Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

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

thanks Captain Obvious... you're advising on this after I've already stated it and actually put forward an extract of that DOD response! This is simply your tried and true ploy to suggest you're actually bringing something to the table! What a poser!

.

[waldo]

Again, you're making hay of something out of context

no - what I'm doing/did is bring forward a most critical U.S. GAO report... just one of many of the iterative type GAO reports I've presented in the past. What was somewhat unique here is you regularly ignored them... this one you actually bit at, choosing to rattle off the comment by 'top dog' Bogdan... without actually providing an attribution of where that comment originated. That sir... that is you plagiarizing! Well done.

.

[waldo]

from YESTERDAY'S meeting of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee... extracts from the opening statement by the committee chair, Sen. John McCain:

This Committee meets today to consider the status of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program as we review the Fiscal Year 2017 defense budget request.

But at the same time, the F-35 program’s record of performance has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule, and performance. And it’s a textbook example of why this Committee has placed such a high priority on reforming the broken defense acquisition system.

The F-35’s schedule for development has now stretched to more than 15 years. Costs have more than doubled from original estimates. Aircraft deliveries amount to no more than a mere trickle relative to the original promises of the program. The original F-35 delivery schedule promised 1,013 F-35s of all variants would be delivered by the end of fiscal year 2016. In reality, we will have 179. Because the Air Force, Marines, and Navy were all counting on the F-35s that never appeared, combat aircraft and strike fighter capacity shortfalls in all three services have reached critical levels, severely impacting readiness, and ultimately limiting the Department’s ability to meet the requirements of the defense strategy.

In the Department’s fiscal year 2017 budget request, dozens more aircraft are being deferred from the Future Years Defense Plan, resulting in a situation where the last F-35A will be delivered in 2040. I cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense – purchasing combat aircraft with a 40-year old design in light of all the testimony this committee has received about how our potential adversaries are rapidly catching up with, and in some cases matching, America’s military technological advantages.

Those F-35 aircraft being delivered are not being delivered as promised. They have problems with maintenance diagnostic software, radar instabilities, sensor fusion shortfalls, fuel system problems, structural cracks from service life testing, engine reliability deficits, limitations on the crew escape system that cause pilot weight restrictions, and potential cyber vulnerabilities. This list is as troubling as it is long.

At long last, we are approaching the end of the long nightmare known as ‘concurrency’ – the ill-advised simultaneous development, testing, and production of a complex and technologically challenging weapons system that the Department estimates will end up costing the American taxpayers $1.8 billion. But many questions remain, such as:

• the total number of these aircraft the Nation should buy, or can even afford;
• the costs of future upgrades to keep these aircraft relevant in the face of an ever-evolving threat; and
• the management and administration of a so-called ‘joint’ program that General Bogdan himself has admitted consists of aircraft that have only 20 to 25% commonality across the three variants, as compared to the original goal of 70 to 90%.

The F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements. The illusion of jointness perpetuated by the structure of the F-35 Joint Program stifles the proper alignment of responsibility and accountability this program so desperately needs.

There are also questions as to when the System Development and Demonstration phase, or SDD, will actually be completed so that initial operational test and evaluation can begin. Originally scheduled to conclude in 2017, we have every indication that schedule pressures will likely extend SDD well into fiscal year 2018. I am very concerned the Department may attempt to take shortcuts by deferring mission capability content into later block upgrades, and by doing so, shortchange the warfighter once again by delaying necessary capabilities.

The F-35 was designed to replace multiple aircraft of all three Services – the A-10, F-16, F-18, and the Harrier. That is why the operational testing and evaluation must be of such high fidelity. There can be no question in the minds of the American people that their gigantic investment in this program will pay off with greatly improved capabilities that far surpass the mission capabilities of all these individual combat aircraft. The Congress will not likely allow any more of these legacy aircraft to be retired from service until there is no doubt the F-35 can adequately replace them.

Nor is the Congress likely to entertain a ‘block buy’ or other multi-year procurement schemes until the initial operational test and evaluation is completed, and a positive milestone decision is made to commence full rate production, both of which I understand are scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2019.

The Department appears to be considering managing the F-35 Follow-on Modernization, which is estimated to cost over $8 billion for the first block upgrade, within the overall F-35 program. This is incredible given the Department’s dismal track record on these upgrade programs, as the F-22A modernization and upgrade debacle showed. I have seen no evidence that DOD’s processes have improved to a level that would remove the need for a separate major defense acquisition program that would enable close scrutiny by Congress. Moreover, I expect the Department to use fixed price contracts for the F-35 modernization effort in order to protect taxpayers.

.

[PIK]

Derek, is the F37 real or fiction??

[waldo]

Derek, is the F37 real or fiction??

since you've written it twice now in recent posts... the F-37 is fiction... the F-35 however, that's a shiny gleam in the eye's of F-35 fanboys!

.

[Derek 2.0]

thanks Captain Obvious... you're advising on this after I've already stated it and actually put forward an extract of that DOD response! This is simply your tried and true ploy to suggest you're actually bringing something to the table! What a poser!

.

If its obvious, whats at issue? That I provide the actual report (including the page) and quote the portion that confirms my point.....unlike the Waldo that distorts and slants with snippets and shakes into his standard word salad?

[Derek 2.0]

why isn't that rich...

How many Gripen E aircraft are in service...........when did Saab first start developing the Gripen? Contexts a bitch.....

[Derek 2.0]

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!

.

I did quite clearly, in both the context of the program as a whole and its implications on Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

no - what I'm doing/did is bring forward a most critical U.S. GAO report... just one of many of the iterative type GAO reports I've presented in the past. What was somewhat unique here is you regularly ignored them... this one you actually bit at, choosing to rattle off the comment by 'top dog' Bogdan... without actually providing an attribution of where that comment originated. That sir... that is you plagiarizing! Well done.

.

Plagiarizing........how is it plagiarizing when I cite and quote said report?

[Derek 2.0]

Derek, is the F37 real or fiction??

Never heard of it......

[waldo]

Plagiarizing........how is it plagiarizing when I cite and quote said report?

you made a statement as if it was your own... the 30-year reference. You didn't attribute that to Bogdan... in fact, in that post you don't reference a report... you don't quote or provide a cite. That sir, that is you plagiarizing the statement made by Bogdan.

.

[waldo]

I did quite clearly, in both the context of the program as a whole and its implications on Canada.

again, bullshyte you did! No where do you respond directly to this report reference I provided and quoted directly from... now multiple times.

.

[waldo]

How many Gripen E aircraft are in service...........when did Saab first start developing the Gripen? Contexts a bitch.....

the NG specifically? In 2014... with delivery scheduled as 2018 to Brazil and Sweden. You're sure going the extra mile over a simple videography that simply touted some new/nifty camera stabilization methodology. Why so defensive, hey chum?

.

.

[PIK]

Well it is out there real or not.

[Moonbox]

If its obvious, whats at issue? That I provide the actual report (including the page) and quote the portion that confirms my point.....unlike the Waldo that distorts and slants with snippets and shakes into his standard word salad?

Really!? You're actually complaining about waldo slanting and distorting!? I wish you had even the slightest clue how ironic and hypocritical that is coming from you of all people on this forum. This whiny complaint coming from the guy who even on the last two pages of the debate has on numerous occasions deflected and dodged pointed questions with "Here look! A LINK!" that provided a a glut of information with no reasonable explanation tying it back to the question being asked. Funny.

It's just more of your argument ad-nauseum. You're not going to win this debate by rational thought or realistic facts. You're just going to wear your opponents down.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Moonbox

[waldo]

If its obvious, whats at issue? That I provide the actual report (including the page) and quote the portion that confirms my point.....unlike the Waldo that distorts and slants with snippets and shakes into his standard word salad?

you provide the wrong page numbers for the formal DOD response... try again! More pointedly, you then go on to ignore that actual DOD response... which is a formal response to the GAO recommendations, the first of which I extracted and specifically put forward. Of course you ignored it - of course you did. It's only the key finding and recommendation from the GAO!

I distorted nothing... and slanted nothing! Such a poser you are!

.

[Derek 2.0]

you made a statement as if it was your own... the 30-year reference. You didn't attribute that to Bogdan... in fact, in that post you don't reference a report... you don't quote or provide a cite. That sir, that is you plagiarizing the statement made by Bogdan.

.

What 30 year reference? You mean 30 days? Reference a report? Do I need a cite when I reference established fact..........I'm plagiarizing when I state the aircraft is stealth and fly's in the air.......clearly any reference made by Waldo citing costs sans reference is the Waldo plagiarizing!!

You've become unhinged I'm afraid.....

[Derek 2.0]

again, bullshyte you did! No where do you respond directly to this report reference I provided and quoted directly from... now multiple times.

.

I cited my response to you.

[waldo]

What 30 year reference? You mean 30 days? Reference a report? Do I need a cite when I reference established fact..........I'm plagiarizing when I state the aircraft is stealth and fly's in the air.......clearly any reference made by Waldo citing costs sans reference is the Waldo plagiarizing!!

You've become unhinged I'm afraid.....

no - that's a most specific and just days old statement made by the F-35 'top dog' Bogdan. You're now calling it established fact and taking the grand latitude of claiming it for your own. More pointedly you just claimed you provided a related quote/cite to that end. You did neither in that post - neither!

.

.

[Derek 2.0]

the NG specifically? In 2014... with delivery scheduled as 2018 to Brazil and Sweden. You're sure going the extra mile over a simple videography that simply touted some new/nifty camera stabilization methodology. Why so defensive, hey chum?

.

.

The NG is the Gripen E.....and no, its not in service........the first purpose built Gripen E won't be rolled out until next month......if you're going to push the aircraft, you could at least go to the trouble of following the program

[Derek 2.0]

you provide the wrong page numbers for the formal DOD response... try again! More pointedly, you then go on to ignore that actual DOD response... which is a formal response to the GAO recommendations, the first of which I extracted and specifically put forward. Of course you ignored it - of course you did. It's only the key finding and recommendation from the GAO!

I distorted nothing... and slanted nothing! Such a poser you are!

.

No I didn't, the response starts on page 46 of the actual report.........not the pdf file page.

[waldo]

I cited my response to you.

no - you cited a response... to me... to what I stated! To what I stated. Again, you completely ignored the DOT&E report and the most specific quote I pulled from the report. It's what you do... it's what you've repeatedly done in the past whenever I've put forward these official type critical reports from the U.S. GAO, the U.S. DOT&E, etc..

.

[waldo]

hey now... I'm wise to your deflecting ways in trying to avoid posts like this one... you're doing a fine job at trying to bury it!

from YESTERDAY'S meeting of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee... extracts from the opening statement by the committee chair, Sen. John McCain:

[Derek 2.0]

no - that's a most specific and just days old statement made by the F-35 'top dog' Bogdan. You're now calling it established fact and taking the grand latitude of claiming it for your own. More pointedly you just claimed you provided a related quote/cite to that end. You did neither in that post - neither!

.

.

Say what? I just cited a link, that speaks directly to the cited 30 days..........from 2013

The Pentagon plans to field a second ALOU for redundancy, though funding and timing are not yet set, adds Mellon. Data are now backed up from the single ALOU on tapes, and reconstituting the system would be a timely venture, he says. Each aircraft can operate without ALIS connectivity for 30 days if needed.

Waldo, do try and get with the program

Your days old statement has been common knowledge for years..........

[waldo]

No I didn't, the response starts on page 46 of the actual report.........not the pdf file page.

oh snap! Big deelio... the point is you absolutely chose to avoid the formal DOD response to the GAO recommendations; most pointedly, again,

you avoided the key recommendation and DOD's concurrence to that recommendation. This one that I quoted/cited earlier, as follows:

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!

LINK TO IMAGE

... "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!

.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Michael Hardner
added link to image