind of aircraft that they need in support of their future excursions. Does anybody really think that we will ever be in a military confrontation where we are not following the USA and supporting their battle? I understand the American's approach, they wanted potential buyers to help offset what was going to be pretty expensive project. Unfortunately the project became insanely expensive and for a product the Pentagon says is not good at night, pilot's don't want to fly it in cloud, and it needs a heated hangar even when operated in Florida. That's not so good in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Perhaps the procurement branch of the DND should spend more time on E-bay? Lots of great deals! http://knlive.ctvnews.ca/ukrainian-bomber-for-sale-on-ebay-1.1718794 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.