Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

awesome videography (customized gyro-stabilized camera) - Saab Gripen

.

Isn't that special........does Saab have any "videography" of an operational flyable Gripen E (NG) yet?

But impressive "Gripen Porn", highlighting an aircraft not as capable as our current Hornet fleet.......

[Derek 2.0]

They fixed all the problems in 6 days. Don't you understand anything, Waldo?

No they didn't, Waldo (like you) base your opinions on bloggers opinions that make use of incorrect or dated material.

[waldo]

No they didn't, Waldo (like you) base your opinions on bloggers opinions that make use of incorrect or dated material.

oh my! So... to you... the U.S. GAO, the U.S. DOT&E... those are bloggers?

.

[waldo]

They fixed all the problems in 6 days. Don't you understand anything, Waldo?

it's boggling that D2.0 would even attempt to provide cover for the F-35 'top dog' Lt. Gen. Bogdan... the guy is a walking contradiction to his own past statements. In 6 days!!! Is Bogdan the second coming?

.

[waldo]

Isn't that special........does Saab have any "videography" of an operational flyable Gripen E (NG) yet?

But impressive "Gripen Porn", highlighting an aircraft not as capable as our current Hornet fleet.......

it's just impressive videography... you shouldn't feel so threatened! By the by, a closer look at the low-cost Gripen NG shows it fits a real market niche... soon to be delivered in 2018 to Sweden and Brazil... with, apparently, some real interest elsewhere. 2018... why, that's years ahead of your paperTiger F-35, hey!

.

[waldo]

oh my! Lot's of buzz over recent weeks news on the U.S. Congressional 2017 National Defense Authorization bill... directing the U.S. Pentagon “to conduct a comprehensive assessment and study of the costs associated with resuming production of F-22 aircraft".

is there a problem? One that the vaunted over-hyped, over-cost, over-scheduled and under-delivered F-35 can't... won't be able to... provide?

The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee's markup for its section of the 2017 defense policy bill directs the Air Force secretary to conduct a study of the costs associated with procuring at least another 194 F-22s. The legislation would require a report on the study to the congressional defense committees no later than Jan. 1, 2017.

“In light of growing threats to U.S. air superiority as a result of adversaries closing the technology gap and increasing demand from allies and partners for high performance, multi-role aircraft to meet evolving and worsening global security threats, the committee believes that such proposals are worthy of further exploration,” according to the bill.

Meanwhile, the bill would also require the US Comptroller General to analyze the sustainment support strategy for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and report to the congressional defense committees by April 1.

Because the procurement strategy relies on other nations to partner with the US, the F-35 joint program office, according to its chief, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, is striving to build a “global sustainment enterprise.” He has cautioned the F-35 supply base may not be able to juggle the workload associated with production spikes and everyday maintenance.

oh wait... what's that? Doesn't this just jive with past MLW posts where top U.S. military leaders speak of the F-35 not being an "air-superiority fighter"... that it really needs F-22s to "watch it's back"? Oh my!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But impressive "Gripen Porn", highlighting an aircraft not as capable as our current Hornet fleet.......

Look at the bright side...instead of focusing so much on what the U.S. DoD and Pentagon are doing, add JAS 39 porn to the mix. Anything to fill the sound of silence coming out of Canada's dysfunctional military procurement process. It's like Jeopardy! thinking music.

[Derek 2.0]

oh my! So... to you... the U.S. GAO, the U.S. DOT&E... those are bloggers?

.

No, but bloggers would put so much stock in a GAO report released several weeks ago, comprised of findings from the last year+.........

Likewise, bloggers would trump up the GAO concerns, namely suggesting to the uninformed that the F-35 fleet would be grounded if the ALIS were to be compromised from an attack......but are devoid in mentioning the aircraft can still operate 30+ days minus the ALIS.....and that if an aggressor attacked the United States in such a manner, the Third World War would be fought and over.........

Or the bloggers suggestion that F-35 deployments would be curtailed by the ALIS squadron level servers......the problem of course with such claim, if one to actually read the dated GAO report, is that there were zero concerns with said servers based on air force bases (F-35A) or on USN carriers (F-35C), but a set to be used by the USMC (F-35B) when it forwards its aircraft to advanced airfields. Of course, there aren't concerns with it when the Marines base aircraft from USN assault vessels or land bases, so its safe to assume the Marines would be able to rotate aircraft from advanced airfields to an LHD or land base within a month for maintenance.......but (yet again) only for periods when the mobile server farm they are developing couldn't be used

[Derek 2.0]

oh my! Lot's of buzz over recent weeks news on the U.S. Congressional 2017 National Defense Authorization bill... directing the U.S. Pentagon “to conduct a comprehensive assessment and study of the costs associated with resuming production of F-22 aircraft".

is there a problem? One that the vaunted over-hyped, over-cost, over-scheduled and under-delivered F-35 can't... won't be able to... provide?

Not at all, they never should have ceased production until the legacy F-15Cs were all replaced...........The irony though, is a new production F/A-22 Raptor is predicated on Lockheed being able to rewrite all of the existing F-22 avionics with avionics/code tailored off the more advanced F-35 systems.......

[Derek 2.0]

it's just impressive videography... you shouldn't feel so threatened! By the by, a closer look at the low-cost Gripen NG shows it fits a real market niche... soon to be delivered in 2018 to Sweden and Brazil... with, apparently, some real interest elsewhere. 2018... why, that's years ahead of your paperTiger F-35, hey!

.

Low-Cost Gripen E/NG.........Does the Waldo have the latest flyaway cost for an operational Gripen E? Odd that the Norwegians considered the F-35 to be cheaper.......or the Swiss, who rejected their planned Gripen E purchase due to increasing costs?

[Derek 2.0]

Look at the bright side...instead of focusing so much on what the U.S. DoD and Pentagon are doing, add JAS 39 porn to the mix. Anything to fill the sound of silence coming out of Canada's dysfunctional military procurement process. It's like Jeopardy! thinking music.

Exactly, this Government punted funds for programs (like the Sea King replacement, Halifax SLEP and new body armor/load carrying vests for the army) already ongoing (in several cases started by the previous Liberal Government).......there won't be new fighters, when we can't afford to send Canadian troops on deployment (to Iraq or even Peacekeeping) with proper plate carriers

[nerve]

You know who could really benefit from a fighter design.

Bombardier.

See also

http://in.reuters.com/article/dassault-rafale-india-idINKCN0XM0H8

There is of course the option of buying FEWER manned fighter jets and having ground based pilots or AI drones supplement

Such as the Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn

These drones could perform operations either through programmed missions, or ground assisted, or space assisted missions.

Canada could be a leader in UAV operations. Where pilots lives are not put at risk. And where one manned jet, not even necessarily a fighter jet could provide assistance command and control to a number of UAVs and vice versa.

If a fighter doesn't have the capability to operate remote UAVs it is the last generation of manned jets.

The next generation of warfare will be done with autonomous and controlled UAV systems which will utilize manned companion flights and varied communications systems to maximize operationally efficiency and minimize risk and loss of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn#Potential_Combined_French-British_Follow-on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Offensive_Air_System

Edited April 27, 2016 by nerve

[waldo]

No, but bloggers would put so much stock in a GAO report

hey now! Seeing as you finally bit on a GAO report I put forward... considering you absolutely refused to acknowledge them through an assortment of past MLW posts! Since you're on a roll, let's not have you conveniently continue to ignore the other reference I made to the U.S. DOT&E report... you know, this following prior (recent) reference... or do you have "bloggers" to blame here to?

speaking of your declared "feather in the cap", the following has been quite that, hasn't it? The memo from Michael Gilmore, the Department of Defense's director for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) --- SUBJECT: Concerns with Plans for F-35 System Development and Follow-On Development

The current 'official schedule' to complete full development and testing of all Block 3F capabilities by 31 July 31, 2017 is not realistic.

that ever shifting game of hiding/deferring/repackaging software from the Block 3 problems (which itself reflected upon repackaging failed/immature Block 2B software)... that delays/problems morphed into Block 3i... which was to lead into that claimed/targeted Block 3F - the software intended to be installed in so-called full-rate production F-35s. All of which is a schedule/delivery precursor for that 2022 Block 4A. So again, let me ask you in light of this critical memo, what likelihood is there that the 2022 target will be met? Notwithstanding how these program/software delays impact upon the status/capability of that "full-rate production F-35"! "Feather in the cap", hey!

.

[waldo]

No, but bloggers would put so much stock in a GAO report released several weeks ago, comprised of findings from the last year+.........

dated now hey! How is it the formal US DOD response addresses GAO recommendations in the 'here and now', hey!

.

Likewise, bloggers would trump up the GAO concerns, namely suggesting to the uninformed that the F-35 fleet would be grounded if the ALIS were to be compromised from an attack......but are devoid in mentioning the aircraft can still operate 30+ days minus the ALIS.....and that if an aggressor attacked the United States in such a manner, the Third World War would be fought and over.........

no - a key focus of that GAO concern on outright failure had to do with the fact there was absolutely no redundancy built in

.

Or the bloggers suggestion that F-35 deployments would be curtailed by the ALIS squadron level servers......the problem of course with such claim, if one to actually read the dated GAO report, is that there were zero concerns with said servers based on air force bases (F-35A) or on USN carriers (F-35C), but a set to be used by the USMC (F-35B) when it forwards its aircraft to advanced airfields. Of course, there aren't concerns with it when the Marines base aircraft from USN assault vessels or land bases, so its safe to assume the Marines would be able to rotate aircraft from advanced airfields to an LHD or land base within a month for maintenance.......but (yet again) only for periods when the mobile server farm they are developing couldn't be used

bullshyte! The only reason the Marines/F-35B was mentioned is because of the timing of the Marines F-35 IOC and how ALIS fit within that. Your suggestion of "no concerns" over USAF/USN A/C variants is simply you blowing smoke and making shyte up. I trust you'll completely ignore (as in weasel yourself away from) this following extract I pulled from that prior GAO report I linked to... you can run... but you can't hide!

... "began developing an ALIS Technical Roadmap in early 2016"... completion later in 2016... "will be the foundation of a plan to identify, document and prioritize ALIS risks, address them holistically and inform budget priorities...".

... the foundation of a plan! Oh my!

.

[waldo]

Look at the bright side...instead of focusing so much on what the U.S. DoD and Pentagon are doing, add JAS 39 porn to the mix. Anything to fill the sound of silence coming out of Canada's dysfunctional military procurement process. It's like Jeopardy! thinking music.

is your continued nattering on about the "dysfunctional procurement process"... your way of continuing to ignore/deflect away from any formal U.S. government sourced critical assessments of the F-35? Now why would that be your go-to, ready-reach alternative to actually speaking to raised concerns/problems with the F-35, hey!

.

[waldo]

Low-Cost Gripen E/NG.........Does the Waldo have the latest flyaway cost for an operational Gripen E? Odd that the Norwegians considered the F-35 to be cheaper.......or the Swiss, who rejected their planned Gripen E purchase due to increasing costs?

I don't... and neither do you. What I do have, that really appears to have rattled you, is reference to those Brazilian and Swedish purchases of the Gripen and the Gripen deliveries to Brazil/Sweden in 2018. And, as I said, lots of 'tire kicking' going on out there from an assortment of countries.

your Swiss reference is noteworthy in how you failed to identify it in relation to the government referendum... where Swiss voters actually rejected spending the money for new fighters. Wouldn't that be quite the wrinkle for Canada... let Canadian citizens vote on whether to buy the F-35! You'd be all for that, right?

and, with your reference to the Norwegians, why... that's like a trip down MLW memory lane. Surely you must remember all those past MLW posts that spoke to the LockMart fix being in on that process, right? I could bring forward those same wikileaks references if you'd like - yes? In any case, a quick googly brings forward that Saab response to the Norway analysis - enjoy.

.

[waldo]

The next generation of warfare will be done with autonomous and controlled UAV systems which will utilize manned companion flights and varied communications systems to maximize operationally efficiency and minimize risk and loss of life.

of course! However, we proponents of drone alternatives and looking at a short(er)-term CF-18 fighter replacement option (as in one less costly... that actually meets Canada's to be defined role/need) are always met here with this bizarre opposing rationale and positioning that steadfastly maintains that any replacement fighter Canada chooses will fly for the "next 40-50 years"... as if no drone technology advances will occur over the next couple of decades!

notwithstanding that recent released USAF data shows it relying ever more on drone strikes... example: within Afghanistan, drone strikes accounted for over 60% of weapons deployed in the 2016 1st quarter.

.

[overthere]

In the meantime, we can fulfill all treaty obligations by 'reprofiling' clapped out Twin Otters and Sea Kings with pump action 12 gauge shotguns.

The Justin Trudeau years are already starting to look a lot like the Chretien years.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Michael Hardner
corrected PM spelling

[waldo]

In the meantime, we can fulfill all treaty obligations by 'reprofiling' clapped out Twin Otters and Sea Kings with pump action 12 gauge shotguns.

The Justin Trudeau years are already starting to look a lot like the Chretien years.

don't hesitate to cite "treaty obligations" that directly specify Canadian military procurement requirements. And by the by, in your estimation, just how is the Trudeau half-year any different from the last Harper decade?

.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Michael Hardner
corrected PM spelling

[PIK]

By the time we buy a plane the F-37 will be obsolete.

[Derek 2.0]

dated now hey! How is it the formal US DOD response addresses GAO recommendations in the 'here and now', hey!

.

The DOD's responses (pg 45-47) are in the report.

no - a key focus of that GAO concern on outright failure had to do with the fact there was absolutely no redundancy built in

Again, you're making hay of something out of context, in a debate we had several years ago........First, the envisioned "redundancy" was to be in the form of an additional autonomic logistic operating unit......which, as of yet, hasn't been funded, which is not the program's fault, but has resulted in the interim of relevant data being physically backed-up........like what is done with every other system with a logistic footprint, the difference, the F-35 unlike legacy platforms has one logistical platform, not separate footprints for each major subsystem (Engines, radar, avionics, structure etc etc)

bullshyte! The only reason the Marines/F-35B was mentioned is because of the timing of the Marines F-35 IOC and how ALIS fit within that. Your suggestion of "no concerns" over USAF/USN A/C variants is simply you blowing smoke and making shyte up. I trust you'll completely ignore (as in weasel yourself away from) this following extract I pulled from that prior GAO report I linked to... you can run... but you can't hide!

The first point on page 16:

DOD officials stated that the Marine Corps subsequently added specific requirements for a deployable system to meet its expeditionary mission needs. Although the more deployable version of ALIS was fielded in summer of 2015, DOD has yet to complete comprehensive deployability testing. In December 2015, the Marine Corps participated in an exercise at the Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field near the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in California (also known as Twentynine Palms) that included a short-range, domestic deployability test of the system. According to DOD officials, the results were positive in that the Marine Corps transported the system to Twentynine Palms from its Yuma base and set it up within 2 hours; however, this test did not include long-range, overseas, ship-based, or combat scenarios.

In addition:

Air Force and Navy officials stated that they plan to conduct deployabilty tests prior to declaring initial operational capability over the next 2 years; however, these officials expressed concerns over the ability of ALIS to function in austere environments and in split-squadron situations25 that would require multiple deployable ALIS servers.

Ergo, if the Marines are able to deploy their squadron level ALIS servers to a desert in the back of a (air conditioned) truck, the USAF and USN basing such servers at a permanent land base or an aircraft carrier isn't an issue.

[Derek 2.0]

I don't... and neither do you. What I do have, that really appears to have rattled you, is reference to those Brazilian and Swedish purchases of the Gripen and the Gripen deliveries to Brazil/Sweden in 2018. And, as I said, lots of 'tire kicking' going on out there from an assortment of countries.

Of course we don't, because Saab and the Gripen fanboys play at a flim-flam of citing costs of legacy Gripens, from production costs from the last major Saab production run (late 90s?), and suggest this would reflect the cost of the more advanced Gripen E in the near future...........when in reality, those countries that have rejected the Gripen E, and there have been many, have cited high costs (in Rafale range) found in the alternatives, but for a less capable aircraft.......Saab's few success, like the French with Dassault, are a result of their willingness to sell anything to anyone, and hand over production to the locals........

The Gripen E, like a block 60 F-16, only 10s of millions more, less capable and you build it yourself......

[Derek 2.0]

hey now! Seeing as you finally bit on a GAO report I put forward... considering you absolutely refused to acknowledge them through an assortment of past MLW posts! Since you're on a roll, let's not have you conveniently continue to ignore the other reference I made to the U.S. DOT&E report... you know, this following prior (recent) reference... or do you have "bloggers" to blame here to?

.

I spoke to it several days ago.

[waldo]

I spoke to it several days ago.

you did nothing of the sort! What you did do was actually avoid addressing the most critical and key points made by the DOT&E... just another of your typical fly-by's!

.

[waldo]

...are a result of their willingness to sell anything to anyone, and hand over production to the locals........

why isn't that rich... that's the standard LockMart incentive ploy! Why not address that ever elusive (much hyped) "block buy" that just somehow... somehow... hasn't come to fruition! Is there a problem? The original timelines had ~1100 F-35s delivered by 2016... to-date there have been a grand total of 179. And those 179 are early vintage LRIP versions that can't do anything and have early gen faulty/buggy Block 2F software... you know, like the Marines F-35Bs that you went so giddy over a fake/fabricated IOC!

.