Derek 2.0 Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Cool story bro!...But that graph is inflation adjusted. Oh, so you didn't have a point........other than to say things cost less in the 1950s then compared to the present....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 Drifting back onto topic........with this Government, if they eventually select replacements for our Hornets, Canadian content and economic benefits will be the deciding factor........In this case, yet another feather in the cap of the F-35: VANCOUVER—Avcorp Industries Inc. has received a firm order from Lockheed Martin for an F-35 wing component, ensuring the company’s expanded role in the project through at least 2018. The order follows a contract awarded by the U.S. defence firm last October, which expanded the scope of Avcorp’s work on the F-35 project’s Carrier Variant Outboard Wing, which it has been producing since 2011. Right now, no Canadian company is producing wing components for the Super Hornet, Falcon, Eurofighter or the Rafale.....in addition: George added the B.C.-based company is in discussions with Lockheed to grow its role in the fighter jet program further as a result of its increasing composite manufacturing capabilities. Boeing, Dassault, Saab or Airbus aren't in discussions with any Canadian companies over the expansion of their 4th generation aircraft lines in Canada......because they aren't producing portions of their fighter programs in Canada, employing Canadians in a hightech and well paying industry. The current agreement locks in orders for the next two production phases of the F-35 project. Avcorp said its product introduction process is nearing completion, and production on the components will begin in the second quarter of this year. The first delivery is scheduled for the third quarter of 2016, with orders extending through 2018. Rue the Government that takes away those high paying jobs............funny enough, the current MP of the blue collar riding that Avcorp is located in......... a first time Liberal MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 It doesn't mater what Lockheed or the DoD do, no administration approval through the State Department, no F-35.... is this your way of acknowledging what I said about LockMart (with U.S. DOD authorization) going to India to attempt to secure a F-35 sale? That weapons 'restriction' you speak of is simply in place to supposedly give Israel an advantage... things like potential Russian arms/fighter sales to Pakistan/Iran have a way of suddenly opening up a potential U.S.-Indian "alliance". Go figure! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 ........with this Government, if they eventually select replacements for our Hornets, Canadian content and economic benefits will be the deciding factor........In this case, yet another feather in the cap of the F-35: which is why, typically, manufacturers present incentives during the sales cycle intended to enhance a domestic aeronautics industry... like setting up and supporting a localized manufacturing capability. In any case, this point has been beat on regularly - would you like that quote again from the top F-35 procurement official who emphasized Canada's continued ability to bid/win contracts has nothing to do with Canada actually purchasing a single F-35. as for your "feather in the cap", you're going to need... many, many more feathers! Of course, in the past whenever I brought forward official U.S. Pentagon/GAO critical assessments of the F-35 program you perpetually ignored them - outright ignored them! Of course you did. I note you recently played out that LockMart/JPO talking point of late... where delays have now been re-packaged as... enhancements! Even though earlier LockMart/JPO propaganda always presented those "enhancements" in the context of current schedules (at the time). The latest point of departure to highlight yet another delay in CAS capability, one tied to the scheduled 2022 Block 4A software... was your opportunity to simply play out that now termed "phased iteration enhancements" ditty! As you may recall, I asked you a couple of times to provide your thoughts, given past delays/performance failures, what likelihood there was in having that 2022 scheduled date met? Somehow you ignored those questions - imagine that! 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! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 which is why, typically, manufacturers present incentives during the sales cycle intended to enhance a domestic aeronautics industry... like setting up and supporting a localized manufacturing capability. In any case, this point has been beat on regularly - would you like that quote again from the top F-35 procurement official who emphasized Canada's continued ability to bid/win contracts has nothing to do with Canada actually purchasing a single F-35. Again, you're confusing the issue, as has been cited countless times, its predicated on Canada remaining in the program.....And no, it has nothing to do with enhancing our own industry, but receiving offsets by said sellers.....When we purchased the Hornets, part of the corporate horse trading saw offsets exchanged between McDonnell Douglas and General Mills defense division, resulting in Olive Garden and Red Lobster expanding into Canada........another example, IIRC for one of the suppliers on the Halifax class, resulted in a Ontario company that makes garbage bins supplying said company's needs for dumpsters and blue bins.........As noted, Lockheed already has a large footprint in Canada, with over 30 subs producing portions of the F-35, resulting in ~billion dollar impact already on our economy......and they haven't even entered full production nor Canada order any aircraft. Pratt Whitney Canada's parent, United Technologies was able to repay the GoC a billion dollars early (with money gained by the sale of Sikorsky to Lockheed), I assume that helped with the tight budget this year........funny enough, P&W Canada makes engine parts for not only the F-35, but also Bombardier's troubled C-Series.....further to this chain, Lockheed and Bombardier have teamed up to enter the USAF's JSTARS program....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 is this your way of acknowledging what I said about LockMart (with U.S. DOD authorization) going to India to attempt to secure a F-35 sale? No........because the F-35 was never entered into an Indian program. That weapons 'restriction' you speak of is simply in place to supposedly give Israel an advantage... things like potential Russian arms/fighter sales to Pakistan/Iran have a way of suddenly opening up a potential U.S.-Indian "alliance". Go figure! No, Israel weighs little in restrictions placed on Indian sales........and you're confusing the dance partners, Russia/India and Pakistan/China.........India, a decades long client of the Russians, has slowly started to see the light recently and is shifting towards the West and their own domestic industries. With India, the biggest concern, was their insistence for full technology transfer to HAL.....which no partners get, as it would defeat the purpose of the global synergies of a continually upgraded, to (near) same aircraft for all the partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Again, you're confusing the issue, as has been cited countless times, its predicated on Canada remaining in the program..... no - not confusing a single damn thing! Paying that 'mice-nuts' program fee is all it takes... there are no obligations that Canada buy a single F-35! Which is exactly what I said. . No........because the F-35 was never entered into an Indian program. again, a simple yes or no will suffice - again, are you denying that LockMart (with DOD authorization) attempted to sell India the F-35 in a presentation given by LockMart to India military... in India? Yes or No? . No, Israel weighs little in restrictions placed on Indian sales........and you're confusing the dance partners, Russia/India and Pakistan/China......... no - I'm not confusing anything: Pakistani official confirms Su-35 talks . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 you somehow managed to ignore the following - is there a problem, for you? in the past whenever I brought forward official U.S. Pentagon/GAO critical assessments of the F-35 program you perpetually ignored them - outright ignored them! Of course you did. I note you recently played out that LockMart/JPO talking point of late... where delays have now been re-packaged as... enhancements! Even though earlier LockMart/JPO propaganda always presented those "enhancements" in the context of current schedules (at the time). The latest point of departure to highlight yet another delay in CAS capability, one tied to the scheduled 2022 Block 4A software... was your opportunity to simply play out that now termed "phased iteration enhancements" ditty! As you may recall, I asked you a couple of times to provide your thoughts, given past delays/performance failures, what likelihood there was in having that 2022 scheduled date met? Somehow you ignored those questions - imagine that!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! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 a just released U.S. GAO report... a most critical and outright scathing report: DOD Needs a Plan to Address Risks Related to Its Central Logistics SystemThe Department of Defense (DOD) is aware of risks that could affect the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), but does not have a plan to ensure that ALIS is fully functional as key program milestones approach..... identified several issues that could result in operational and schedule risks. These include the following: ALIS may not be deployable: ALIS requires server connectivity and the necessary infrastructure to provide power to the system. The Marine Corps, which often deploys to austere locations, declared in July 2015 its ability to operate and deploy the F-35 without conducting deployability tests of ALIS. A newer version of ALIS was put into operation in the summer of 2015, but DOD has not yet completed comprehensive deployability tests. ALIS does not have redundant infrastructure: ALIS's current design results in all F-35 data produced across the U.S. fleet to be routed to a Central Point of Entry and then to ALIS's main operating unit with no backup system or redundancy. If either of these fail, it could take the entire F-35 fleet offline. DOD does not have a plan that prioritizes ALIS risks to ensure that the most important are expediently addressed and that DOD has a fully functional ALIS as program milestones draw close. By continuing to respond to issues on a case-by-case basis rather than in a holistic manner, there is no guarantee that DOD will address the highest risks by the start of full-rate production in 2019, and as a result, DOD may encounter further schedule and development delays, which could affect operations and potentially lead to cost increases. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Time to end this. We are getting nothing. Even the new heles are going to be put on the back burner. The sea kings live for another decade. Even projects going right now as in ships are going to be slowed down. I cant post a link, but it is in the national post. As I have said the military is going to get gutted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 no - not confusing a single damn thing! Paying that 'mice-nuts' program fee is all it takes... there are no obligations that Canada buy a single F-35! Which is exactly what I said. . I didn't say that, but stay within the program.......in theory, Canada wouldn't be forced to buy anything, but stay within the F-35 program. again, a simple yes or no will suffice - again, are you denying that LockMart (with DOD authorization) attempted to sell India the F-35 in a presentation given by LockMart to India military... in India? Yes or No? No, the F-35 has never been entered into any Indian program. no - I'm not confusing anything: Pakistani official confirms Su-35 talks Talks vice actual procurement and participation in Chinese programs........now if buy partners with the Russians you mean the purchasing of Chinese Russian knock-offs I'll grant you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 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! . In all honesty I have no idea........but what the Waldo is continually remiss in offering is context.......If for example, the block 4 software is delayed several years, is a block 3 F-35 still an improvement in the interim over existing legacy aircraft for the end users? In the case of the already in service F-35B, as cited countless times, the USMC considers their interim aircraft vast improvements over existing legacy Hornets (which are clapped out) and subsonic Harrier IIs (also clapped out). In the context of Canada, assuming the GoC elects to purchase the F-35 in ~2020-2021 to replace our current Hornets, assuming ~2-3 years following to replace the entire fleet out to ~2024-2025, does it mater to Canada if the block 4 software were to be delayed several years? The question you should be asking, assuming block 4 software is delayed several years, is if the F-35A (with block 3 software) is an improvement until block 4 software arrives over (then) ~40 year old Hornets that trace their roots to the 1970s....... Furthermore, again context, are existing legacy aircraft and their various production blocks, including our Hornets from when purchased to their upgrades that brought them near to F/A-18 C/D standards in the 2000s.........you're arguing against future (concurrent) upgrades to the F-35 versus legacy types that have or are nearing the end of future growth potential........The Motorola StarTac versus some future version of the IPhone..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Time to end this. We are getting nothing. Even the new heles are going to be put on the back burner. The sea kings live for another decade. Even projects going right now as in ships are going to be slowed down. I cant post a link, but it is in the national post. As I have said the military is going to get gutted. I love bitching and moaning about the Liberals, even more so over the Sea Kings, but that is not factually true........crews are already transitioning out of the Sea Kings and into the Cyclones, with the last Sea King expected to be retired in ~2020-2021. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Not if the freeze the money like they said they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) 3.7 Billion in spending delayed .helicopters arctic patrol ships targeted in freeze. That is the headline google it. national post.Now it says 90 million froze for the heli's. Maybe that is not enough to freeze them but wont it slow it down even more. Edited April 20, 2016 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Not if the freeze the money like they said they are. The Cyclones are already paid for and a portion of the fleet already in Canada.......there has been nothing to suggest this Government will reverse or even intentionally delay their introduction into service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) 3.7 Billion in spending delayed .helicopters arctic patrol ships targeted in freeze. That is the headline google it. national post. Fair enough, that is breaking news: But details provided to Postmedia by the department outline how even key military equipment programs just getting underway are not spared the funding freeze. Money is being withheld from programs that include: Arctic offshore patrol ships ($173 million withheld) •Future fighter aircraft (CF-18 replacement; $109 million withheld) Cyclone maritime helicopter ($90 million withheld) Halifax Class modernization and frigate life extension ($71.1 million withheld) Integrated soldier system project ($39.4 million withheld). If true, that's not only a punt of planned future programs into next decade, but truly a regression for the armed forces......not good news........so does this count as a broken promise on the Trudeaumeter? edit to add: “One possibility is that the Sea Kings will have to keep flying longer,” said Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at York University in Toronto. “Or maybe systems that were supposed to be added to the aircraft won’t be.” In the case of the of the Cyclones, that could be the mission software/anti submarine systems. Edited April 20, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 More problems?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f-35-software-system-gao-report/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 More problems?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f-35-software-system-gao-report/index.html D2.0 will simply ignore this... as he did when I posted the same subject (but directly from the GAO itself) just a few posts back: here a just released U.S. GAO report... a most critical and outright scathing report: DOD Needs a Plan to Address Risks Related to Its Central Logistics System The Department of Defense (DOD) is aware of risks that could affect the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), but does not have a plan to ensure that ALIS is fully functional as key program milestones approach..... identified several issues that could result in operational and schedule risks. These include the following: ALIS may not be deployable: ALIS requires server connectivity and the necessary infrastructure to provide power to the system. The Marine Corps, which often deploys to austere locations, declared in July 2015 its ability to operate and deploy the F-35 without conducting deployability tests of ALIS. A newer version of ALIS was put into operation in the summer of 2015, but DOD has not yet completed comprehensive deployability tests. ALIS does not have redundant infrastructure: ALIS's current design results in all F-35 data produced across the U.S. fleet to be routed to a Central Point of Entry and then to ALIS's main operating unit with no backup system or redundancy. If either of these fail, it could take the entire F-35 fleet offline. DOD does not have a plan that prioritizes ALIS risks to ensure that the most important are expediently addressed and that DOD has a fully functional ALIS as program milestones draw close. By continuing to respond to issues on a case-by-case basis rather than in a holistic manner, there is no guarantee that DOD will address the highest risks by the start of full-rate production in 2019, and as a result, DOD may encounter further schedule and development delays, which could affect operations and potentially lead to cost increases. as he has done regularly throughout any of these F-35 related threads, D2.0 just "blows off" any of those official critical reports from the U.S. Pentagon, from the U.S. GAO, from the U.S. DOT&E... in this latter case, also just a few posts back: ... 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. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 More problems?: Not for Canada it would seem, because it won't need an automated logistics system for new F-35 "jets" that it is not going to procure according to campaign promises by The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau. Keeping track of what the Americans and other nations are actually doing for contracts, deliveries, testing, and deployments will just have to do for now. In the mean time, Canada is hard pressed to figure out the simple task of when/if to spend a measly $500 million to upgrade aging CF-188s...again. Time running out to upgrade Canada’s aging CF-18 jets http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/time-running-out-to-upgrade-canadas-aging-cf-18-jets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 Keeping track of what the Americans and other nations are actually doing for contracts, deliveries, testing, and deployments will just have to do for now. actually doing? As in other nations not doing much at all... as in the U.S/JPO being targeted by the likes of the U.S. GAO and U.S. DOT&E for continued program delays/problems/risks/alerts! . In the mean time, Canada is hard pressed to figure out the simple task of when/if to spend a measly $500 million to upgrade aging CF-188s...again. Time running out to upgrade Canada’s aging CF-18 jets http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/time-running-out-to-upgrade-canadas-aging-cf-18-jets say what! No worries... you should actually read your own linked references... here, try these on for size. Improvements to Canada’s CF-18 jets — which could cost almost $500 million — have to be done within five years... The Conservatives originally announced the modernization project to keep the fighters flying until 2025 because they hadn’t yet determined how to replace the CF-18s... upgrades have to be on the aircraft by 2021 if the project is to make financial sense. That means decisions have to be made and contracts placed within the next two years. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 awesome videography (customized gyro-stabilized camera) - Saab Gripen . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 further to prior (recent) posts on the failed F-35 ALIS... more "spin and massaging" by the F-35's 'top dog' Program Officer: Last summer, F-35 program officer Lt. Gen. Bogdan said the F-35’s logistics system was “the brains and blood of operating this weapons system.” Despite many fixes, the aircraft’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is so flawed that government auditors believe the computer system may not be deployable. These problems may also delay the Air Force’s declaration of Initial Operational Capability. And now, in a surprising twist, General Bogdan is saying ALIS is not really critical after all, insisting the F-35 can fly without it for 30 days.. .The program office dismissed the gravity of this finding, a position that puts the office at odds with itself. Testifying before Congress in 2014 and explaining the Joint Program Office’s renewed development efforts, General Bogdan said “The enterprise now deals with ALIS as if it is a ‘weapons system’ and a critical part of the F-35 program.” . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 further to prior (recent) posts on the failed F-35 ALIS... more "spin and massaging" by the F-35's 'top dog' Program Officer: . Do try and keep up with the news WASHINGTON – The software bugs that have plagued the F-35 program for months are largely resolved and no longer pose a threat to the Air Force’s goal of declaring its jets operational this year, according to the program chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 They fixed all the problems in 6 days. Don't you understand anything, Waldo? 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.