Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

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!

Waldo, said remarks were in the link I cited the other day, likewise his positive remarks about the program......and you want to talk about deflecting? I cited a report, with said remarks, before you........you're losing a step Waldo

[waldo]

Waldo, said remarks were in the link I cited the other day, likewise his positive remarks about the program......and you want to talk about deflecting? I cited a report, with said remarks, before you........you're losing a step Waldo

no - I quoted the day old opening statement from U.S. Senator McCain... from YESTERDAY'S meeting of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee! You just quoted it in your reply. Just what the hell are you referencing. Talk about YOU losing a step!

.

Edited April 27, 2016 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

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 spoke to the GAO's major concerns........and provided all the actual concerns, with the actual report (not a picture of a portion of a draft report) and DOD's actual response as reported by the GAO..........the problem is what?

I provide the entire report released several weeks ago........and you cite a picture of a portion of the page of the draft report.......yet I'm the one deflecting

[waldo]

I spoke to the GAO's major concerns........and provided all the actual concerns, with the actual report (not a picture of a portion of a draft report) and DOD's actual response as reported by the GAO..........the problem is what?

I provide the entire report released several weeks ago........and you cite a picture of a portion of the page of the draft report.......yet I'm the one deflecting

yes! That's right - you're absolutely deflecting from that first recommendation; the one I took a snapshot extract from and presented within a cited reference. You have yet to address it - you've completely ignored it and have been widely deflecting from it. Yes you are the one deflecting. Here, chew on it again - why are you deflecting from this?

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

[Derek 2.0]

no - I quoted the day old opening statement from U.S. Senator McCain... from YESTERDAY'S meeting of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee! You just quoted it in your reply. Just what the hell are you referencing. Talk about YOU losing a step!

.

His remarks from yesterday, were in the link I provided yesterday,

I do note that you didn't quote his closing remarks though:

“Despite this program’s many stumbles, there are some positive signs for the F-35. The Marines declared initial operational capability, or IOC, last July in Yuma, Arizona, and are preparing for their first F-35B overseas deployment next year. Air Force personnel at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, who fly and maintain the aircraft, are preparing for Air Force IOC this fall. They report that the latest lots of F-35As are flying very well, with a significant jump in reliability and warfighting capability as compared to earlier aircraft. General Bogdan has steadily pushed down aircraft procurement unit costs, reliability metrics are on the rise, and each lot of aircraft deliveries possess increasingly effective warfighting capabilities.

“All of this is a testament to hard work of military and civilian personnel inside this program today. They are doing their best to overcome misguided decisions taken long ago, and they are having success in important areas. However, there is a lot of development left to complete in this program, and with it comes the potential for more problems, schedule delays, and increased costs. This committee will remain steadfast in its oversight responsibilities to ensure our warfighters get the capabilities they need on time and at reasonable cost.”

I suppose the Waldo ran out of room to quote this above portion of Sen. McCain's remarks........what's wrong with Waldo?

[Derek 2.0]

yes! That's right - you're absolutely deflecting from that first recommendation; the one I took a snapshot extract from and presented within a cited reference. You have yet to address it - you've completely ignored it and have been widely deflecting from it. Yes you are the one deflecting. Here, chew on it again - why are you deflecting from this?

What am I deflecting?

[waldo]

His remarks from yesterday, were in the link I provided yesterday,

whaaa! Buried at the very bottom of the article... a short paragraph reference that doesn't at all speak to the details within the actual statement made. Just another standard ploy of yours... one MLW member Moonbox and I have started to highlight you doing... as you've done, forevah!

.

I suppose the Waldo ran out of room to quote this above portion of Sen. McCain's remarks........what's wrong with Waldo?

as you've done many times over... ignore anything/everything critical of the F-35 and zero in on and emphasize your interpreted positives. Of course, in this case, McCain is simply playing 'feel good' politics. He goes through a most devastating account of the program past and highlights current problems... and you ignore it all and pump up his, "but we have made some progress" platitude. Because that's exactly what it was/is - a platitude!

.

[waldo]

What am I deflecting?

and with that... you playing your tried and true 'silly buggar' card... I've had enough of you for now!

.

[Moonbox]

I suppose the Waldo ran out of room to quote this above portion of Sen. McCain's remarks........what's wrong with Waldo?

Derek, McCain's remarks regarding the F-35 program were scathing and there's literally no way to paint it as anything but. It lists a comedy of errors and failures and it describes the F-35 program as a debacle (scandal was the word I think he used).

This is a perfect example of your pointless/deflecting "HERE: A LINK!" debate tactics that (as usual) doesn't provide any insight to the specific point being discussed.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Moonbox

[Army Guy]

Let me ask this.....With all the problems the F-35 has had, is having, Is there another aircraft that can replace the F-35 sitting in the wings for the US military.....NO....is the F-35 going to be around for awhile....Yes....will it's problems be fixed ....Yes they have spent to much on it , to see it fail now.....

So it does not matter what the critics say, Fu** no....This aircraft will be the US primary combat aircraft for some time....

[Derek 2.0]

whaaa! Buried at the very bottom of the article... a short paragraph reference that doesn't at all speak to the details within the actual statement made. Just another standard ploy of yours... one MLW member Moonbox and I have started to highlight you doing... as you've done, forevah!

What details? McCain's recap of the history of the program? Why would I highlight McCain's remarks in response to your dated claim on the F-35's software?

as you've done many times over... ignore anything/everything critical of the F-35 and zero in on and emphasize your interpreted positives. Of course, in this case, McCain is simply playing 'feel good' politics. He goes through a most devastating account of the program past and highlights current problems... and you ignore it all and pump up his, "but we have made some progress" platitude. Because that's exactly what it was/is - a platitude!

.

Feel good politics? You're suggesting that Senator John "Maverick" McCain is playing feel good politics with the F-35? Why would he do that?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just when The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau declared the matter over, the F-35 JSF is still getting lots of Canadian attention. Sunny Ways!

The F-35 has been selected in every instance where it was an option, with 10 other countries already having placed firm orders; more than 650 aircraft will be flying before the first Canadian F-35 could arrive; it would be inter-operable with NATO allies; every F-35 produced to date has Canadian components, produced by 110 companies; and the price is projected to fall to less than $85 million per plane by the time Canada receives its first aircraft.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-trudeau-shouldnt-rule-out-purchasing-lockheeds-f-35-just-because-he-said-he-would

[waldo]

What details? McCain's recap of the history of the program? Why would I highlight McCain's remarks in response to your dated claim on the F-35's software?

quit making shyte up! There's certainly nothing dated in regards the raised concerns (software or otherwise) from the U.S. DOT&E... you know, this detailed accounting that I put forward earlier... that you absolutely refuse to directly address - again, directly address!

.

[waldo]

further to that day's old meeting of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee focused on the F-35. Let me add the following to that devastating critique the Committee Chair John McCain gave in his testimony... this testimony from the U.S. Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore:

- as of the end of March 2016, the program had 1,165 open, documented deficiencies, 151 of which were Category 1, defined as deficiencies which may cause death [or] severe injury….95 of which were categorized as “high severity” by the program or Services

- the stability and functionality problems in the initial versions of Block 3F [software], including those inherited from Block 3i and problems caused by new Block 3F capabilities, were so significant that the program could not continue flight test.

- in the past year, discoveries of unpredicted cracks continued to occur, and in some cases required pauses in testing to determine root causes and fixes. This occurred in all three variants.

- the Fully Mission Capable rate for the F-35 fleet “has declined steadily since December 2014. Data from February 2016, the latest month available, show a fleet-wide FMC rate of 30 percent and an F-35B FMC rate of less than 14 percent. It is also important to understand that the program’s metric goals are modest.

.

[PIK]

If Canada buys new planes , they will be american.

[nerve]

If Canada buys new planes , they will be american.

Why is that?

[nerve]

of course! However, we proponents of drone alternatives and looking at a short(er)-term CF-18 fighter replacement option

....

.

Why?

Canada chooses will fly for the "next 40-50 years"... as if no drone technology advances will occur over the next couple of decades!

Exactly!

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.

Yeah so why not just buy some throwaway drones and call it an airforce.

Look at it this way, if Russia or China attack, Canada ain't doin nothing notable.

Any such event would get hot fast and lets face it Canada has no real cards in the conventional war game.

This is all about spending for the US, so why not spend on ROI activities, such as domestic drone production.

Now bear in mind I have my own position on this, in terms of what Canada should buy into.

I'm in a little of this, a little of that.

You know secure the Dassault investment infrastructure.

Buy an honour guard of F-35s (like one or two squadrons, every 5 or 10 years) maybe one in 2022 one in 2027.

Meanwhile develop drone technology so Canada is ontop of the game.

I think we are in a missile era anyway.

When was the last time there was a real dogfight with modern aircraft.

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.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/0110ce.pdf

Here is my take. No one has a clue. If it wants a military its gonna need to do way more. Otherwise its just toy soldiers.

Edited May 1, 2016 by nerve

[PIK]

To do with our commitments with America ,NATO, NORAD ,I for one cant see us ever not buying American. I would bet the farm we will never buy anything but American. This air craft will fly and will be bought by our allies, it is no different then any other new aircraft. This conservation is probably is the same one that went on when we bought the F-18's

[waldo]

following inter-operability standards, jets from the UK, France... the 'Eurofighter'... even Gripens are represented within the NATO jet fighter inventory.

.

[Derek 2.0]

following inter-operability standards, jets from the UK, France... the 'Eurofighter'... even Gripens are represented within the NATO jet fighter inventory.

.

Yes and no........All NATO member countries (and aligned countries) use the standard ejector racks (STANAG 3575 AA) with their aircraft, and in turn, said munitions makers in said countries design their missiles, bombs, fuel tanks, targeting and electronic warfare pods etc to fit said racks.......that is said standards........

........but said munitions need to be integrated with each aircraft. As it stands, the RCAF's current inventory of munitions for our Hornets is only fully integrated with American aircraft.......precluding the European aircraft from being able to operate most of our current munitions absent said (American) munitions being integrated onto said aircraft..........or we purchase European munitions to go with European aircraft.

Presently, Canadian subsidiaries of American aerial munitions makers produce portions of their products in Canada......the same can't be said of European arms makers (namely French and Italian)........

So any replacement of the Hornets, on cost grounds alone, would be American (The only American produced aircraft that costs more than the above mentioned European aircraft is the F-15), this is further compounded with the reality that a Canadian purchase of an F-35, F-16 or Super Hornet could utilize our current munitions that we already own...............and only one of the above mentioned American aircraft, based on our membership in the program, would see the FMS fees waived.....hence but one aircraft, that is already contracted with over 30 companies in Canada, has a distinct advantage

[waldo]

Yes and no.......

your post has nothing to do with the point about the significant non-American component of jet fighter within the NATO inventory... there are standards followed that allow this inter-operability.

I'm shocked you had nothing to say about my post #889 - you won't touch that, hey? As just one example, for all your past time/posts spent hyping that fake/phony U.S. Marine IOC and "squadron replacements", is there a reason you have nothing to say about that "F-35B FMC rate of less than 14 percent"? Imagine that. Notwithstanding, of course, the majority of those few planes are fitted with the most limited and hugely deficient Block 2B software - yes?

.

[waldo]

Meanwhile develop drone technology so Canada is ontop of the game.

I thought to respond to your reply... to positioning Canada towards drone deployment/technology... to past alternative emphasis within related F-35 threads that highlight drone options/considerations. Unfortunately my post has been hidden as it contained a textual image... in that regard I will not take the time to edit the wholly unformatted copy&paste alternative to that textual image. The post detail spoke to a relatively recent drone related RFI put forward by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

.

[Derek 2.0]

your post has nothing to do with the point about the significant non-American component of jet fighter within the NATO inventory... there are standards followed that allow this inter-operability.

I know, and I just stated a NATO standard pertaining to exactly that.........and despite said standards the use of European aircraft with European weapons would add significant upfront costs to a Canadian purchase, in the form of either integrating our current inventory of American weapons with the European aircraft or purchasing new European weapons..........this will preclude European aircraft on costs alone.

The last European (see British) fighter Canada purchased were Vampires in the 1940s.......and for good reason.

I'm shocked you had nothing to say about my post #889 - you won't touch that, hey? As just one example, for all your past time/posts spent hyping that fake/phony U.S. Marine IOC and "squadron replacements", is there a reason you have nothing to say about that "F-35B FMC rate of less than 14 percent"? Imagine that. Notwithstanding, of course, the majority of those few planes are fitted with the most limited and hugely deficient Block 2B software - yes?

I didn't see the post........with regards to it though, it has already been spoken to in this thread several weeks ago....

[waldo]

I know, and I just stated a NATO standard pertaining to exactly that.........and despite said standards the use of European aircraft with European weapons would add significant upfront costs to a Canadian purchase, in the form of either integrating our current inventory of American weapons with the European aircraft or purchasing new European weapons..........this will preclude European aircraft on costs alone.

you know your post had nothing to do with what I stated... and what you quoted of mine! You know!

as for your point derail (from my actual post), we've danced this dance before in regards to weapons costs. Why a search just showed me replying to you some time back in another thread where I quoted from that KPMG report that talked of the current CF-18 weapons inventory being shifted over to the (presumptive) F-35s... but that an additional (not budgeted) $1 billion would be required to purchase additional weapons for the F-35.

I also recall past discussion around the applicable NATO weapons standards; in that regard, simply as a reference example, this article on the French Dassault Rafale:

Firstly they said that Rafale is not compliant with many US weapons and operations... Rafale already use several air-to-ground US-made weapons (GBU 12, 24, 49, as well as unguided weapons). More importantly, its weapon bus is fully compliant with NATO Stanag 3910/1553.

Therefore, there is no technical hurdle to integrate any NATO weaponry. Furthermore, during operation “Harmattan” in Libya (Canada called it Operation Mobile – later Operation Enduring Freedom under NATO), French armed forces used the Raytheon wireless system to integrate GBU 49s on their Rafale.

are you able to clarify your post and speak to representative weapons costs you suggest a non-American option would bring forward?

.

I didn't see the post........with regards to it though, it has already been spoken to in this thread several weeks ago....

nice... you're at it again! My post was but a snippet extract of the overall F-35 issues/concerns raised by the U.S. DOT&E. Even as a snippet extract with 4 key points, your reply/link doesn't apply to any of the four... and absolutely ignores the pointed emphasis I put on one of those 4 that speaks to the abysmal FMC rating for the U.S. Marine F-35B. I even chided you over your past hyperbolic fanboy boasting over the fake/phony F-35B IOC and the "squadron replacements" you keep nattering on about. With a FMC rating of 14%... Fully Mission Capable level of only 14% of the existing U.S. Marine F-35B planes, it's clear why you've bypassed that and thrown out yet another of your unrelated "go-fetch" links.

.

[Derek 2.0]

you know your post had nothing to do with what I stated... and what you quoted of mine! You know!

as for your point derail (from my actual post), we've danced this dance before in regards to weapons costs. Why a search just showed me replying to you some time back in another thread where I quoted from that KPMG report that talked of the current CF-18 weapons inventory being shifted over to the (presumptive) F-35s... but that an additional (not budgeted) $1 billion would be required to purchase additional weapons for the F-35.

I also recall past discussion around the applicable NATO weapons standards; in that regard, simply as a reference example, this article on the French Dassault Rafale:

From your cited piece:

Therefore, there is no technical hurdle to integrate any NATO weaponry. Furthermore, during operation “Harmattan” in Libya (Canada called it Operation Mobile – later Operation Enduring Freedom under NATO), French armed forces used the Raytheon wireless system to integrate GBU 49s on their Rafale.

I never suggested that there was a technical "hurdle".......just money and time.

are you able to clarify your post and speak to representative weapons costs you suggest a non-American option would bring forward?

How long is a piece of string?

Noted that you acknowledge there will be an added cost in selecting a non-American aircraft though.........an added cost that wouldn't be realized with the F-35, F-16 and F/A-18E/F.

nice... you're at it again! My post was but a snippet extract of the overall F-35 issues/concerns raised by the U.S. DOT&E. Even as a snippet extract with 4 key points, your reply/link doesn't apply to any of the four... and absolutely ignores the pointed emphasis I put on one of those 4 that speaks to the abysmal FMC rating for the U.S. Marine F-35B.

Reread both articles............you nattered on for months over delays with software........what do you think caused the low FM rating?

Surely software delays, including delays in the F-35's automated logistics information system, were at play