Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

Of course, Australia purchased 24 Super Hornets... and has recently added an intent for another 12 (the F-18G 'Growler' variant)... something about an "interim purchase" brought on by continued F-35 delays - go figure... that sounds very familiar!

.

Negative Ghostrider........as we've gone through numerous times, the Aussie purchase of the Super Hornet/Growler was to replace their F-111 bomber, fulfilling their long range strike requirement.........which itself has yet to be determined on what platform will fill this role into the future......be it sub launched cruise missiles, naval aviation in the form of the F-35B aboard their Canberra class LHD or additional F-35s and air launched cruise missiles........

To Argus's question, the Super Hornet (or any other type) has yet to best the F-35 in any competition they were both apart of.

[Derek 2.0]

no - in 1997, 4 U.S. manufacturers presented 'proof of concept'... 2 of those were selected (Boeing and LockMart) to develop prototypes - the LockMart prototype was chosen and bore no resemblance to the actual F-35 today.

Of course, the Boeing X-32 made out much worse..........the X-32 wasn't able to even meet the requirement of vertical flight with all up weight, and still suffered potentially lethal compressor stalls......

[waldo]

Hey, is that up to me? The man you worship like a God promised an open and transparent competition between all contenders.

Why is he reneging? Is it possibly because someone has told him the F-35 would win? If not, then why?

not sure who you're speaking to... please be clearer/more precise!

you're confusing a so-called interim purchase (a stop-gap measure) and a full-competition.

for a F-35 to win a legitimate comparative competition, it would need to have a ready capable final product... otherwise your apparent favoured pony would need to present 'on paper' capabilities or test results... independently verified test results - and it's not actually comparing plane-to-plane. I emphasize the independently verified aspect based on the suspect actions taken to ever shift the peas concerning F-35 test criteria and benchmark requirements... or simply eliminating test points altogether. If you've followed these F-35 threads this has all been presented previously in terms of U.S. GAO auditing and/or U.S. Pentagon DOT&E review/reports... posts typically ignored by the LockMart F-35 fan-boys here!

.

[Derek 2.0]

not sure who you're speaking to... please be clearer/more precise!

you're confusing a so-called interim purchase (a stop-gap measure) and a full-competition.

So why is an interim purchase required? And why the speculated (denied by Government) sole source purchase to Boeing, the same company that has lobbied more this year then all other contractors combined, including directly with the Trudeau PMO?

[waldo]

Negative Ghostrider........as we've gone through numerous times, the Aussie purchase of the Super Hornet/Growler was to replace their F-111 bomber, fulfilling their long range strike requirement.........which itself has yet to be determined on what platform will fill this role into the future......be it sub launched cruise missiles, naval aviation in the form of the F-35B aboard their Canberra class LHD or additional F-35s and air launched cruise missiles........

To Argus's question, the Super Hornet (or any other type) has yet to best the F-35 in any competition they were both apart of.

no - to fill the gap between F-111 retirements and the ever-ongoing F-35 delays, the RAAF was forced to fill that gap by purchasing designated "interim" Super Hornets (24 initially)... then the additional 23 G-variant. We could go down memory lane and revisit some of those competitions - I'm always keen to talk about the incentive lengths LockMart will take to realize a sale. Of course, the easiest comeback to your same-ole, same-ole here is... just what state of the F-35 was actually being evaluated within those competitions? Such a paper-tiger!

.

Edited June 9, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

So why is an interim purchase required? And why the speculated (denied by Government) sole source purchase to Boeing, the same company that has lobbied more this year then all other contractors combined, including directly with the Trudeau PMO?

no - unless you have new information to cite... quote and cite... I showed your ongoing 'go-fetch' charade posts back - here:

I'm not prepared to play your game on that one any further!

.

Edited June 9, 2016 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

no - to fill the gap between F-111 retirements and the ever-ongoing F-35s, the RAAF was forced to fill that gap by purchasing designated "interim" Super Hornets (24 initially)... then the additional 23 G-variant. We could go down memory lane and revisit some of those competitions - I'm always keen to talk about the incentive lengths LockMart will take to realize a sale. Of course, the easiest comeback to your same-ole, same-ole here is... just what state of the F-35 was actually being evaluated within those competitions? Such a paper-tiger!

.

No, it isn't, we've been through this.........the USAF retirement a decade earlier, of their F-111 fleet, increased the costs for the RAAF to maintain their fleet...they sought and purchased Super Hornets/Growlers long before the F-35 was ever expected to be in service.

[waldo]

Of course, the Boeing X-32 made out much worse..........the X-32 wasn't able to even meet the requirement of vertical flight with all up weight, and still suffered potentially lethal compressor stalls......

which has absolutely nothing to do with the resulting F-35 of today. Those were prototypes (from proof-of-concept) that bear little to no resemblance to the design result that brought forward the Joint Strike Fighter... which, as it turns out, ain't so joint after all, is it? What's that %commonality level now? You should have that figure ever-ready - c'mon, you can say it - sure you can!

.

[Derek 2.0]

no - unless you have new information to cite... quote and cite... I showed your ongoing 'go-fetch' charade posts back - here:

I'm not prepared to play your game on that one any further!

.

What information? I'm asking a question, despite the comments from the head of the RCAF or Alan Williams, what is this government justification for an interim purchase, and sole sourced one at that? (assuming this government intends to sole source said purchase)

[waldo]

No, it isn't, we've been through this.........the USAF retirement a decade earlier, of their F-111 fleet, increased the costs for the RAAF to maintain their fleet...they sought and purchased Super Hornets/Growlers long before the F-35 was ever expected to be in service.

no - not all F-111s were retired together - ya think! The near end accelerated retirement necessitated the purchase of an interim gap solution... one forced because the F-35 delayed, and delayed, and delayed... and still delays!

.

[waldo]

What information? I'm asking a question, despite the comments from the head of the RCAF or Alan Williams, what is this government justification for an interim purchase, and sole sourced one at that? (assuming this government intends to sole source said purchase)

not playing - I took the cycles to showcase your standard play where you make a statement and either don't provide a reference cite or if you do provide a cite, you never actually quote from that reference to actually support your statement made - what I affectionately call your "go-fetch" routine. I'm not playing again until you start to quote from your references and have those quotes line up with your statements.

.

[Derek 2.0]

which has absolutely nothing to do with the resulting F-35 of today. Those were prototypes (from proof-of-concept) that bear little to no resemblance to the design result that brought forward the Joint Strike Fighter... which, as it turns out, ain't so joint after all, is it? What's that %commonality level now? You should have that figure ever-ready - c'mon, you can say it - sure you can!

.

That's subjective, they both planned to share the base airframe and engineering with the production design........the Boeing design leveraged their adopted Harrier's lift system, the problem, their aircraft as designed was too heavy to ever incorporate it.......Boeing's STOVL design lost them the entire competition.

[waldo]

Thank you, General Waldo, for surely your ability to accurately predict the timeline of military scientific advancement renders all arguments pointless.

Which military institution did you graduate from again?

such dripping snarc! I offered an opinion - you don't have to accept it... you certainly don't have the knowledge chops to call out anyone in these threads. My opinion isn't particularly unique and it's not a highly contentious one. Again, the state of drone warfare is ever accelerating, year-to-year. At some point there will be no requirement for manned flight. That's a tough nut for diehard fly-boys to wrap their heads around. There's also a reason why nation air-forces are re-focusing monies/procurement towards drones - today! My main point is that the days of expecting a new plane to last... to be required to last... 40+ years is just so 'old-school thinking'. My suggestion, again not unique, is to purchase something today... something capable, but cheaper... and use savings elsewhere... perhaps focused on drones if procurement requirements align.

.

U.S. Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email Wednesday that the USAF “is making steady progress toward declaring F-35A initial operating capability between August and December 2016.” Initial operating capability is military-speak for when a certain equipment is considered ready for combat.

“The F-35 will provide the joint warfighter unprecedented levels of survivability, lethality, and situational awareness, allowing them to fight and win in the emerging highly contested threat environments,” Graff added.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/f-35-ready-to-go-company-says-as-u-s-air-force-prepares-to-declare-stealth-fighter-combat-ready

Of course survivability isn't an issue for you, is it, General Waldo? Given you won't be in one of these planes.

F-35 IOC somehow takes on a whole new meaning from traditional 'combat ready'. The relatively recent farce with the U.S. Marines IOC is case in point.... declared combat ready and it can't do diddly squat... combat ready based on what 'low-rate production' iteration? Yup, combat ready... yet for some reason, it's not engaged in... uhhh... Iraq... Syria! What's the deelio there? And it's the same nonsense lining up with the USAF IOC... it's a politicization and propaganda measure the U.S. military is lining up around to support F-35 sales - volume sales... sales that just aren't happening! Wonder why, hey?

.

[Derek 2.0]

no - not all F-111s were retired together - ya think! The near end accelerated retirement necessitated the purchase of an interim gap solution... one forced because the F-35 delayed, and delayed, and delayed... and still delays!

.

Again, thats not the case, the RAAF, since they acquired retired SAC FB-111s (from the Cold War draw down) in the 90s, had intended to operate their fleet into the 2020s then to be replaced by another system in long range strike..........per historic, operating a bastard fleet after the Americans retired theirs, forced the RAAF to retire them........they selected the Super Hornet/Growler over (more suitable) F-15E Strike Eagles due to the requirement for an electronic warfare variant (which there isn't among the F-15 family) or even a USAF offer of surplus B-1 bombers due to operating costs.

For the RAAF, the F-111 and their legacy hornets are apples to oranges, as are their replacements.

[waldo]

.......Boeing's STOVL design lost them the entire competition.

and LockMarts resultant F-35B STOVL compromised the design of all 3 variants... wouldn't you agree?

.

[Derek 2.0]

not playing - I took the cycles to showcase your standard play where you make a statement and either don't provide a reference cite or if you do provide a cite, you never actually quote from that reference to actually support your statement made - what I affectionately call your "go-fetch" routine. I'm not playing again until you start to quote from your references and have those quotes line up with your statements.

.

Nice dodge, of course you're not playing........if the reports of a sole source contract are true, the Trudeau Liberals have royally f**ked themselves legally and politically

[waldo]

Again, thats not the case...

would the Australians have purchased the Super Hornets/Growlers if the F-35 wasn't delayed, over and over and over again - yes or no?

.

[Derek 2.0]

and LockMarts resultant F-35B STOVL compromised the design of all 3 variants... wouldn't you agree?

.

Compromised in the sense that the requirement greatly increased difficultly, which led directly to delays with the program.

[Derek 2.0]

would the Australians have purchased the Super Hornets/Growlers if the F-35 wasn't delayed, over and over and over again - yes or no?

.

TBD.......as its TBD today, as to what will replace the Super Hornets in RAAF service........if I were to guess, based on the recently awarded sub contract worth zillions, I'll go with SLCM for $1000 Alex

[waldo]

Nice dodge, of course you're not playing........if the reports of a sole source contract are true, the Trudeau Liberals have royally f**ked themselves legally and politically

I'm also not engaging in your silly buggar routine - look, if you're not even going to look at the posts you're linked to, why should I bother with you. Again, I put together a post that tracked your statements against a reference you dropped - one you never even quoted from. Eventually, when you were pressed on it several times, you finally quoted something from your original reference... unfortunately, it had no bearing on your prior statements. This reply I've now quoted is you slicing and dicing from your last post and completely ignoring the piece I'm objecting to within that post. It's the same statement you made previously... that I took the trouble to track and compare to your actual eventual quote... that bears no resemblance to your statement. And you make it again! I've created the tracking post... you ignored it. When you now just made the same statement I told you I was not playing your game and sent you a link to that tracking post. I'm quite sure you're now purposely replying, as quoted above, with everything from your prior post... except the piece I'm objecting to. Hence, yet another of your silly buggar plays!

.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

...For the RAAF, the F-111 and their legacy hornets are apples to oranges, as are their replacements.

Indeed....Canada ain't Australia, which actually procured aircraft when needed. Fun and games time is over according to this learned poly sci professor....she knows it's really about politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-needs-new-fighter-jets-and-a-transparent-purchasing-process/article30347198/

[waldo]

Compromised in the sense that the requirement greatly increased difficultly, which led directly to delays with the program.

increased difficulty and caused delays? That's as far as you're willing to go? It's not really a contentious point is it? JSF design, as is, wouldn't be as is, if not compromised by the Marines STOVL requirement. There's legions of articles written on the constraints caused by the compromised design... I mean, you can certainly choose to ignore it. You know, the so-called, "jack-of-all-trades but master of none"!

.

[Derek 2.0]

Indeed....Canada ain't Australia, which actually procured aircraft when needed. Fun and games time is over according to this learned poly sci professor....she knows it's really about politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-needs-new-fighter-jets-and-a-transparent-purchasing-process/article30347198/

Indeed, she's also a graduate of RMC..........she rehashes many of the points that we've being going over for years, but well put together none the less.

[waldo]

TBD.......as its TBD today, as to what will replace the Super Hornets in RAAF service........if I were to guess, based on the recently awarded sub contract worth zillions, I'll go with SLCM for $1000 Alex

well - they will need to substantiate those submarine purchases... and those wascally Chinese make them a tad nervous - but at the expense of F-35s? Say it ain't so!

.

[Derek 2.0]

increased difficulty and caused delays? That's as far as you're willing to go? It's not really a contentious point is it? JSF design, as is, wouldn't be as is, if not compromised by the Marines STOVL requirement. There's legions of articles written on the constraints caused by the compromised design... I mean, you can certainly choose to ignore it. You know, the so-called, "jack-of-all-trades but master of none"!

.

And that is my point, without a doubt, the STOVL requirement as required by the Clinton Administration, added to the costs and delays in the early stages of the program, nearly resulting in the STOVL being cancelled...........over course, the physical engineering difficulties are now largely in the past, with remaining hurdles being that of software.