Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

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

you specifically mentioned integration. We are making progress if you're now only attaching cost... and not technical considerations. Let's be clear then: you're acknowledging that there are NO technical issues that would prevent any non-American alternative to the F-35 from using existing CF-18 weapons inventory - yes?

as for costs, I note you have yet to acknowledge that KPMG reference I initially put forward in the other thread and just a few posts back here - the one that states it would cost in the order of $1 billion additional dollars to buy required weapons for the F-35... $1 billion that was never mentioned/factored by the previous Harper Conservative government - yes?

.

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.

not based on what you quoted of mine... that's you making a somewhat self-serving interpretation.

.

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

lets have you be very, very precise here:

- are you stating there are no significant F-35 software issues at present? I'm speaking to the broader level of Block software.

- are you stating there is significant improvement in the U.S. Marine F-35B FMC... improved from that lowly and pathetic 14% figure? If so:

- please advise what that current improved rate is, and when it was realized particularly in relation to the DOT&E declaring it as 14%.

- additionally, provide citation to support your statements that the low rate can be attributed to, as you state, "software delays, including F-35B ALIS".

.

[Derek 2.0]

you specifically mentioned integration. We are making progress if you're now only attaching cost... and not technical considerations. Let's be clear then: you're acknowledging that there are NO technical issues that would prevent any non-American alternative to the F-35 from using existing CF-18 weapons inventory - yes?

I only ever suggested cost, in the form of integration or purchasing new munitions........I never once suggested technical considerations, fore anything technical can be overcome with enough money

as for costs, I note you have yet to acknowledge that KPMG reference I initially put forward in the other thread and just a few posts back here - the one that states it would cost in the order of $1 billion additional dollars to buy required weapons for the F-35... $1 billion that was never mentioned/factored by the previous Harper Conservative government - yes?

No, additional munitions for the RCAF......said KPMG report was complied after our involvement in Libya, when Canada did need to restock its supply of smart munitions............of course, since then, we've purchased replacements for the previous bombing mission in Iraq.........in said example, said munitions can be used by our current Hornets, the F-35, the F-16 or the Super Hornet.....not the Rafale.

lets have you be very, very precise repetitive here:

See previous (cited) post.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

See previous (cited) post.

could there be any more of an example of your bullshyte weasel moves? Here, try again; they're quite simple questions... is there a problem, for you?

lets have you be very, very precise here:

- are you stating there are no significant F-35 software issues at present? I'm speaking to the broader level of Block software.

- are you stating there is significant improvement in the U.S. Marine F-35B FMC... improved from that lowly and pathetic 14% figure? If so:

- please advise what that current improved rate is, and when it was realized particularly in relation to the DOT&E declaring it as 14%.

- additionally, provide citation to support your statements that the low rate can be attributed to, as you state, "software delays, including F-35B ALIS".

.

[waldo]

I only ever suggested cost, in the form of integration or purchasing new munitions........I never once suggested technical considerations, fore anything technical can be overcome with enough money

No, additional munitions for the RCAF......said KPMG report was complied after our involvement in Libya, when Canada did need to restock its supply of smart munitions

and here you go again: let me set the reference table for you... again, per that KPMG audit:

With respect to weapons requirements, KPMG received confirmation that weapons currently in DND inventory, which can be employed on the F-35 fleet, will be retained and the initial stock of other weapons requirements related to gun ammunition and countermeasures had been included in the Estimate. We understand that the acquisition of newer weapons will be considered and funded as separate projects and comparison with Australia would suggest that these costs could be substantial (greater than $1 billion).

given the audit was 2 months short of 2 full years after the Libya involvement, you decide to drop a link that has nothing to do with Libya... or direct costing reflecting upon Libya. Of course you do - that's what you do... you make a statement, don't provide any related/relevant foundation to what's being discussed, and then you drop a link to something else! Well done.

but hey, I'll run with that Libya reference of yours: the total military cost to Canada for Libya was $100 million dollars; more precisely, DND put the incremental costs of the mission — costs the military says would not have been incurred if Canadian Forces had not been deployed — at just under $100 million. That's $100 million, all in, all done. Care to advise what part of that cost expenditure you'd like to attribute to your deflection reference to Libya and CF-18 weapons expended during that mission? So that's some figure/amount within that, "just under $100 million" as compared to the KPMG audit reference to "greater than $1 billion". As I said, that's quite the non-budgeted cost never factored/mentioned at all within that original Harper Conservative cost estimate for the F-35... wouldn't you say, hey!

.

[Derek 2.0]

lets have you be very, very precise here:

- are you stating there are no significant F-35 software issues at present? I'm speaking to the broader level of Block software.

No.

- are you stating there is significant improvement in the U.S. Marine F-35B FMC... improved from that lowly and pathetic 14% figure? If so:

I have no idea, you would have to define "significant improvement".

- please advise what that current improved rate is, and when it was realized particularly in relation to the DOT&E declaring it as 14%.

I don't know that its public or even measured............based on your cited rate from the year previous, I'd assume we wouldn't know the current rate until ~next year.

- additionally, provide citation to support your statements that the low rate can be attributed to, as you state, "software delays, including F-35B ALIS".

Common bloody sense that a low serviceability would be the result of said software delays, including delays found with the aircraft's logistics......if you want a cite, revisit every post of yours containing a link with a story encompassing software/ALIS delays

[Derek 2.0]

and here you go again: let me set the reference table for you... again, per that KPMG audit:

Excellent, from your cite:

With respect to weapons requirements, KPMG received confirmation that weapons currently in DND inventory, which can be employed on the F-35 fleet, will be retained and the initial stock of other weapons requirements related to gun ammunition and countermeasures had been included in the Estimate.

Of course we require new gun ammunition with every single European aircraft......but it confirms my point, our entire inventory could be used with the F-35 (or the other American aircraft), unlike the European aircraft, absent Canada paying the cost to integrate said inventory with them......or purchase new munitions.

We understand that the acquisition of newer weapons will be considered and funded as separate projects and comparison with Australia would suggest that these costs could be substantial (greater than $1 billion).

Ahh yes like I said (and cited).......but a comparison to the RAAF isn't apt, as Canada has no intention to purchase next generation standoff weapons (joint strike missile, SDB II etc) to equip its fighter force.........apples to mangos

[Derek 2.0]

Further to the French appeal:

NEW DELHI — The $8.9 billion deal for the purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft from France will likely be delayed due to a AgustaWestland bribery scandal and a cautious government in India.

Serge Dassualt avoided corruption charges in the 90s.........who knows, maybe the Rafale will dodge a bullet in India....

Furthermore:

Parliament's Standing Committee on Defence expressed its displeasure over the unconcluded deal: "The committee are unhappy to note that although a considerable time has elapsed, negotiations with France on Rafale (fighter aircraft) could not be taken to a logical end."

Last month, a source at the French Embassy said that "30 percent offsets will be embarked for future military aviation research and development (R&D) programs, and the remaining 20 percents will [be embarked] with Indian [defense] industries making components for Rafale."

30% offsets kills any prospects of a Canadian deal.......not to worry, $8.9 billion for 36 aircraft and ten years support is nothing to jump up and down over........I'd love to see that translated into 65 aircraft and 40 years support, with the same accounting methods as the F-35 applied

Edited May 8, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

No.

I have no idea, you would have to define "significant improvement".

I don't know that its public or even measured............based on your cited rate from the year previous, I'd assume we wouldn't know the current rate until ~next year.

Common bloody sense that a low serviceability would be the result of said software delays, including delays found with the aircraft's logistics......if you want a cite, revisit every post of yours containing a link with a story encompassing software/ALIS delays

"No"? Geezaz, the way you came back one could read your statements to suggest that 'all the software problems' are taken care of! Good to read that when you're challenged to bring specificity to it, you can at least come back with a "No" to acknowledge that, yes, there are problems. Of course you most certainly won't acknowledge the extent and most significant degree of problems with the F-35 software - of course you won't!

the rest of your reply is you feverishly backpedaling in regards the U.S. Marine F-35B variant and it's deployed readiness. The way you rejected that abysmal 14% level figure, one would think you could actually present something to support your unwillingness to accept it. To read you now putting all the software emphasis problems on ALIS is quite revealing... particularly since I emphasized Block 2B. How grand of you to offer no cite/substantiation to answer and/or counter the particular questions I put to you. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

.

[waldo]

Excellent, from your cite:

Of course we require new gun ammunition with every single European aircraft......but it confirms my point, our entire inventory could be used with the F-35 (or the other American aircraft), unlike the European aircraft, absent Canada paying the cost to integrate said inventory with them......or purchase new munitions.

your quote (of my quote) doesn't, as you say, "confirm your point"... it includes no reference to non-American alternatives. Geez, how did you go there? And given the emphasis you put on weapons expenditure during the Libyan deployment, I'm shocked you chose to simply ignore my countering statement to your improper emphasis - shocked, I tells ya! But good on ya for finally acknowledging there is a huge weapons purchasing cost (for the F-35 or other)... a cost that was never presented/included within information put forward by Harper Conservatives... a cost per that KPMG audit as greater than $1 billion dollars.

.

Ahh yes like I said (and cited).......but a comparison to the RAAF isn't apt, as Canada has no intention to purchase next generation standoff weapons (joint strike missile, SDB II etc) to equip its fighter force.........apples to mangos

did you raise concerns with KPMG? I've never come across anything questioning that comparison or (greater than) $1 billion estimate for additional weaponry. You can provide an unsubstantiated statement that a KPMG comparison to Australia is not "apt"... unsubstantiated is your forte!

.

[waldo]

Further to the French appeal:

30% offsets kills any prospects of a Canadian deal.......not to worry, $8.9 billion for 36 aircraft and ten years support is nothing to jump up and down over........I'd love to see that translated into 65 aircraft and 40 years support, with the same accounting methods as the F-35 applied

uhhh... your linked cite emphasizes a delay... still under negotiation... I'm surprised you're drawing implications that the deal won't close, or are you? With your selective quotes and lack of your own related comments... wait, that's not by your design is it? As with any deal, without being privy to the actual contract and actual details, this forever penchant of yours to take a cost number and divide it by the number of aircraft is simply... wrong in presuming to arrive at a per plane cost. In any case, since in prior discussion you refused to acknowledge LockMart has presented to India... I guess, if nothing else, the significant greater number of planes India is still seeking (beyond that 36 French Rafale number) perhaps solidifies the Russian rumours... or perhaps opens it up for the Super Hornet to get a taste.

.

[Derek 2.0]

your quote (of my quote) doesn't, as you say, "confirm your point"... it includes no reference to non-American alternatives. Geez, how did you go there?

.

It very much so confirmed my point that our current inventory can be used with an American aircraft with no added cost, unlike the European aircraft.

But good on ya for finally acknowledging there is a huge weapons purchasing cost (for the F-35 or other)... a cost that was never presented/included within information put forward by Harper Conservatives... a cost per that KPMG audit as greater than $1 billion dollars.

How could the Harper Government have put forth the cost of munitions used in two (then) future conflicts?

did you raise concerns with KPMG? I've never come across anything questioning that comparison or (greater than) $1 billion estimate for additional weaponry. You can provide an unsubstantiated statement that a KPMG comparison to Australia is not "apt"... unsubstantiated is your forte!

I just did in my previous post.......unlike Canada, Australia intends to purchase additional costly munitions that Canada isn't intent on purchasing........as such, basing an estimate for Canada on purchase plans for Australia is foolish.

[Derek 2.0]

uhhh... your linked cite emphasizes a delay... still under negotiation... I'm surprised you're drawing implications that the deal won't close, or are you?

.

It might not, who knows........the intent of posting the article is clear, the French have been accused of corruption, but more damning, won't offer a better offset deal to potential buyers then what the Indians have got, which is still far below expected Canadian dealings, in which we require a 100% offset.........More the reason no Canadian government is going to purchase the Rafale.

[waldo]

Canada's government appears poised to do an end-around Lockheed Martin's threats should its F-35 not be included in an open competition... simple solution: purchase Boeing Super-Hornets and label it a, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, "interim measure/purchase"!

Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s

The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”

Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities.

[waldo]

sorry..... missed the spoiler alert!

SPOILER ALERT! If you are heavily invested in propagating LockMart propaganda and you live&breathe the F-35 fortunes... don't read the next post! SPOILER ALERT!

.

[Derek 2.0]

Canada's government appears poised to do an end-around Lockheed Martin's threats should its F-35 not be included in an open competition... simple solution: purchase Boeing Super-Hornets and label it a, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, "interim measure/purchase"!

Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s

The problem with that suggestion, is the legal morass encompassing a sole source bid for an aircraft directly mentioned in Liberal campaign literature........explain away why a sole source bid for Super Hornets is required when there are other aircraft options present, and in the case of Lockheed's F-16, cheaper then the Super Hornet and with decades of service providing the lions share of NORAD coverage and operational usage in the Arctic since the 70s by three of our NATO allies........something that can't be said for the Super Hornet.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[bush_cheney2004]

...The problem with that suggestion, is the legal morass encompassing a sole source bid to an aircraft directly mentioned in Liberal campaign literature......

Right....what happened to the big "fly-off" competition after requirements are defined ?

[waldo]

what legal morass? Super Hornets are just a bridge measure... to manage the gaps! Don't worry, there will still be an open competition to replace the CF-18s... count on it... sometime in the future! Uhhh, you believe that, right?

.

[Derek 2.0]

Right....what happened to the big "fly-off" competition after requirements are defined ?

It went the way of the $10 billion dollar deficits

I don't see how the Liberals square the circle of an interim sole sourced Super Hornet purchase.........when there are currently other options present.....they will be in court with all the other aircraft makers for years.

[waldo]

I don't see how the Liberals square the circle of an interim sole sourced Super Hornet purchase.........when there are currently other options present.....they will be in court with all the other aircraft makers for years.

they have Hornets now... they're just going to Supersize them! How did the Australians manage their Super Hornet purchase... how did they deal with your declared "legal morass"... weren't there other options available to them? Reading you twist&squirm is worth wasting time reading your BS over the GOT spoiler.

.

[Derek 2.0]

what legal morass? Super Hornets are just a bridge measure... to manage the gaps! Don't worry, there will still be an open competition to replace the CF-18s... count on it... sometime in the future! Uhhh, you believe that, right?

.

And an interim purchase or lease is a plausible legal out........but they can't explain the requirement to sole source the contract to Boeing......and not Lockheed....or Dassault.....or Airbus/Eurofighter...etc......which is why I don't give the story much creedance......to avoid a lawsuit by Lockheed, they open themselves up to lawsuits by Lockheed, Dassault, Saab and the Eurofighter group........the Liberals aren't that stupid.

[Derek 2.0]

they have Hornets now... they're just going to Supersize them!

.

Applies to oranges......two different aircraft, with two different engines, airframes and avionics.........this proposed sole sourced purchase doesn't only preclude new interim aircraft, but a lease/purchase of used aircraft from our allies to fill a sudden requirement for an interim aircraft.......

How did the Australians manage their Super Hornet purchase... how did they deal with your declared "legal morass"

The Aussies aren't bound by the same legal framework for sole sourced purchases as the Canadian government.

[waldo]

The Aussies aren't bound by the same legal framework for sole sourced purchases as the Canadian government.

baffle-gab! Citation request... I've got a few cycles this morning - are you ready to settle in?

.

[Derek 2.0]

baffle-gab! Citation request... I've got a few cycles this morning - are you ready to settle in?

.

Baffel-gab? You need a citation to confirm the Aussies aren't bound by Government of Canada purchasing rules?

[waldo]

And an interim purchase or lease is a plausible legal out........but they can't explain the requirement to sole source the contract to Boeing......and not Lockheed....or Dassault.....or Airbus/Eurofighter...etc......which is why I don't give the story much creedance......to avoid a lawsuit by Lockheed, they open themselves up to lawsuits by Lockheed, Dassault, Saab and the Eurofighter group........the Liberals aren't that stupid.

under what obligation is Canada required to open up to a competition what is simply an upgrade path from the Hornet to Super-Hornet?

.

[waldo]

Baffel-gab? You need a citation to confirm the Aussies aren't bound by Government of Canada purchasing rules?

I guess you're not aware of the process to follow to warrant exceptions to GCR sole source - of course, you do talk a good game! You just said the, "Liberals weren't stupid"... do you think they don't have the exception covered... do you think government lawyers haven't been all over this like the proverbial 'dirty-shirt'?

.