Skyraider Maniac Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Some jobs "require" union membership (at a past job I've been an "unprotected employee" by not paying union dues. Guess why I didn't want to pay?). As an "unprotected employee" I was involved an a "he said, she said" case. Can you guess what happened? Yup, I was shown the door becuase that particular company reserved the right to terminate any employee without notice or specific reasoning. There are politics at all levels of employment. Aaron Not every job out there - even now - has politics; granted, many do, but not all. I too worked for a company as an unprotected employee - never had a problem myself, but it's a chance you take I suppose. There are plenty of companies out there without unions, and I'll happily work for those. That one job I did work unprotected, I was continually harassed by the union rep to join - its outright Gestapo like. I ignored him and had a great time there - but I'll have nothing to do with them (unions) ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Not every job out there - even now - has politics; granted, many do, but not all. I too worked for a company as an unprotected employee - never had a problem myself, but it's a chance you take I suppose. There are plenty of companies out there without unions, and I'll happily work for those. That one job I did work unprotected, I was continually harassed by the union rep to join - its outright Gestapo like. I ignored him and had a great time there - but I'll have nothing to do with them (unions) ever. Arguing Pro vs Anti Union will get this thread nowhere... Like most things in life there is good and bad in both cases. For labour be it union or not most benefits and general work safety issues were a result of unions and not otherwise. That said progressive businesses take on risk and in doing so create jobs, hopefully good paying ones with fair benefits. Any business though that got a union got it because it deserved it. Generally in life be it social or business, meeting in the middle is where we all typically gravitate towards if we wan't civility and decency. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Agreed Les ... I posted the strike article because of it's affect on the program in general, not to discuss whether or not Unions are good or bad ... <break> >>> Neato <<< >>> In other news ...<<< -Gregg Edited April 25, 2012 by GreyGhost Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 It is old news on concurrency, but the GAO report makes it official. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's top weapons purchaser, said in February that the plan to buy the F-35 was so flawed it amounted to "acquisition malpractice." "I can spend quite a few minutes on the F-35, but I don't want to," Kendall said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Putting the F-35 into production years before the first test flight was acquisition malpractice, OK? It should not have been done, OK? But we did it." In a report last month, the GAO found that the Pentagon had taken steps to reduce concurrency with the F-35 by delaying the purchase of some planes, but that had predictably increased the overall cost of the program. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Looks like we might not have learned anything from the February 20th, 1959 incident. The majority of politicians and the public aren't knowledgable about the military aviation industry. They look at it purely as like buying a car. They don't understand that the F-35 or similar aircraft would have a very long service life which would save money since a fill the gap temporary fighter wouldn't be needed. The Super Hornet will merely be that stop gap very much like the F-101B/F Voodoos were for the RCAF; an unfortunately very long stop gap. The Canadian might have purchased the F-101B/F by accidently and it turned out to be an excellent fit for the country's defense need over an extended period of time. You cannot count on luck everytime. The Super Hornet is planned to have a very long service life by the US Navy. It is supposed to serve along side the F-35 to beyond 2030, in fleet defense, attack and electronic warfare role. The US Navy just decided recently that the Super Hornet/Growler will be the sole platform for its Next Generation Jammer. The Canadian force may not be able to afford two aircraft types like the US Navy do. And yes, the F-35 is a shiner, newer aircraft. But it was never clear that the F-35 is a better fit when effectiveness and economics is taken into consideration. Canada can probably buy 50 more super hornet than F-35 and still save money and defend the vast country better. It was not the case at the beginning of the F-35 program when the F-35 WAS projected to cost about the same as the super hornet. It is no longer true. No, it not pure politics. Is the F-35 a more advanced and powerful fighter than the Super Hornet? Yes, in air superority and fleet defense role. No, in close ground support. Is the F-35 a one size fits all solution for all fighting forces? Probably not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 The Super Hornet is planned to have a very long service life by the US Navy. It is supposed to serve along side the F-35 to beyond 2030, in fleet defense, attack and electronic warfare role. The US Navvy just decided recently that the Super Hornet/Growler will be the sole platform for its Next Generation Jammer. That is not an accurate statement. The Growler is the current platform because it is the only available, not the sole platform. There are plans to incorporate NGJ on F-35, but they are unfunded block 4/5 plans. Given the greater range and loiter of the F-35, it makes sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 How boring will things be, when everyone is using one aircraft for everything... :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 How boring will things be, when everyone is using one aircraft for everything... :( Don't worry, there will always be several types. F-35 and F-22 for fighters, Flankers for target practice... ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) How boring will things be, when everyone is using one aircraft for everything... :( It's the natural progression of things. Given the incredible complexity of a cutting edge fighter, it's ever increasing cost and the corresponding decrease in the number of aircraft that nations can afford to purchase, this contraction of the industry will only continue. Look at how many firms were designing and building jet fighters 40 years ago. Then compare that number to today. If you extrapolate a bit further, we will probably be left with only a couple of joint ventures in the west and at best another one in Russia and a 4th in China. Maybe at some point, you will be correct. This progression will take the ultimate step and we will have a single global mega-corporation that sells the same product to all nations. Edited April 25, 2012 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondback Six Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Look at how many firms were designing and building jet fighters 40 years ago. Then compare that number to today. If you extrapolate a bit further, we will probably be left with only a couple of joint ventures in the west and at best another one in Russia and a 4th in China. Maybe at some point, you will be correct. This progression will take the ultimate step and we will have a single global mega-corporation that sells the same product to all nations. And a single outsourced global military hiring personnel and hardware out to the various governments, taking the idea to its loical conclusion... Joseph Heller wrote this one, HOW long ago now? LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 >>> Article <<< Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) >>> Article <<< Gregg Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said officials were assessing the impact of the strike on development and production, but test flights would continue at Edwards Air Force Base and the Maryland naval air base. It seems to be the best way to correct the problem of concurrency. Edited April 26, 2012 by Kei Lau Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 CANBERRA, May 3 (Reuters) - Australia will delay orders for its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighters to help with budget savings, the government said on Thursday, in the latest setback for the long-delayed and over-budget international project. Defence Minister Stephen Smith said a decision on when to take delivery of the 12 stealth aircraft would be pushed back two years, putting Australia on the same timetable as the United States, which has also delayed initial purchases. Wonder if that means another small purchase of F-18F's? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 CANBERRA, May 3 (Reuters) - Australia will delay orders for its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighters to help with budget savings, the government said on Thursday, in the latest setback for the long-delayed and over-budget international project. Defence Minister Stephen Smith said a decision on when to take delivery of the 12 stealth aircraft would be pushed back two years, putting Australia on the same timetable as the United States, which has also delayed initial purchases. Wonder if that means another small purchase of F-18F's? In light of the anouncement last month on Australia’s Super Hornet to EA-18G Growler conversion moves ahead, I would say that the possibility is high. The RAAF would want to replace those 18 F/A-18F which are becoming the Growler. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 CANBERRA, May 3 (Reuters) - Australia will delay orders for its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighters to help with budget savings, the government said on Thursday, in the latest setback for the long-delayed and over-budget international project. Defence Minister Stephen Smith said a decision on when to take delivery of the 12 stealth aircraft would be pushed back two years, putting Australia on the same timetable as the United States, which has also delayed initial purchases. Wonder if that means another small purchase of F-18F's? I don't know. Speaking with a friend of mine in the RAAF, he suggests that the initial buy of F/A-18Es was for the premature F-111 retirement, not the F-35 delays. The next wave of replacements would be for the F/A-18s, but they might try to go down the Canada route and just extend the life of current aircraft for a couple of years instead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I don't know. Speaking with a friend of mine in the RAAF, he suggests that the initial buy of F/A-18Es was for the premature F-111 retirement, not the F-35 delays. The next wave of replacements would be for the F/A-18s, but they might try to go down the Canada route and just extend the life of current aircraft for a couple of years instead. Thought I read that the Aussie legacy Hornets were really on their last legs and would need a very expensive re-set if the JSF schedule got pushed back. Wondering if they wouldn't look at some sort of lease arraignment for some SH's to fill the slots until the JSF comes on line? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 In light of the anouncement last month on Australia’s Super Hornet to EA-18G Growler conversion moves ahead, I would say that the possibility is high. The RAAF would want to replace those 18 F/A-18F which are becoming the Growler. Or may be not. F-35 vs F/A-18E/F: Australia Punts on Both Defense Minister Stephen Smith also had bad news for Boeing. "My current advice is that the life of type of our 71 classic Hornets and our 24 Super Hornets is sufficient for our air combat capability,†while acknowledging the issue was still under study and a decision will be taken by year-end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Thought I read that the Aussie legacy Hornets were really on their last legs and would need a very expensive re-set if the JSF schedule got pushed back. Wondering if they wouldn't look at some sort of lease arraignment for some SH's to fill the slots until the JSF comes on line? I'm not deeply familiar with the RAAF but I suspect their Hornets have not been worked significantly harder than Canadian CF-18s. in Canada and the same things were said about the fighter's lifecycle... until the government said they could be extended for a couple of years. They just released a tender for deeper maintenance on the fleet, so it looks like they are going to try to tough it out. http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/05/04/minister-for-defence-materiel-release-of-tender-deeper-maintenance-for-the-raaf-classic-hornet-fleet/ Also leasing is expensive... there are alot of costs incurred that are in excess of trying to coax a couple of extra years out of an older airframe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Very interesting article over on Flight Global about some USN in-fighting on the JSF program. This was especially fascinating: The USN simply does not have the money to pay for F/A-XX. With the USN's ship-building budgets squeezed, Gardner says that naval aviation accounts will likely end up being raided to help pay for submarines and surface ships. The only place the money can come from is from within the F-35 programme, Gardner says. "There is a community over there that says 'let's just skip the F-35C, let's just keep buying F/A-18s and we'll go and develop this other airplane,'" he says. For more: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-official-raises-fa-xx-doubts-while-retired-usmc-generals-question-usns-f-35-commitment-371442/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) An argument against UK reverting to F-35B STOVL. Flight International test pilot Peter Collins - a former military fast jet pilot and test pilot with past experience on the Harrier GR3, Sea Harrier FRS1 (on HMS Illustrious) and the UK's experimental VAAC Harrier, built to aid the development of the F-35B's flight control laws - used the opportunity to assess whether a flat-deck aircraft carrier could be considered an "airfield at sea", and in any way compare to the operations of a land-based, air force wing. He spent seven days on board the US Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carrier the USS John C Stennis (CVN 74). His visit was also intended to highlight some of the challenges that the RN and Fleet Air Arm will face as they prepare to introduce future carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, particularly if the F-35C is retained. Establishing a large deck carrier capability with US-style complexity cannot be 'worked up' by using helicopters as an initial option. This means that a decision to keep with the F-35C and converting at least one of the RN's Queen Elizabeth-class ships could be ably supported by using an interim fixed-wing type, most probably leased. Such a requirement could come down to a straight choice between the F/A-18E/F or Dassault's Rafale M, with the latter considered due to the UK's strengthened military co-operation with France. Both are affordable and capable multi-role aircraft which are available and flying operationally from carrier decks today, and could fill any gap in capability should the F-35C be delayed further. A decision to revert to the STOVL F-35B would pose more of a challenge, with the UK having already retired its Harrier GR7/9 fleet and sold the surplus aircraft to provide spares for the US Marine Corps. Edited May 4, 2012 by Kei Lau Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Very interesting article over on Flight Global about some USN in-fighting on the JSF program. This was especially fascinating: The USN simply does not have the money to pay for F/A-XX. With the USN's ship-building budgets squeezed, Gardner says that naval aviation accounts will likely end up being raided to help pay for submarines and surface ships. The only place the money can come from is from within the F-35 programme, Gardner says. "There is a community over there that says 'let's just skip the F-35C, let's just keep buying F/A-18s and we'll go and develop this other airplane,'" he says. For more: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-official-raises-fa-xx-doubts-while-retired-usmc-generals-question-usns-f-35-commitment-371442/ Lunch at your finest drive through window says Boeing is about to be a very, very happy camper. This monster is consuming 38% of our total acquisitions budget, it's outta control. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Lunch at your finest drive through window says Boeing is about to be a very, very happy camper. This monster is consuming 38% of our total acquisitions budget, it's outta control. FTFA: "That's very dangerous for the carrier because it makes the carrier irrelevant. They are not going to have first-day capability. I'm absolutely convinced that if you do not have stealth by the year 2022 to 2025 you will be irrelevant."Lt Gen George Trautman, a former USMC deputy commandant for aviation, concurs. "It sort of validates the naval aviators' overall lack of commitment to the F-35," he says. "It shows how much they're in bed with Boeing to include a whole host of retired navy aviators who work for Boeing. And it shows, frankly, their lack of commitment to unmanned systems." Gardner concurs that the USN's relationship with Boeing is playing a role in the service's push towards a new tactical fighter programme. "I think it's Boeing. There is a huge Boeing lobby in the navy," Gardner says. "That has a lot to do with it." That was a very interesting article and I thank you for posting it. So the Navy would buy super hornets to replace the legacies, then develop this aircraft and buy (FTFA) only 150 aircraft that would be in LRIP by 2030?? I honestly don't get it. How do only 150 aircraft supplant the Super Hornet? is there only going to be 4 carriers? Or is the 4.5 Gen Super bug going to in service for 5 decades? This is essentially the USN betting their future on a "paper Airplane" that every person in the article says they will never be able to fund. The F-35C might be the USN's last shot at a new airplane for a long, long time. "At best this would be some kind of exotic silver-bullet, one squadron per carrier, capability," Gardner says. "I think they ought to be focusing their intellectual as well as their financial resources on making the F-35C the airplane they want it to be."There are options to increase the F-35C's range, persistence and stealth, Gardner says. The F-35C would give the USN the volume it needs to recapitalize its tactical fighter force and keep it relevant against future threats, says Gardner-himself a former naval aviator. It would also allow the navy to recapitalize its tactical aviation fleet before the bill comes due to pay for a new USN ballistic missile submarine in the 2020s. "There is no clear need for the [F/A-XX] aircraft", Gardner says. "To be worthwhile it has to be sixth-gen, which no one even knows what that means," he says. Trautman says that the USN could argue that an F/A-XX is a hedge against a potential failure of the F-35C to deliver or that emerging threats justify the effort. The F-35, however, Gardner says, is superior to any potential threat for the foreseeable future. Trautman says that the USN might become more amenable to operating the F-35C once the first fleet aviators have a chance fly the jet. "What I predict will happen is that when the F-35C starts flying, they're going to fall in love with it," he says. "They're going to realize that it's so much better than the Super Hornet that they'll they're going to want more of them." Edited May 4, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondback Six Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Let's be clearer, it's not just a big Boeing lobby, it's a big POS HORNET lobby. I'm surprised they aren't trying to ram it up the taxpayers' collective bum as a COD, AEW&C or ASW platform too... YET. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted May 5, 2012 Author Share Posted May 5, 2012 The Navy has, as I've said numerous times, made no bones about wanting to kill the program. They poo-poo the B model because they know it beats the Hornets and Superhornets all by itself, and heaven forbid the Marines ever outgun the Navy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 The Navy has, as I've said numerous times, made no bones about wanting to kill the program. They poo-poo the B model because they know it beats the Hornets and Superhornets all by itself, and heaven forbid the Marines ever outgun the Navy. Indeed you have. So if the navy were to gets it wish it would basically be a giant self-licking ice cream cone of super carriers that have to punch below their weight and call on the USAF or the USMC to get anything done while they slowly churn in circles waiting for the coast to clear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.