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

[Derek 2.0]

blame it on the suppliers!!! Lockheed F-35 Jet Reliability Still Lags, Pentagon’s Top Weapons Buyer Says

Says Lockheed: "suppliers need to improve time between parts failures"... is that including the single engine?

And here is a more in-depth article:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/485555/dod-af-leaders-look-to-f-35-maintainers-for-help.aspx

Bodgan lauded aircraft maintainers, who offer myriad suggestions for ways to reduce overall costs. “The maintainers are a critical source of really good practical ways of doing business,” he said, “and we’ve got to integrate that into the program.”

He explained that maintainers have suggested ways to streamline even simple procedures such as having to check the oil on every flight. For example, maintainers indicated that manually correcting warning systems and updating maintenance records could reduce time on the ground and yield efficiencies.

"We have now been able to, through engineering analysis and working with the engine manufacturers, take that requirement to only every 10 hours,” the general said.

Bogdan also noted that the Air Force’s average F-35 downtime between flights was 4.5 hours last year and three hours this year, with even shorter down time projected for next year.

Finding efficiencies in both production and maintenance only make sense, as does the assumption that they will become successful as further F-35s enter the fleet……..I would assume the same calculus is in play with other technologies…..say for instance Green/renewable.

[Derek 2.0]

Again, what does what I would do with the collective of a 212 have to do with the F35 scandal?

I would say a response would do two things. First it would help further along the discussion on engine safety by highlighting a contrast between both procedural and technological advancements found in aircraft/engines today versus those found decades ago. Second it would demonstrate yet again that your anecdotal “evidence” is nothing more than the musings of a charlatan.

[On Guard for Thee]

I would say a response would do two things. First it would help further along the discussion on engine safety by highlighting a contrast between both procedural and technological advancements found in aircraft/engines today versus those found decades ago. Second it would demonstrate yet again that your anecdotal “evidence” is nothing more than the musings of a charlatan.

Oh I think it's quite obvious who the charlatan is here. Do you even know what a collective is?

[waldo]

And here is a more in-depth article:

Finding efficiencies in both production and maintenance only make sense, as does the assumption that they will become successful as further F-35s enter the fleet……..I would assume the same calculus is in play with other technologies…..say for instance Green/renewable.

operational efficiences???..... which has what to do with the focus of the article I put forward, the one quoting the Pentagon's top weapons buyer's concern over the time between parts failures.

[Derek 2.0]

operational efficiences???..... which has what to do with the focus of the article I put forward, the one quoting the Pentagon's top weapons buyer's concern over the time between parts failures.

In the article both operational efficiencies and production techniques (like your link touched upon) leading to greater durability in certain (unmentioned) parts are covered by both Kendall (civilian weapons buyer) and Lt. Gen. Bogdan (Military executive officer of the JSF program).

[waldo]

In the article both operational efficiencies and production techniques (like your link touched upon) leading to greater durability in certain (unmentioned) parts are covered by both Kendall (civilian weapons buyer) and Lt. Gen. Bogdan (Military executive officer of the JSF program).

no - the crux of the problem is that many parts aren't reliable... and no amount of "operational efficiences and production techniques" will correct that. Do I need to repeat the pointed statement I drew from the article? Here, have another go at it: "Says Lockheed: "suppliers need to improve time between parts failures".

Edited June 15, 2014 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

no - the crux of the problem is that many parts aren't reliable... and no amount of "operational efficiences and production techniques" will correct that. Do I need to repeat the pointed statement I drew from the article... the LockMart statement? Here, have another go at it: "Says Lockheed: "suppliers need to improve time between parts failures".

How would "suppliers improve time between parts failures"? It would seem that improvements to production would be key to such a requirement no?

[On Guard for Thee]

How would "suppliers improve time between parts failures"? It would seem that improvements to production would be key to such a requirement no?

Figured out what a collective is yet?

[waldo]

How would "suppliers improve time between parts failures"? It would seem that improvements to production would be key to such a requirement no?

uhhh... make better parts... better parts through, for example, improved design/engineering! But why are you asking me... that statement is attributed to LockMart!

[Derek 2.0]

uhhh... make better parts... better parts through, for example, improved design/engineering! But why are you asking me... that statement is attributed to LockMart!

Then in said article, why would Kendall refer to suppliers improving upon production techniques as opposed to the overall design to achieve more durable parts?

[waldo]

Then in said article, why would Kendall refer to suppliers improving upon production techniques as opposed to the overall design to achieve more durable parts?

you're simply confused; the article you referenced has a focus on operational maintenance... the article I referenced is speaking to parts failures; i.e., a parts reliability problem. How can you be confused between a need to improve the time between parts failures... and improving operational maintenance related down-time through efficiences?

[Derek 2.0]

you're simply confused; the article you referenced has a focus on operational maintenance... the article I referenced is speaking to parts failures; i.e., a parts reliability problem. How can you be confused between a need to improve the time between parts failures... and improving operational maintenance related down-time through efficiences?

Not at all, your link, my link and any other link referencing Thursday’s press conference are referring to the same discussion Waldo……Parts that wear out prematurely are a sustainment cost.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's junk but Hartper's gonna buy it because he hasn't got the balls to admit he done wrong. So, open up your walletts Canadians.

[waldo]

Not at all, your link, my link and any other link referencing Thursday’s press conference are referring to the same discussion Waldo……Parts that wear out prematurely are a sustainment cost.

nonsense! LockMart and parts suppliers/manufacturers are not performing operational maintenance... again, Kendall, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, "says Lockheed, suppliers need to improve time between parts failures"

[Derek 2.0]

nonsense! LockMart and parts suppliers/manufacturers are not performing operational maintenance... again, Kendall, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, "says Lockheed, suppliers need to improve time between parts failures"

I never suggested otherwise. This is why the press conference had the civilian purchaser (Kendall) to address contractor issues associated with production, and the military head (Lt. General Bogdan) to address changes to improve maintenance. Clearly both avenues have a direct correlation on end user sustainment costs.

[On Guard for Thee]

I never suggested otherwise. This is why the press conference had the civilian purchaser (Kendall) to address contractor issues associated with production, and the military head (Lt. General Bogdan) to address changes to improve maintenance. Clearly both avenues have a direct correlation on end user sustainment costs.

The collective is a lever which controls collective pitch on all the main rotor blades. It also causes the engines to spool up or down depending on the demand. Got that?

[waldo]

I never suggested otherwise. This is why the press conference had the civilian purchaser (Kendall) to address contractor issues associated with production, and the military head (Lt. General Bogdan) to address changes to improve maintenance. Clearly both avenues have a direct correlation on end user sustainment costs.

you most certainly did suggest otherwise... that's why you put your (presumed) countering post up and followed it with another half-dozen... all trying to negate any suggestion of there being unreliable parts... or to imply that efficiences and production changes would deal with "the Kendall problem" described. So finally you get it - and now you state you "never suggested otherwise"! Beauty.

.

[Derek 2.0]

you most certainly did suggest otherwise... that's why you put your (presumed) countering post up and followed it with another half-dozen... all trying to negate any suggestion of there being unreliable parts... or to imply that efficiences and production changes would deal with "the Kendall problem" described. So finally you get it - and now you state you "never suggested otherwise"! Beauty.

.

Where did I do that? I said nothing questioning the reports validity, and only commented that your initial link was devoid of details.

[waldo]

Where did I do that? I said nothing questioning the reports validity, and only commented that your initial link was devoid of details.

nice! Although it's all laid out in the past posts, let me ask you directly then. Do you agree that, per Kendall (the Pentagon's top weapons buyer), existing F-35s have a parts reliability problem, and that the problem will continue until LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers accept/take the responsibility that Kendall puts on them... to resolve that parts reliability problem.

[Derek 2.0]

nice! Although it's all laid out in the past posts, let me ask you directly then. Do you agree that, per Kendall (the Pentagon's top weapons buyer), existing F-35s have a parts reliability problem, and that the problem will continue until LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers accept/take the responsibility that Kendall puts on them... to resolve that parts reliability problem.

Outline where I questioned Kendall's report.......

[waldo]

Outline where I questioned Kendall's report.......

I maintain you questioned it with your follow-up posts... you disagree.

now just answer the question you avoided; again:

"Do you agree that, per Kendall (the Pentagon's top weapons buyer), existing F-35s have a parts reliability problem, and that the problem will continue until LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers accept/take the responsibility that Kendall puts on them... to resolve that parts reliability problem?"

[Derek 2.0]

I maintain you questioned it with your follow-up posts... you disagree.

now just answer the question you avoided; again:

"Do you agree that, per Kendall (the Pentagon's top weapons buyer), existing F-35s have a parts reliability problem, and that the problem will continue until LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers accept/take the responsibility that Kendall puts on them... to resolve that parts reliability problem?"

Clearly I didn’t question the report (or you would have quoted said passage by now), I only asked for further details, as such this is clearly acknowledgment of both the civilian and military angle seeking ways to reduce sustainment costs.

[waldo]

Clearly I didn’t question the report (or you would have quoted said passage by now), I only asked for further details, as such this is clearly acknowledgment of both the civilian and military angle seeking ways to reduce sustainment costs.

bunk! You didn't care for any suggestion that the F-35 has unreliable parts... so you search for an alternate article that has a focus on operational maintenance and you question me (and by inference what I'm suggesting/relating that has a focus on LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers to resolve a parts reliability concern) as to why then is Kendall talking of efficiences or production changes as a means to deal with the parts reliability concern. Like I said... we disagree on this. Fine, I moved on and simply asked you to answer the direct question. You've refused now, twice. I will ask again... now the third time... it's a straight forward yes/no question. Again, now for you to ignore and refuse to answer for the third time:

"Do you agree that, per Kendall (the Pentagon's top weapons buyer), existing F-35s have a parts reliability problem, and that the problem will continue until LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers accept/take the responsibility that Kendall puts on them... to resolve that parts reliability problem?"

[Derek 2.0]

"Do you agree that, per Kendall (the Pentagon's top weapons buyer), existing F-35s have a parts reliability problem, and that the problem will continue until LockMart/suppliers/manufacturers accept/take the responsibility that Kendall puts on them... to resolve that parts reliability problem?"

I disagree with your skewed portrayal of the press conference, but agree and support both Kendall’s and Lt. Gen Bogdan’s actual proposals and suggestions to reduce F-35 sustainment costs. That is clearly a good thing.

[waldo]

I disagree with your skewed portrayal of the press conference, but agree and support both Kendall’s and Lt. Gen Bogdan’s actual proposals and suggestions to reduce F-35 sustainment costs. That is clearly a good thing.

I skewed nothing; nice try!... I presenting that Bloomberg Government article and didn't stray from it... didn't skew it!

for the third time, you refuse to answer my question... if you don't agree with it, just say NO. Your latest phrasing "reducing sustainment costs" is a typical DerekDodge (whether 1.0 or 2.0 version). Clearly, you absolutely won't touch that question that speaks directly to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer Kendall's emphasis on a F-35 parts reliability problem.

oh wait now, perhaps you can bring me around: are you equating a F-35 parts reliability problem to your "couched phrasing"... your "sustainment cost" phrasing? Are those, to you, one and the same?

just answer the question - now asked for the 4th time!