-- last month, AIN-- Gen Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, also referenced the discrete nature of the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), telling journalists he is “professionally appalled” that the F-35 and the F-22 can’t even swap data....
not hardly. but its news. so its up. my opinion remains the same if you check out my other articles today...this plane is raping the USMC with a cactus.
On a sidenote, everyone slams the B version as the black sheep of the three. But no one asks enough, why haven't the USAF and Navy go for a single type of F-35, the airforce version without tailhook and reinforced landing gear only. Navy planes you addapt easier to land vice versa harder.
They will never agree because the requirements are so different. Navy jets HAVE to be built to take the punishment of naval ops, USAF jets do not. At a minimum you would be adding 10-25 million in material cost alone per jet if you bought a unified design which would basically be a C without a hook (maybe).
An utter sense of desperation has forced the JSF cabal to offer news crumbs of "100% success" of initial simple tests on the carrier they've been aiming for since the first F-35C was rolled out from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility over five years ago, and now they give us on many media sources the F-35 flying with another loser, F-22. This is all necessary because the program is in a stall because of a faulty engine that as yet has no fix, software that is way behind schedule, and a late FY2014 limited production run (LRIP-8) that has been in the works for a year now but hasn't been contracted yet.
In spite of these failures the program plans two more limited production runs within the next six months, oddly enough, followed by a block-buy for a large quantity of planes in LRIP-11 next summer. That is beyond reason and would require a lot of foreign orders, which won't happen, but that's okay because a multi-year buy would be illegal anyhow because the plane is still in development until 2019, and the design is not fixed.
Meanwhile we have this photos of the F-35 planes flying around, as it that were a technological achievement.
1. Since when is 100% success a bad thing, or for that matter, when has it ever been done before on a carrier plane? To go along with that, when has night ops EVER been done on the first trip tot he boat?
2. The F135 fix is already being applied to the 19 SDD aircraft and is awaiting final approval before being applied to the Operational fleet.
3. The software is not keeping the F-35B from going IOC. The only thing that has been mentioned is potential "few" weeks delay for IOC as a "possibility". they said this with less than 10 months till F-35B IOC so I think they have a pretty good idea of any software issues.
4. LRIP Contracts are ALWAYS negotiated in the middle of the production run. This has more to do with the Pentagon's desire to know the costs more accurately rather than making assumptions at the beginning of the cycle.
5. Multi-year buys are only "illegal" for USG Services (hello, it's a US law, duh). Before you say "FMS does no allow a customer to pay less than the USG", they are not getting a discount. The law does not say that FMS customers have to pay the same price that the USG pays for the same product if they bought it for USG use. What it says is that the USG cannot buy a product and then sell it to an FMS customer at a price that is less than it just bought it for. The USG will buy the F-35s (at a multi-year discount) and then sell it to the FMS customer at the same price it just bought it for.
1. The point is, 100% of what? It was only the initial phase with two phases to go, not soon. 2. The engine fix has not been determined. The failure occurred because of excessive engine flex, and the plane destruction occurred because of the failure of the casing to contain the flying engine parts. Correction of these faults is not yet determined nor is it assured. It's been many months. 3. Kendall, yesterday, on software: As 3i and 2B finish up, we’re shifting resources to the 3F already. I think we’re going to have a delay in 3F that’s on the order of something like six months right now.--and it's always worse than they say. 4. "LRIP Contracts are ALWAYS negotiated in the middle of the production run." Wrong. 5. Multi-year buys require a stable design, which does not exist in the middle of the development program. 10 U.S. Code § 2306b - Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property (a) In General.— To the extent that funds are otherwise available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property whenever the head of that agency finds each of the following:... (4) That there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with such property are not excessive.
Bogdan, before he 'got religion': "But while a block buy could benefit international partners, the US would not be able to participate in such a buy due to acquisition rules barring a multi-year procurement until the jet enters full-rate production."
The F-35 Milestone C full production decision is scheduled for (it won't make it) 2019 according to the SAR. That's when development would end if the program meets the schedule (which it never has).
More on 4. They are not renegotiating anything on LRIP-8; they don't have a contract yet. LRIP-8
Sep 26, 2013 Lockheed and the Pentagon hope to reach agreement on pricing for an eighth batch of F-35 jets by early next year.
Dec 2013 Lockheed Martin submitted its initial Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 8 proposal . . Bogdan said he hoped to sign a contract by the end of May
Apr 8, 2014 Pentagon sees deal with Lockheed, Pratt on next F-35 lot by end May --etc etc all Summer and Fall
--Bogdan has now said "before Thanksgiving." They're in trouble and (naturally) they won't describe it.
1. 100% of what… um… every trap, no unintended bolters in 124 traps, including at night (night ops have never been done on a 1st trip before). What other naval fighter has that good of a record first time on a boat?
2. They are in the process of “fixing” all 19 SDD engines so they must have a pretty good idea of the exact cause and what it will take to fix it. By the end of December they plan on making it official. http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/10/31/f-35-engine-fix-coming-program-chief-says/
3. What Kendall said was that as of now, there is a potential 6 month delay in 3F IF nothing is done to address the shortfall. LM & the JPO have already said, this year, that software is their number one priority. An example of this that that in January of 2014, Gilmore said that the F-35B would take an ADDITIONAL 13 months (past the planed IOC) to get through the software and hardware testing. As of today, the official line is “a couple of weeks, maybe”. That's a hell of a lot better than 13 months.
4. I’ll have to research all the dates for the LRIPs later, have to run.
5. Read the law again, no agency is spending agency money for FMS jets. The law does not apply. You said it yourself, the US cannot participate but that does not stop Partner multi-year buys.
I’ll have to do 4 later, I have to go pick the kids up from school, later :)
1. A naval aircraft has to do more than trap, and we don't have a test report yet on how the CV did. Listening to JPO/LM on how the CV did is a waste of time, and it has NOTHING to do with how other aircraft performed. There is a lot of hard development left to do on the CV and it won't be done soon. But it hardly matters, obviously Navy doesn't want it, is why they are dragging it out. Three years to redesign a tailhook? . 2. There is not en engine fix yet. There is what Amy Butler accurately called a "work-around"--a temporary fix. Bogdan has promised a fix by the end of the year. (This year.) 3. Whenever the software is completed it will have to be tested, evaluated and approved. Don't hold your breath. "There's an awful lot of software on this program, it scares the heck out of me," said Bogdan of the jet's more than 10 million lines of software code. "It's the gorilla in the room." 4. LRIP's -- it's as I stated. The LRIP's are draggin' ass, and the hoped-for foreign sales looks dismal. To date, seven countries have bought 26 prototype planes, and they were crazy to do that. (I think they know it.) 5. FMS is not involved in the prohibition against multiyear purchases before a stable design, except wrongly by you.
debate the issues. personal attacks ARE NOT welcome (unless i'm doing it)....so having said that, what do you disagree with Eric about? his facts are solid. where is the factual error in his assessment? no fanboy talk. just facts. oh and start with this one. what program has gone on as long as the F-35 and not been cancelled outright? even if you're a supporter of the airplane (and i know you are), one thing is obvious. we should already be working on a successor for the F-35 if it had met its original schedule. since it hasn't, why are we delaying????especially in light of the work that potential adversaries have shown.
My main issue with ELP is that he drops one-liners with no backup. When he does link, it's to opinion pieces on his own site. Very little, if any, official sources for anything. It's mostly opinion pieces from other has-beens of history.
On the F-35, yes.. it has taken a LOOONG time, but the blame for which is to be shared between LM and the USG. Just because something is taking a long time, is not cause (in and of itself) for cancellation. It would have to be taking a long time and NOT having and end/plan in sight that is cause for cancellation.
Keep in mind that we would likely not be having this conversation if it would not for the market crash and general dive in the economy of the last decade. The US would have had more money to stabilize the development program closer to the original timeline rather then stretching it out by limiting the annual budgets.
btw, The Eorofighter and Rafale took virtually just as long to get to IOC, and they were a LOT less complex.
btw, They are only 5 years behind the IOC schedule and the is no way that they would already be spending money developing the F-35's replacement. Heck, we are almost 10 years after the F-22's IOC and it's replacement is more critical (since there is only 187 of them) yet there is no program for it's replacement. Sur3e, a few RFIs here an there, but nothing serious.
For that matter, what about the Superhornet's replacement (15 year's post-IOC)? Again, a few RFIs but nothing serious.
Yet, if Congress, foreign partners and top defense officials new 5-10 yrs ago that F-35 was to be delayed 5 yrs, be not as maneuverable/high-performing as originally advertised and cost as much as they now are costing today, F-35 would have likely been killed with a mix of next-gen recap alternatives being considered already.
By 2019, the F-35 will NOT be a similar 1-for-1 replacement for existing platforms, which in fact can carry more diverse game-changing weapons loads into battle providing superior deterrent and capability!
Staying with the 2019 F-35 path will only further exacerbate the already accelerating Tacair fighter gap. The F-35 path only accelerates the hollowing of the force structure and capabilities and only increases the illusion of deterrence. (Let alone being irrelevant without the F-22 flying alongside!)
And that translates to a major miscalculation and flawed acquisition process from inception.
Interesting Spud. Now, instead of being a fan for the program, actually look at the program history (minus press releases). Even if the aircraft works to the joint operational requirement (JORD), it will get shot down vs. emerging threats. It has also failed its one main justification for being alive: to be an affordable redap of US tac-air in large numbers. That is not going to happen either. As for blaming the economy. Interesting. The F-35 program has had (except for a few small times) uninterrupted funding. The program is being delayed because DJ Marky Mark and the fantasy creators, didn't (and still do not) have their shit sorted. And not by a little bit.
he can't or rather refuses to Eric. to take a serious look at this program and then to acknowledge the fact that you were wrong about it (take this from someone who knows) is a kick in the guts. its to realize that not only were you wrong in your estimation but to realize that you were being used as a dope...a useful idiot is something that no one wants to admit.
understand that everyone in the Pentagon knows better. everyone in the Pentagon realizes that they've wasted money, but more importantly time and that the enemy has caught up with us. but if they were to admit it then they would have to tell the American people that they were wrong. that they fucked up. that they have put us in jeopardy over a bag full of promises that LM hasn't and probably never will be able to deliver. remember these are the same people that have lost two wars and are about to start ranting about putting US forces back on the ground in Iraq (again) and Syria!
you're asking people to have the character to be honest with themselves (most important) and then honest with others.
the people i'm talking about don't have the ability to do this and this crop of military leadership will go down in history as the sorriest group we've ever had.
Plus he like others probably reads Andrea Salal from Thomson Reuters, a financial house that no doubt has a nice "risk advisor" contract with Lockheed, and in turn Andrea gets Reuters "exclusives" on LRIP-8 "handshake" agreement, F35C 100% successful on Nimitz, and other such crapola. Her objective is to run up the stock price, which she does quite well, but in the meantime she convinces people like Spudman that he now knows something about F-35. Not.
Spudman, explain me well how come that the F-4 and A-7 have been very well adopted by USAF and other land based air forces , despite the fact that they were us navy jets. Not to mention A-4 and F-18. You're argument of the strenghten airframe of the C model does not hold.
I just wonder what are they planning to do once they launch all the amraams at pong range with out too much succes and they will become visual with super maneauverable airplanes fully loaded with IR Missiles
Andrea Shalal reported for Thomson Reuters-- (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy version of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet met 100 percent of the threshold requirements set for a first round of sea-based testing aboard the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier, Navy and Pentagon officials said on Monday.
First, these people don't have the authority to make these pronouncements. That's reserved for Dr, Gilmore at DOT&E which is the agency appointed to test and evaluate new acquisition systems.
Secondly, this is the typical PR BS we get from Andrea Shalal, who is tasked with pimping Lockheed stock. What are the "threshold requirements" that the jet met 100% of? Nobody knows. It's all BS, typical for this program.
Just like those pretty photos of the planes flying through the blue sky as their sponsors rake hundreds of billions of dollars out of taxpayers' pockets for this most expensive waste of money for a weapons system in US history.
wait one sec! i put up pics of Chinese aircraft and i'm never accused of endorsing their products. i've posted vile images that ISIS puts out and i'm never accused of supporting their cause. my pages are littered with armored vehicles from many countries and i'm never thought of as endorsing them.
so why all the butt hurt because i post pics of the F-35! my stance is still that its raping the Marine Corps! my thoughts haven't been changed but because i post them i supposedly endorse it now???
Sorry, Sol, I'm in a mood to go after anyone providing PR for this terrible program. These same photos, or some like them, all all over right now and I go after as many as I can, anywhere. Anywhere.
And I'm not pickin on you, I'm just providing some balance, which you gave me the opportunity to do. So that's the good side, the opportunity to blast this miserable program, and set straight misinformed readers.
What's this, Solomon 2.0 the Lockheed flack? :-)
ReplyDelete-- last month, AIN--
Gen Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, also referenced the discrete nature of the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), telling journalists he is “professionally appalled” that the F-35 and the F-22 can’t even swap data....
not hardly. but its news. so its up. my opinion remains the same if you check out my other articles today...this plane is raping the USMC with a cactus.
DeleteBACN
ReplyDeleteOn a sidenote, everyone slams the B version as the black sheep of the three.
ReplyDeleteBut no one asks enough, why haven't the USAF and Navy go for a single type of F-35, the airforce version without tailhook and reinforced landing gear only.
Navy planes you addapt easier to land vice versa harder.
The C is VERY expensive due to all the extra strengthening that has been done throughout the airframe.
DeleteThen there's the issue of no internal gun. Remove the tank to put back the gun and you lose range.
Don't forget the better acceleration of the A vs the C.
VERY expensive = $384 million dollars for one
DeleteIt's a Dodo, except it can fly..
Above i wanted to say , that AF and navy could have agreed to the same aerodynamic configuration .
DeleteThey will never agree because the requirements are so different. Navy jets HAVE to be built to take the punishment of naval ops, USAF jets do not. At a minimum you would be adding 10-25 million in material cost alone per jet if you bought a unified design which would basically be a C without a hook (maybe).
DeleteSo how come they made it work with the AF and Navy versions of the F-4 and A-7?
DeleteStructural things i mean ???
An utter sense of desperation has forced the JSF cabal to offer news crumbs of "100% success" of initial simple tests on the carrier they've been aiming for since the first F-35C was rolled out from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility over five years ago, and now they give us on many media sources the F-35 flying with another loser, F-22. This is all necessary because the program is in a stall because of a faulty engine that as yet has no fix, software that is way behind schedule, and a late FY2014 limited production run (LRIP-8) that has been in the works for a year now but hasn't been contracted yet.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of these failures the program plans two more limited production runs within the next six months, oddly enough, followed by a block-buy for a large quantity of planes in LRIP-11 next summer. That is beyond reason and would require a lot of foreign orders, which won't happen, but that's okay because a multi-year buy would be illegal anyhow because the plane is still in development until 2019, and the design is not fixed.
Meanwhile we have this photos of the F-35 planes flying around, as it that were a technological achievement.
Wow, where to start...
Delete1. Since when is 100% success a bad thing, or for that matter, when has it ever been done before on a carrier plane? To go along with that, when has night ops EVER been done on the first trip tot he boat?
2. The F135 fix is already being applied to the 19 SDD aircraft and is awaiting final approval before being applied to the Operational fleet.
3. The software is not keeping the F-35B from going IOC. The only thing that has been mentioned is potential "few" weeks delay for IOC as a "possibility". they said this with less than 10 months till F-35B IOC so I think they have a pretty good idea of any software issues.
4. LRIP Contracts are ALWAYS negotiated in the middle of the production run. This has more to do with the Pentagon's desire to know the costs more accurately rather than making assumptions at the beginning of the cycle.
5. Multi-year buys are only "illegal" for USG Services (hello, it's a US law, duh). Before you say "FMS does no allow a customer to pay less than the USG", they are not getting a discount. The law does not say that FMS customers have to pay the same price that the USG pays for the same product if they bought it for USG use. What it says is that the USG cannot buy a product and then sell it to an FMS customer at a price that is less than it just bought it for. The USG will buy the F-35s (at a multi-year discount) and then sell it to the FMS customer at the same price it just bought it for.
1. The point is, 100% of what? It was only the initial phase with two phases to go, not soon.
Delete2. The engine fix has not been determined. The failure occurred because of excessive engine flex, and the plane destruction occurred because of the failure of the casing to contain the flying engine parts. Correction of these faults is not yet determined nor is it assured. It's been many months.
3. Kendall, yesterday, on software: As 3i and 2B finish up, we’re shifting resources to the 3F already. I think we’re going to have a delay in 3F that’s on the order of something like six months right now.--and it's always worse than they say.
4. "LRIP Contracts are ALWAYS negotiated in the middle of the production run." Wrong.
5. Multi-year buys require a stable design, which does not exist in the middle of the development program.
10 U.S. Code § 2306b - Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property
(a) In General.— To the extent that funds are otherwise available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property whenever the head of that agency finds each of the following:...
(4) That there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with such property are not excessive.
Bogdan, before he 'got religion': "But while a block buy could benefit international partners, the US would not be able to participate in such a buy due to acquisition rules barring a multi-year procurement until the jet enters full-rate production."
The F-35 Milestone C full production decision is scheduled for (it won't make it) 2019 according to the SAR. That's when development would end if the program meets the schedule (which it never has).
More on 4.
DeleteThey are not renegotiating anything on LRIP-8; they don't have a contract yet.
LRIP-8
Sep 26, 2013
Lockheed and the Pentagon hope to reach agreement on pricing for an eighth batch of F-35 jets by early next year.
Dec 2013
Lockheed Martin submitted its initial Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 8 proposal . . Bogdan said he hoped to sign a contract by the end of May
Apr 8, 2014
Pentagon sees deal with Lockheed, Pratt on next F-35 lot by end May --etc etc all Summer and Fall
--Bogdan has now said "before Thanksgiving." They're in trouble and (naturally) they won't describe it.
1. 100% of what… um… every trap, no unintended bolters in 124 traps, including at night (night ops have never been done on a 1st trip before). What other naval fighter has that good of a record first time on a boat?
Delete2. They are in the process of “fixing” all 19 SDD engines so they must have a pretty good idea of the exact cause and what it will take to fix it. By the end of December they plan on making it official.
http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/10/31/f-35-engine-fix-coming-program-chief-says/
3. What Kendall said was that as of now, there is a potential 6 month delay in 3F IF nothing is done to address the shortfall. LM & the JPO have already said, this year, that software is their number one priority. An example of this that that in January of 2014, Gilmore said that the F-35B would take an ADDITIONAL 13 months (past the planed IOC) to get through the software and hardware testing. As of today, the official line is “a couple of weeks, maybe”. That's a hell of a lot better than 13 months.
4. I’ll have to research all the dates for the LRIPs later, have to run.
5. Read the law again, no agency is spending agency money for FMS jets. The law does not apply. You said it yourself, the US cannot participate but that does not stop Partner multi-year buys.
I’ll have to do 4 later, I have to go pick the kids up from school, later :)
1. A naval aircraft has to do more than trap, and we don't have a test report yet on how the CV did. Listening to JPO/LM on how the CV did is a waste of time, and it has NOTHING to do with how other aircraft performed. There is a lot of hard development left to do on the CV and it won't be done soon. But it hardly matters, obviously Navy doesn't want it, is why they are dragging it out. Three years to redesign a tailhook? .
Delete2. There is not en engine fix yet. There is what Amy Butler accurately called a "work-around"--a temporary fix. Bogdan has promised a fix by the end of the year. (This year.)
3. Whenever the software is completed it will have to be tested, evaluated and approved. Don't hold your breath. "There's an awful lot of software on this program, it scares the heck out of me," said Bogdan of the jet's more than 10 million lines of software code. "It's the gorilla in the room."
4. LRIP's -- it's as I stated. The LRIP's are draggin' ass, and the hoped-for foreign sales looks dismal. To date, seven countries have bought 26 prototype planes, and they were crazy to do that. (I think they know it.)
5. FMS is not involved in the prohibition against multiyear purchases before a stable design, except wrongly by you.
And now, the rest of the story. -- http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/5th-generation-failure.html
ReplyDeleteAhhh, the Drive-by Blogger strikes again ;)
Deletedebate the issues. personal attacks ARE NOT welcome (unless i'm doing it)....so having said that, what do you disagree with Eric about? his facts are solid. where is the factual error in his assessment? no fanboy talk. just facts. oh and start with this one. what program has gone on as long as the F-35 and not been cancelled outright? even if you're a supporter of the airplane (and i know you are), one thing is obvious. we should already be working on a successor for the F-35 if it had met its original schedule. since it hasn't, why are we delaying????especially in light of the work that potential adversaries have shown.
DeleteMy main issue with ELP is that he drops one-liners with no backup. When he does link, it's to opinion pieces on his own site. Very little, if any, official sources for anything. It's mostly opinion pieces from other has-beens of history.
DeleteOn the F-35, yes.. it has taken a LOOONG time, but the blame for which is to be shared between LM and the USG. Just because something is taking a long time, is not cause (in and of itself) for cancellation. It would have to be taking a long time and NOT having and end/plan in sight that is cause for cancellation.
Keep in mind that we would likely not be having this conversation if it would not for the market crash and general dive in the economy of the last decade. The US would have had more money to stabilize the development program closer to the original timeline rather then stretching it out by limiting the annual budgets.
btw, The Eorofighter and Rafale took virtually just as long to get to IOC, and they were a LOT less complex.
btw, They are only 5 years behind the IOC schedule and the is no way that they would already be spending money developing the F-35's replacement. Heck, we are almost 10 years after the F-22's IOC and it's replacement is more critical (since there is only 187 of them) yet there is no program for it's replacement. Sur3e, a few RFIs here an there, but nothing serious.
DeleteFor that matter, what about the Superhornet's replacement (15 year's post-IOC)? Again, a few RFIs but nothing serious.
Damn my fingers.. why can't we edit??? ;)
DeleteYet, if Congress, foreign partners and top defense officials new 5-10 yrs ago that F-35 was to be delayed 5 yrs, be not as maneuverable/high-performing as originally advertised and cost as much as they now are costing today, F-35 would have likely been killed with a mix of next-gen recap alternatives being considered already.
DeleteBy 2019, the F-35 will NOT be a similar 1-for-1 replacement for existing platforms, which in fact can carry more diverse game-changing weapons loads into battle providing superior deterrent and capability!
Staying with the 2019 F-35 path will only further exacerbate the already accelerating Tacair fighter gap. The F-35 path only accelerates the hollowing of the force structure and capabilities and only increases the illusion of deterrence. (Let alone being irrelevant without the F-22 flying alongside!)
And that translates to a major miscalculation and flawed acquisition process from inception.
Interesting Spud. Now, instead of being a fan for the program, actually look at the program history (minus press releases). Even if the aircraft works to the joint operational requirement (JORD), it will get shot down vs. emerging threats. It has also failed its one main justification for being alive: to be an affordable redap of US tac-air in large numbers. That is not going to happen either. As for blaming the economy. Interesting. The F-35 program has had (except for a few small times) uninterrupted funding. The program is being delayed because DJ Marky Mark and the fantasy creators, didn't (and still do not) have their shit sorted. And not by a little bit.
ReplyDeletehe can't or rather refuses to Eric. to take a serious look at this program and then to acknowledge the fact that you were wrong about it (take this from someone who knows) is a kick in the guts. its to realize that not only were you wrong in your estimation but to realize that you were being used as a dope...a useful idiot is something that no one wants to admit.
Deleteunderstand that everyone in the Pentagon knows better. everyone in the Pentagon realizes that they've wasted money, but more importantly time and that the enemy has caught up with us. but if they were to admit it then they would have to tell the American people that they were wrong. that they fucked up. that they have put us in jeopardy over a bag full of promises that LM hasn't and probably never will be able to deliver. remember these are the same people that have lost two wars and are about to start ranting about putting US forces back on the ground in Iraq (again) and Syria!
you're asking people to have the character to be honest with themselves (most important) and then honest with others.
the people i'm talking about don't have the ability to do this and this crop of military leadership will go down in history as the sorriest group we've ever had.
Plus he like others probably reads Andrea Salal from Thomson Reuters, a financial house that no doubt has a nice "risk advisor" contract with Lockheed, and in turn Andrea gets Reuters "exclusives" on LRIP-8 "handshake" agreement, F35C 100% successful on Nimitz, and other such crapola. Her objective is to run up the stock price, which she does quite well, but in the meantime she convinces people like Spudman that he now knows something about F-35. Not.
DeleteSpudman, explain me well how come that the F-4 and A-7 have been very well adopted by USAF and other land based air forces , despite the fact that they were us navy jets.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention A-4 and F-18.
You're argument of the strenghten airframe of the C model does not hold.
I just wonder what are they planning to do once they launch all the amraams at pong range with out too much succes and they will become visual with super maneauverable airplanes fully loaded with IR Missiles
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/VG-pywjuPvQ
Prayer?
DeleteThey talk about the going out, but not about the coming back with the largest, hottest fighter engine ever acting as a glowing target.
Sure, they will pray for the Super Hornets and Eagles to come in time
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n7PwSZHCP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT9QG4PIAX8
Remember the projected CV distribution includes Marine Corps.
ReplyDeleteNavy - 260
Marines - 80
Andrea Shalal reported for Thomson Reuters--
ReplyDelete(Reuters) - The U.S. Navy version of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet met 100 percent of the threshold requirements set for a first round of sea-based testing aboard the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier, Navy and Pentagon officials said on Monday.
First, these people don't have the authority to make these pronouncements. That's reserved for Dr, Gilmore at DOT&E which is the agency appointed to test and evaluate new acquisition systems.
Secondly, this is the typical PR BS we get from Andrea Shalal, who is tasked with pimping Lockheed stock. What are the "threshold requirements" that the jet met 100% of? Nobody knows. It's all BS, typical for this program.
Just like those pretty photos of the planes flying through the blue sky as their sponsors rake hundreds of billions of dollars out of taxpayers' pockets for this most expensive waste of money for a weapons system in US history.
wait one sec! i put up pics of Chinese aircraft and i'm never accused of endorsing their products. i've posted vile images that ISIS puts out and i'm never accused of supporting their cause. my pages are littered with armored vehicles from many countries and i'm never thought of as endorsing them.
Deleteso why all the butt hurt because i post pics of the F-35! my stance is still that its raping the Marine Corps! my thoughts haven't been changed but because i post them i supposedly endorse it now???
Sorry, Sol, I'm in a mood to go after anyone providing PR for this terrible program. These same photos, or some like them, all all over right now and I go after as many as I can, anywhere. Anywhere.
DeleteAnd I'm not pickin on you, I'm just providing some balance, which you gave me the opportunity to do. So that's the good side, the opportunity to blast this miserable program, and set straight misinformed readers.