3900 replies to this topic

[waldo]

Yes really! That's why we need to wait to buy Chinese j20s instead of f35s! 80 j20s will fare much better against thousands of enemy j20s than 65 f35s will! I know it's hard to keep up with ghosthack's (or any other lefty's) deeply flawed logic!

good to know - we'll put you into MLW member 'PorchDog's', 'RedMenace under your bed/in your closet' grouping. By the way, how torn/conflicted are you that Harper Conservatives are selling the oilsands farm to the Chineeeese!

Edited by waldo, 09 May 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[DogOnPorch]

bilbo: good to know - we'll put you into MLW member 'PorchDog's', 'RedMenace under your bed/in your closet' grouping.

Now here's a guy that thinks ICBMs vanished with the Berlin Wall.

[waldo]

I suspect a few of them think 'Lightning' and 'Raptor' (et al) are characters in the movie 'The Avengers'.

are you Maverick... or Goose?

[waldo]

Now here's a guy that thinks ICBMs vanished with the Berlin Wall.

perfect! We're finally back on track... where you finish your story about the F-35 going up against... and taking down... the Russian RS-24 ICBMs!

[Smallc]

uhhh... who's counting?

It's okay to be wrong, you know. 6 + 1.

btw, still waiting on that citation support to your claim that, "DND equates the operational costs of the F-35 and the CF-18.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/politics/story/2012/05/01/pol-fighter-jet-committee.html

Those decision-making documents included estimates of $9 billion to buy the F-35 fighter jets and $5.7 billion to sustain them for 20 years, Fonberg said. Cabinet was advised that operating costs were estimated to be similar to the CF-18s, about $10 billion.

Edited by Smallc, 09 May 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[waldo]

of course, those DND numbers haven't been scrutinized/challenged!!! No, not at all... but c'mon Smallc, nothing to say about the Pentagon's F-35 number, about the flying cost per hour, about the $32,500 per hour cost? Nothing to say about that?

[GostHacked]

[quote name='Smallc' date='09 May 2012 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1336581367' post='793616']
Which changes nothing. [/quote]

At the moment it does not change anything, you are correct.



[quote]It was never such.[/quote]

Actually it was. The numbers were hidden to low ball the whole deal. That is not the first time our government has done that kind of thing.

[quote]It depends whose airspace you were fighting over. They would win there, and we would win here, quite easily. Also, we won't have 65 combat aircraft, we'll have 48, as we do now.[/quote]

Ahh .. so now from 65 down to 48 ... how low can we go? So now the price keeps getting higher, and the number of units is getting lower. Sure what a deal.

[quote]And what makes you think that they can win here, against NORAD?[/quote]

I did not say they could win, I did mention that China is heavily ramping up their military.

Your logic is nonsensical. Also, the SVTOL version has serious drawbacks for us.
[/quote]

The SVTOL would benefit us in so many ways as I stated before. No need for large runways, or large facilities. All these planes can be refueled from the air, so range is no longer an issue. The money spend on getting the better version, would allow some reductions in facilities to accommodate the fighters.

If an enemy trashed your runways (which will happen) .. you are going to be happy that the SVTOLS were bought. Proof was the Falkland Island War. The Harriers were KEY to winning that war because of the bombed out runways.

Ahahah we are paying 2x as much for now 2/3s of the original order ... and MY logic is flawed?

[Smallc]

of course, those DND numbers haven't been scrutinized/challenged!!! No, not at all...

Of course they have. No one knows the firm, comparable numbers yet.

[Smallc]

Actually it was.

The cost hasn't changed.

Ahh .. so now from 65 down to 48 ... how low can we go? So now the price keeps getting higher, and the number of units is getting lower. Sure what a deal.

We're buying 65. As of right now, this minute, we have 48 aircraft in combat squadrons. The government announced that it will continue with that same number of F-35s

Ahahah we are paying 2x as much for now 2/3s of the original order ... and MY logic is flawed?

Since you missed most of the points, yes, definitely.

[waldo]

Of course they have. No one knows the firm, comparable numbers yet.

as much as this is an encouraging sign to read you actually admitting costs are unknown, costs aren't a consideration for you... are they? Whatever it costs... it costs, right?

[waldo]

The cost hasn't changed.

you mean... the unknown cost hasn't changed, right?

Of course they have. No one knows the firm, comparable numbers yet.

[Smallc]

as much as this is an encouraging sign to read you actually admitting costs are unknown, costs aren't a consideration for you... are they? Whatever it costs... it costs, right?

There is definitely a limit, but since there isn't another comparable aircraft for a similar price...pretty much.

[waldo]

There is definitely a limit, but since there isn't another comparable aircraft for a similar price...pretty much.

comparable? Just what do you have... to compare? Again, as I'm aware, actual program testing is at about the 20% level. When I pointed this out to MLW member 'Derek L', he pretty much shrugged it off and offered up a blinding trust of the "Military Industrial Complex"!

when you read the latest damning 2011 annual report of the U.S. DOT&E... again... just what do you have to compare?

Operational Assessment

• The JSF Operational Test Team completed an operational assessment of the F-35 program and determined that it is not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements. The JSF Operational Test Team assessed the program based on measured and predicted performance against requirements from the JSF Operational Requirements Document, which was re-validated in 2009.

• The primary operational effectiveness deficiencies include poor performance in the human systems integration (e.g. helmet-mounted display, night vision capability) and aircraft handling characteristics, as well as shortfalls in maneuvering performance (e.g. F-35A combat radius, which is a KPP, and F-35C acceleration).

• The driving operational suitability deficiencies include an inadequate Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) for deployed operations, excessive time for low observable maintenance repair and restoration capability, low reliability and poor maintainability performance, and deficient crypto key management and interface compatibility.

• The assessment was completed prior to release of an updated program integrated master schedule. While additional time and resources in development may aid the program in resolving some deficiencies, several requirements are not going to be met given current, known program plans. After the new master schedule is available, along with documentation of the application of the additional resources applied to SDD plans, an updated operational assessment may be provided.

[Derek L]

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...

It’s your skewed reference………..

[Derek L]

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!!!

Do you know what district Rep Akin represents? Missouri’s 2nd, which includes St Louis………..Do you know who one of the bigger employers in St Louis is? And did you know said big employer, will be ceasing production of their staple product from said plant……..So where’s your Russian?