3900 replies to this topic

[Derek L]

long overdue... based on past performance, it seems highly unlikely Lockheed Martin will be able to turn things around... on a dime, hey? In any case, cost is the last thing on your mind... you could care less. Whatever it costs, it costs - right?

I think punked or Cybercoma asked that very question of me several (dozen) pages back….

[Derek L]

I will gladly replay all your juvenile posts where your only resort in being unable to counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... is to denigrate the NATO Commander and his statements... because he's French. Do you really want those posts played back for you?

Not because he’s French, but because he’s stumping French products………Wanna see me do the like with a Russian or an American? Go find a Sukhoi or Boeing stooge with your Google-Fu………

[waldo]

I think punked or Cybercoma asked that very question of me several (dozen) pages back….

well, keep it to yourself then... cause I ain't going fishing for it. Speaking of fishing, this one must have slipped through your net - care to comment?

perhaps something you might take a chew on: I read an interesting critique on the proposed 65 number; an analysis that broke that down into how many would actually be in flying mode/state at any given time... and just how many 'bases' could be equipped across Canada, on a most minimalistic count basis. The analysis suggested 3 bases across Canada - total... with, essentially, a "bare bones" complement of active planes, revealing huge swaths of the country unable to be covered/reached. Of course, the essence of the analysis was to critique the 65 number as being woefully inadequate, particularly when compared to the original number of CF-18s purchased and the attrition rates. So... it seems not only is the F-35 a most questionable/dubious choice, on so many levels, it seems there's question as to whether 65 is even a number worth considering, given cost/delay/and "purpose".

[waldo]

Not because he’s French, but because he’s stumping French products………Wanna see me do the like with a Russian or an American? Go find a Sukhoi or Boeing stooge with your Google-Fu………

BS - own your posts man... own them!

[waldo]

or this post... guess you (conveniently) missed it too, hey? No biggee, right MLW member 'Derek L'?

per the previously linked (recently released) Pentagon F-35 SAR:

cost per piano-flying hour for the F-35-A... in "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars): a whopping, fantabulous, wait for it... wait for it... $32,500 per hour (roughly $10,000 an hour more than the F-16)

no biggee, hey MLW member 'Derek L'?

[Derek L]

well, keep it to yourself then... cause I ain't going fishing for it. Speaking of fishing, this one must have slipped through your net - care to comment?

You heard incorrectly, the Current Hornets are based in two bases (Alberta & Quebec)……..As for our original purchase roughly doubling our planned F-35 purchase, during the 80s when we purchased them, we had double the requirements (Germany) and we had our own conversion (Training) squadron, which will account for the planned decrease in airframes with the F-35 purchase………To add, we never exercised our option on purchasing additional attrition Hornets in the late 80s, and in turn, our commitments were halved with the end of the Cold War.

[Derek L]

or this post... guess you (conveniently) missed it too, hey? No biggee, right MLW member 'Derek L'?

And the cost per hour of the CF-18 to contrast, since we don't operate the F-16?

[waldo]

And the cost per hour of the CF-18 to contrast, since we don't operate the F-16?

hardly the point - the Pentagon Report makes that direct comparison (F-35 versus F-16)... highlighting the incredulous F-35 increase over the F-16 per hour flying cost. Just impressing the point that the Pentagon pegs the F-35 at $32,500 per hour... is the point. If you'd like to chime in with an F-18 number...

[waldo]

oh my! Finally... performance based contract awards... you knew it just had to be coming.

Lockheed's Next F-35 Contracts tied to Actual Real Performance... Delivered!

You say that like it’s a bad thing, I’d think you’d champion such a performance based model

long overdue... based on past performance, it seems highly unlikely Lockheed Martin will be able to turn things around... on a dime, hey? In any case, cost is the last thing on your mind... you could care less. Whatever it costs, it costs - right?

speaking of performance based funding for Lockheed Martin... as opposed to the past funding on blind faith, the following just released letter is from U.S. GOP Rep. Todd Akin - a letter to his fellow House members in preparation for an amendment he is about to bring forward... an amendment to formally restrain Lockheed Martin funding until the F-35 Program Office delivers an actual "IOC date" (an Initial Operating Capability date). The IOC date, the date that has been shifted out now 4 times, the date the F-35 Program Office now refuses to provide... where it's actually stated it doesn't know, it has no idea for a new date... it won't even provide an estimate! Now, that's performance!!!

GOP Rep. Todd Akin in a letter to fellow House members:

Dear Colleague, The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, whose development has spanned three presidencies, is the Department of Defense’s most expensive acquisition program in history! On its current course, the program will cost the United States more than $1.5 trillion!

And we STILL do not know this aircraft’s Initial Operational Capability (IOC)? The IOC dates are the critical dates when the warfighter expects the capability promised by the acquisition program to be available. Compared to the current approved baseline from 2007, the total cost of this program has increased by nearly $119 billion. Full-rate production has been delayed 5 years, and IOC dates are now unsettled because of program uncertainties.

The program has changed its IOC dates four times already, but if DOD wants Congress to fund the program, they should give us an IOC. F-35 program boss Vice Adm. David Venlet told lawmakers he still does not have an estimate for when the F-35 will reach its IOC. GAO’s recent testimony gives an explanation: The program is not performing reliably enough for them to try to guess. “Until greater clarity is provided on the program’s path forward, the military services are likely to wait to commit to new initial operational capability dates,” the GAO said. It is not acceptable for a program the American taxpayer has already invested billions of dollars in to fail to give Congress fixed and firm IOC dates.

This is why I will be offering the following amendment during committee markup to the National Defense Authorization Act: The Akin amendment states that not more than 50 percent of procurement funds made available for a variant of such aircraft may be obligated or expended until the Secretary —

(1) establishes the initial operational capability date for such variant; and

(2) certifies to the congressional defense committees such date. This amendment will not harm the development of the program, but will only slow the actual buying of airframes if the DOD does not establish an IOC date.

Recognizing the difficulties inherent in any cutting edge program of this nature, I have personally counseled patience with the Joint Strike Fighter program in the past. But my patience has run out, and I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know when this aircraft will provide a return on our investment.

[GostHacked]

So when do we take delivery of the aircraft? Until we do, all the speculation of how this aircraft operates in exercises or real operations is still waiting to take off (very punny).

Until then, the cost of these things has essentially already doubled. The government admits they hid the numbers, they admit mistakes, and they admit it's a lot of freakin money.

Even if we have all 65 of these things.... it's not enough to cover the territory that is Canada. Too high of a cost for the number of aircraft we are getting.

I say we wait for the Chinese to complete the J-20 !!! We could buy 4x as many for half the price.

The USA is the only entity using 5th generation fighters, so by default, they already have the upper hand. And the F-22 is showing to have some small but yet critical issues (no oxygen feed to the pilots), and many are refusing to fly them, one incident took an F-22 pilots life because of the oxygen feed issue.

But if it's a case of numbers, 65 F-35s won't stand a chance against the multitude of Chinese made J-20s. Even if they are better.

Case in point was the tank situation in WWII. The German Panzers were really tough, and it was simply the sheer numbers of Shermans that were built and deployed that won the battles against the Germans.

[Smallc]

hardly the point - the Pentagon Report makes that direct comparison (F-35 versus F-16).

Because the one engine F-16 obviously has the same operating cost as the two engine F-18.

[Smallc]

Even if we have all 65 of these things.... it's not enough to cover the territory that is Canada. Too high of a cost for the number of aircraft we are getting.

Well, since we'll still be operating the same number of combat aircraft that we do now.....

[waldo]

Because the one engine F-16 obviously has the same operating cost as the two engine F-18.

I guess you don't have that F-18 number then, hey? But... again... not the salient point being made here. Highlighting the Pentagon cost to fly the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour... that's the point. But to you, that operational cost doesn't matter - you're one of those, "whatever it costs, it costs" guys, right?

[Smallc]

I guess you don't have that F-18 number then, hey? But... again... not the salient point being made here. Highlighting the Pentagon cost to fly the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour... that's the point. But to you, that operational cost doesn't matter - you're one of those, "whatever it costs, it costs" guys, right?

Since we don't have the operating cost of the F-18, I'm not sure how you can assume anything. DND is saying that the cost of operating the F-35 is very similar to the cost of operating the F-18.

Edited by Smallc, 09 May 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[waldo]

DND is saying that the cost of operating the F-35 is very similar to the cost of operating the F-18.

citation request

googly isn't that forthcoming at the moment... for now, I'll throw this one up - I trust your citation (and supporting detail) will shoot it down:

...a leaked slide from NAVAIR claimed that the F-35 — a plane originally sold on the premise that it will offer 5th-generation fighter performance with a low price tag — would be far more expensive to operate than the Navy and Marine Corps current crop of fighters?

That document claimed the Navy and Marines’F-35C carrier variant and F-35B short Take-off and vertical landing variant JSFs would cost $30,700 per hour to fly versus the $18,900 an hour that the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet cost to fly.

pending your update/correction, for now, I'll go with the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour // F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour. Wow! Quite the difference, hey? But again, the point being you don't seem to have an actual comment on the Pentagon figure of $32,500 an hour for the F-35! Apparently, to you... whatever it costs... it costs, right?