Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What a crazy coincidence thay suddenly they need to be obtained without a competition now.

What are the odds? And right after the Danes announced they weren't interested in them further curtailing the lines longevity

I can't find that specific article now, but will keep looking.

Here are a few that support what I am saying though:

http://www.dailytech.com/The+End+is+Near+for+FA18+EF+Super+Hornet+Production/article34355.htm

http://www.forecastinternational.com/notable/National_defense_BoeingPushingtoKeepF18.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You all never know....LM might just find an interm measure to bridge the gap. Just think F-16s in the mix.....

Interim measures have a way of lingering on for multiple decades. Plus last I checked, the F-16 only has a single engine (gasp)!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully our PM is an interim hindrance.

You owe me a new Tiger I decal sheet as I just spat beer all over the place... :woot.gif:!

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus last I checked, the F-16 only has a single engine (gasp)!!!

VERBOTEN! You can't say such things... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interim measures have a way of lingering on for multiple decades. Plus last I checked, the F-16 only has a single engine (gasp)!!!

Yeah they do....bUT I'm sure the LM boys would candy cover the deal where the 16s would be taken back when the 35 starts delivery. Yeah I'm one of those that think the single engine thing is a non issue.

Problem with JT being interm...is the division within the extreme right and left parties. Making it probably more permanent than we would like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless something changes drastically, the Navy is not giving up the SH anytime soon.

2040 is the word on SH. The F-35 for the US just got upped to 2070. Canada plans on using the F-35 for 42 years, and they wouldn't get super Hornets for at least 2 years. So my math says the Super Hornet would be falling about 20 years short of the mark set for Canada.

Growler will be around even longer (Read:parts commonality with SH).

How many growler Updates would apply to Canada's Block IIs? There are some differences between the two. The engines are the same and F414 isn't going anywhere, but the retirement date is probably going to be pretty firm for the regular SHs.

Legacy was never meant to fly past 6000 hours but look what's being done now...full center barrel replacements.

I wouldn't recommend that as a primary goal, And of course there are many hornets that were simply retired. Yes I get that they keep going, but in far fewer numbers. you can keep some going, but not all. Marine Hornet Squadrons are dropping to 10 aircraft each. Yes they are still going, but they are extremely depleted, and (shockingly!) parts are scarce. Its not even like the Legacy bug where you had multiple operators for thousands of aircraft. Super Hornet hasn't topped 700.

the point is that Canada may well be the last man standing if it gets SH, with a very rare and small aircraft fleet it has to make work at a cost that would be impossible. Even more so as NATO and other Allies move onto newer everything with the F-35.

Legacy SLEP/SLAP has grown far beyond what anyone ever planned, so never say never.

Of course it has. The question is again how much it costs. The Danes just published that it was cheaper to buy the 8000 hour airplane rather than the 6,000 hour airplane.

Let me remind you that all of this was made possible by massive delays in JSF

6 years is massive alright.

Comparing cost estimates of a proven platform with 15+ years operation experience vs. a platform still in DT is comparing apples to oranges.

No not really, and we actually have an active F-35 squadron.

Not saying it's wrong, just far more unknowns and variables in the F-35 life cycle cost analysis than one for the SH.

we have 50,000 hours of F-35 time to look at right now and its the most heavily scrutinized defense program in the world. and its 80 percent through testing. over 150 built and flying, and a squadron in operation. actually had cost estimates trending downward.

Based on LM'S history of overly optimistic JSF cost estimates, I'd take that ANAO study with a LARGE grain of salt.

its not a study its an audit and the numbers are not from LM. and if you want to dismiss that one you can just look at the Danish report from a few weeks ago that concluded the exact same thing --Super Hornet cost more and does not last as long. we can slice this onion a thousand different ways, but its not going to turn into gold. if you want to be fair you can throw another 5 million or so on for the SLEP, SLAP that gets it to 8,000 hours. Lastly AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. The numbers were not provided by just LM but from the US government and the many oversight bodies that look after such things to ensure that no shenanigans (like lying about numbers) from the manufacturer take place. GAO, DOT&E, and even Laws that forbid tampering with numbers. Its one thing to blow an estimate. Its quite another to say a 100 million dollar aircraft actually costs only 85 million. thats some serious scandal, and the exact reason the ANAO exists. And Boeing was taking pleasure in telling the Canadian media/public their aircraft cost 1/2 as much as the F-35, which of course it doesn't and thats not borne out by the RAAF, but hey at least its an optimistic number people can take with a grain of salt amiright?

the KPMG report was an audit done by a Canadian big 4 firm that took the entire F-35 shebang from procurement, 42 years of operation, to the cost of retirement (F-35 gate guard?) The biggest mistake that the previous government made was not doing a similar study for the Super Hornet and just nipping this whole thing in the bud for Canada. Because if they had it would have concluded what everyone else has so far-- F-35 is cheaper than the Super Bug especially long term.

That sounds like science fiction but when all the factors are accounted for the F-35 is a net savings over the SH. the Primary reasons for this is the F-35 will have a much larger fleet, common pools for training, spares, etc. and a huge economy of scale that drives the cost down (which was the whole goal of the JSF) compared to the SH for Canada which is getting more expensive, would have to have R&D and FMS fees, and would have a shorter lifespan, and more expensive upgrades, and is coming up on the end of its assembly line.

If some of those factors were different, the SH may well be cheaper for Canada but thats not reality and of course two engine engine aircraft generally cost more to maintain to boot.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22571&mode=view

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they do....bUT I'm sure the LM boys would candy cover the deal where the 16s would be taken back when the 35 starts delivery. Yeah I'm one of those that think the single engine thing is a non issue.

Problem with JT being interm...is the division within the extreme right and left parties. Making it probably more permanent than we would like.

What I'd like to see in our political system, is once a party is formed that the elected officials try to work together, not as adversaries all the time.

I know at times the left and right will not agree, but when they should be working towards the best interest of the military they should join hands. Buy the equipment our men and women will have the best chance of coming home in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many growler Updates would apply to Canada's Block IIs? There are some differences between the two. The engines are the same and F414 isn't going anywhere, but the retirement date is probably going to be pretty firm for the regular SHs.

VX-23 routinely uses a growler to test Block II SH upgrades, that should give you an idea of commonalities. Navy is keeping growler until 2050-2060. That should keep Canadian SH chugging along

I wouldn't recommend that as a primary goal, And of course there are many hornets that were simply retired. Yes I get that they keep going, but in far fewer numbers. you can keep some going, but not all. Marine Hornet Squadrons are dropping to 10 aircraft each. Yes they are still going, but they are extremely depleted, and (shockingly!) parts are scarce. Its not even like the Legacy bug where you had multiple operators for thousands of aircraft. Super Hornet hasn't topped 700.

the point is that Canada may well be the last man standing if it gets SH, with a very rare and small aircraft fleet it has to make work at a cost that would be impossible. Even more so as NATO and other Allies move onto newer everything with the F-35.

Being the last man standing isn't always a bad thing for spares. Ask Marine Harrier community or last tomcat squadrons. 1000+ retired Navy SH could provide quite a few cheap spares for a few Canadian SH in 2045.

Of course it has. The question is again how much it costs. The Danes just published that it was cheaper to buy the 8000 hour airplane rather than the 6,000 hour airplane.

an estimate based on limited data. See reply below.

6 years is massive alright.

6 years x 20 aircraft/ year = 120 aircraft not in the fleet = 6 squadrons = 120 legacy hornets replaced with SH that should have been replaced with JSF. Ask any CO if that's not massive? SH is struggling right now to make up a major gap left by lack of JSF. Maybe by bean counter standards 6 years is not a lot by warfighter standards it is massive.

No not really, and we actually have an active F-35 squadron.

Haha right. IOC in name only.

we have 50,000 hours of F-35 time to look at right now and its the most heavily scrutinized defense program in the world. and its 80 percent through testing. over 150 built and flying, and a squadron in operation. actually had cost estimates trending downward.

How many of those hours are directly contractor supported vs sailor/airman supported? Much different having a LM mech with 20+ years working a jet vs 19 -20 year old E-4 (no offense meant just pointing out a large experience gap). At this stage is a program cost estimates SHOULD be trending downward. Economies of scale, better training, maturing system should ALWAYS get better. The real question is will the JSF actual benifit from the cost saving touted by parts commonality and maintenance systems. Until the jet reaches full operational capability and all bugs are fully worked out, just just won't know. Past experiences say these estimates are always optimistic. SH never really realized all the proported cost savings from commonalities with legacy.

its not a study its an audit and the numbers are not from LM. and if you want to dismiss that one you can just look at the Danish report from a few weeks ago that concluded the exact same thing --Super Hornet cost more and does not last as long. we can slice this onion a thousand different ways, but its not going to turn into gold. if you want to be fair you can throw another 5 million or so on for the SLEP, SLAP that gets it to 8,000 hours. Lastly AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. The numbers were not provided by just LM but from the US government and the many oversight bodies that look after such things to ensure that no shenanigans (like lying about numbers) from the manufacturer take place. GAO, DOT&E, and even Laws that forbid tampering with numbers. Its one thing to blow an estimate. Its quite another to say a 100 million dollar aircraft actually costs only 85 million. thats some serious scandal, and the exact reason the ANAO exists. And Boeing was taking pleasure in telling the Canadian media/public their aircraft cost 1/2 as much as the F-35, which of course it doesn't and thats not borne out by the RAAF, but hey at least its an optimistic number people can take with a grain of salt amiright?

the KPMG report was an audit done by a Canadian big 4 firm that took the entire F-35 shebang from procurement, 42 years of operation, to the cost of retirement (F-35 gate guard?) The biggest mistake that the previous government made was not doing a similar study for the Super Hornet and just nipping this whole thing in the bud for Canada. Because if they had it would have concluded what everyone else has so far-- F-35 is cheaper than the Super Bug especially long term.

That sounds like science fiction but when all the factors are accounted for the F-35 is a net savings over the SH. the Primary reasons for this is the F-35 will have a much larger fleet, common pools for training, spares, etc. and a huge economy of scale that drives the cost down (which was the whole goal of the JSF) compared to the SH for Canada which is getting more expensive, would have to have R&D and FMS fees, and would have a shorter lifespan, and more expensive upgrades, and is coming up on the end of its assembly line.

If some of those factors were different, the SH may well be cheaper for Canada but thats not reality and of course two engine engine aircraft generally cost more to maintain to boot.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22571&mode=view

Call it what you want but it's still an estimate based on past history, trends, and assumptions. A very close family member works an ACAT 1 program as a gov cost analyst. The first thing she learned was estimates provide ranges, programs choose the rating that's most favorable to their positon. It doesn't matter who prepared the report there will be bias and assumptions built in. Estimating the complete life cycle costs for a program in year 2 (after "IOC") of its 40 + estimated life has to be taking with a large grain of salt. It doesn't matter if it's JSF, advanced bomber, newer trainer etc, assumptions are made that don't always hold for 40 years or new uses for the system pop up or operating environment changes, etc. SH has 17 years operating experience vs 2 for JSF (removing pre- IOC years)

I have no dog in this fight. I lean toward JSF as probably the better option for Canada as it is more forward thinking than buy SH, but some of the information being presented here as "fact" is estimated at best. That is why I throw the BS flag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha right. IOC in name only.

Gotta award a point to graves for that one. IOC in this case is nothing but a PR exercise. The Corp set the IOC bar so low that if we used their definition, we could probably make a good case that the B-21 is almost at IOC as well.

Other than that, this has been a closely fought contest between TT and graves. Looking forward to the next round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably won't be a next round. I've made my point, either take it or leave it. My experience with military aquisition is the press and even official reports don't tell the whole story. Just trying to make that point in this discussion.

Edited by graves_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to see in our political system, is once a party is formed that the elected officials try to work together, not as adversaries all the time.

I know at times the left and right will not agree, but when they should be working towards the best interest of the military they should join hands. Buy the equipment our men and women will have the best chance of coming home in.

Bottom line is the military should pick the goodies they need to do their job effectively. Politicians are poorly educated to make military decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it has been discussed (and I see you have been replied to).

But if we were to have two fleets you have your thinking reversed. The F-35 is a deterrent against our biggest threat, the Russians. When a Bear is intercepted you want the Bear crew reporting they had no idea they were being intercepted,

You'd use the lower tech stuff versus the cavemen in the desert.

I still think a mixed fleet is cheaper. Rather than buying all F-35, which are turning out to be expensive. Why not buy F-35's for Stealth missions and 4th generation for the non stealth missions. Does it really make sense to try to maintain a stealth fleet for 100% of the missions? I do not see the USAF buying all Raptors and scrapping their F-16's and F-15's

There are plenty of missions where 4th generation can do the work, so why is it necessary to have a higher cost stealth aircraft for low end 4th generation work.

I understand that having a fleet of one aircraft is cheaper for airlines, but to try and bring that argument into the military realm forgets that the military is different from an airline. I do appreciate the fact that a fleet of 4th generation aircraft of all the same aircraft is cheaper than a mixed fleet of 4th generation aircraft, but Canada also needs to have some stealth fighters for certain circumstances.

I don't think every bear wandering the coastline needs a stealth intercept, but I do think if Canada does go toe to toe with Russia, it would be nice to have some stealth capabilities to tend to certain issues that will present themselves. The F-117 provided to be quite the handy asset in the opening days of Desert Storm and I suspect once western air forces begin to go up against stealth adversaries, it will be handy to have stealth aircraft in the mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is the military should pick the goodies they need to do their job effectively. Politicians are poorly educated to make military decisions.

American politicians arent......ask any USAF veteran from the late 60s about

LBJs wise choices, sarcasm not included.---John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably won't be a next round. I've made my point, either take it or leave it. My experience with military aquisition is the press and even official reports don't tell the whole story. Just trying to make that point in this discussion.

Also want to point out, I'm not a JSF hater. As a patriot and tax payer I WANT it to succeed. I WANT it to be all that and a bag of chips. The enemies we face in the future will be much better dealt with if JSF reaches all its promise and potential. Too many people depend on its success for it to fail.

However, let's not pretend this program isn't the anything but a poster child for mismanaged aquisition programs. All the lessons learned from past programs were ignored and the prevailing attitude has always been "we're too big to fail or that won't happen to us". A wise man one said "hope is not a strategy", well in JSF program hope is about the only thing they seem to have. For the sake of our future, I hope we never repeat the mistakes of JSF.

Rant off.

Edited by graves_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

VX-23 routinely uses a growler to test Block II SH upgrades, that should give you an idea of commonalities. Navy is keeping growler until 2050-2060. That should keep Canadian SH chugging along

I'm not saying they don't but I'm curious how many Block II upgrades the USN will bother with when they no longer have Block IIS on the decks...

Being the last man standing isn't always a bad thing for spares. Ask Marine Harrier community or last tomcat squadrons.

jesus are you kidding? they are having to shut harrier Squadrons down --spare parts are extremely hard to come by, and by some estimates the Last Tomcats were hitting 100K CPFH. The USMC has moved the Harrier date up 5 years. I know a man who was in -311 and that was talking about the shortage of spares, and this was back in 2005. The USMC estimated the harrier would go on for another 10 years.... in 2000 before all the games started. you may want to research this one a bit more.

1000+ retired Navy SH could provide quite a few cheap spares for a few Canadian SH in 2045.

but of course there aren't even 1,000 SHs built. There isn't even 700 in fact even counting the Growlers. And a lot of those spare parts are going to be used on the aircraft that are still going to keep them going. Its not like the USN is going to provide loads of spares in "gently used" condition to Canada. As they are cracking open the first super hornets they are finding all kinds of rot, that the USN is trying to leverage into more aircraft. I guess one could then question the longevity of the Super Hornets vs the estimates, and find them wrong as well

an estimate based on limited data. See reply below.

If you want to simply dismiss the data then there really isn't much point in talking anymore.

6 years x 20 aircraft/ year = 120 aircraft not in the fleet = 6 squadrons = 120 legacy hornets replaced with SH that should have been replaced with JSF. Ask any CO if that's not massive? SH is struggling right now to make up a major gap left by lack of JSF. Maybe by bean counter standards 6 years is not a lot by warfighter standards it is massive.

By Warfighter Standards the Super Hornet is not seen as operationally capable in many environments, and the USN is going to be the last service to get a fifth generation platform. Its largely thanks to a plethora of mismaneged and canceled Navy aircraft programs that the Super Hornet even exists, and that they even had to sign on with JSF. So if you want to blame it all on the JSF, by all means please do, and I will confirm your story from my A-6 replacement A-12 Aveneger II.

Haha right. IOC in name only.

even if you dismiss the IOC the USMC is still flying them in an operation capacity. If you want to try and tell me the difference in a the cost of a flight hour for when an F-35 takes off with a bomb or without I am all ears. an IOC jet cost as much to fly as a pre IOC jet. And the USMC has been flying them since 2012. In fact we have more than a few F-35 squadrons that have been flying the jet for years, even without IOC.

SH never really realized all the proported cost savings from commonalities with legacy.

probably because they were less than 10 percent common and don't even use the same engine or avionics. Its not a secret that they have very little in common. The nice thing about the JSF is the big ticket items like the Engine and Avionics is all the same, even when they have different wings and structure.

Call it what you want but it's still an estimate based on past history, trends, and assumptions.

same goes for Super Hornet. What if the block IIs crap out at 5500 hours? what if the Canadian Climate limits them to 5000? What if the Canadians who spend more time pulling Gs than flying to training areas drastically reduce the life of the Super Hornet vs USN use? What if there are cracks that were not anticipated due to extended land use as happened with the CF-18?

A very close family member works an ACAT 1 program as a gov cost analyst. The first thing she learned was estimates provide ranges, programs choose the rating that's most favorable to their positon. It doesn't matter who prepared the report there will be bias and assumptions built in. Estimating the complete life cycle costs for a program in year 2 (after "IOC") of its 40 + estimated life has to be taking with a large grain of salt. It doesn't matter if it's JSF, advanced bomber, newer trainer etc, assumptions are made that don't always hold for 40 years or new uses for the system pop up or operating environment changes, etc. SH has 17 years operating experience vs 2 for JSF (removing pre- IOC years)

in that case the Super Hornet is also based on trends and assumptions, and only the favorable numbers are being used, since that happens with everything. and if the CF-18 is any judge the RCAF won't be using them like the USN. Which again is something the RCAF learned early on with the Hornet. There is someone on ARC here that can give a more detailed answer but I will leave it up to him and if he declines I'll hop in. But shockingly, an Aircraft that is purpose built for CVN use doesn't always behave as well with land basing. especially when you are talking about the different stresses applied by the Canadians.

I have no dog in this fight. I lean toward JSF as probably the better option for Canada as it is more forward thinking than buy SH, but some of the information being presented here as "fact" is estimated at best. That is why I throw the BS flag.

file:///D:/Downloads/typevalg-af-danmarks-kommende-kampfly-reduceret-vers-20160509-english-translation.pdf

throw it all you want. Here are the facts^ its been analysed by people with far more experience and access to data than yourself. (no offense) so on one hand we have data and on the other we have you going "nuh uh!" if you are going to always try this "We don't know until 40 years from now" stuff then the Super Hornet has just as large a question mark over its head because its never operated for that mount of time ever, never operated land based for that amount of time, and never operated the way the RCAF works its aircraft or in that environment. F-35 vs Super Hornet has been analyzed by multiple independent sources in several different nations and everyone is coming to the same conclusions. Pretty amazing coincidence I suppose. especially from a country like Aus that actually operates the hornet, Super Hornet and F-35. We know (and not from estimates) that the cost of the SH is going up, and the cost of the F-35 is going down. These are verified facts, as proven by budget documents.we know that the SH line is closing, while F-35 is ramping up. We also know about the oxygen problems with the SH that are still unresolved, and we know it has no ALIS bugs to work out because it has no ALIS. We know a lot about the super hornet as you point out and we know more than you think about the F-35. Enough to accurately compare the two.

We actually have loads of data done by the Canadians themselves for canada with the notions of canadian use in mind. At one point the numbers are what they are and although they can be wrong, all numbers can be wrong even the super hornet, even with 15 years in.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think a mixed fleet is cheaper. Rather than buying all F-35, which are turning out to be expensive. Why not buy F-35's for Stealth missions and 4th generation for the non stealth missions. Does it really make sense to try to maintain a stealth fleet for 100% of the missions? I do not see the USAF buying all Raptors and scrapping their F-16's and F-15's

There are plenty of missions where 4th generation can do the work, so why is it necessary to have a higher cost stealth aircraft for low end 4th generation work.

I understand that having a fleet of one aircraft is cheaper for airlines, but to try and bring that argument into the military realm forgets that the military is different from an airline. I do appreciate the fact that a fleet of 4th generation aircraft of all the same aircraft is cheaper than a mixed fleet of 4th generation aircraft, but Canada also needs to have some stealth fighters for certain circumstances.

I don't think every bear wandering the coastline needs a stealth intercept, but I do think if Canada does go toe to toe with Russia, it would be nice to have some stealth capabilities to tend to certain issues that will present themselves. The F-117 provided to be quite the handy asset in the opening days of Desert Storm and I suspect once western air forces begin to go up against stealth adversaries, it will be handy to have stealth aircraft in the mix.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page

And generally speaking Airlines are far more money savvy, because they have to be to stay in business. There is also a reason they retired the CF-5. Even though it was cheaper to operate. The USMC is necking down fom 3 aircraft to 1, because it will save money and personnel. There are military applications maybe even more so.

The issue with a mixed fleet is whether you are using it for combat or not the aircraft is still flying and using money and personnel to service it. You aren't keeping both types in a box until they are needed, then picking the fleet you need. Both fleets fly 200 hours a month whether its combat or training. And those fleets have to have their own infrastructure, logistics, service techs, simulators, personnel and pilots. There will be some crossover but its going to be limited. so either way you are paying more whether they are flying or fighting. Yes on occasion you will save, but it will be a net loss. Even on very small cheap aircraft like the Gripen. Square pegs and round pegs require their respective holes.

Gotta award a point to graves for that one. IOC in this case is nothing but a PR exercise. The Corp set the IOC bar so low that if we used their definition, we could probably make a good case that the B-21 is almost at IOC as well.

dude give me a break. If you want to take your shots make them accurate. VMFA-121 was working 12 hour shifts around the clock for months to get ready for ORI and had to do a boat det on the other side of the country as well. People worked really hard on it, and I know some of them.

If you don't think it counts fine, but for a "PR exercise" a lot of people had to bust their tails and to have what was done (even if you don't think it was enough) simply dismissed is extremely disrespectful. They pushed very hard to get where they were, and there were flag officers at practically every corner. It was extremely stressful and the their high standards that had to be met.

If it was as bad as you are claiming they would have declared IOC years ago the second they did a lap around the base and saved a lot of work and stress. Come on B-21 hasn't even flown yet. Thats low.

we knew people were going to complain about IOC, because they always do and the usual suspects are going to glob onto whatever they can. the USAF IOC will be complained about as will the USN.

DOT&E whining about not doing a full on MEU det is ridiculous, and we don't have one of those just lying around. If DOT&E wants to give some of their funds for it though I am game.

All the lessons learned from past programs were ignored and the prevailing attitude has always been "we're too big to fail or that won't happen to us". A wise man one said "hope is not a strategy", well in JSF program hope is about the only thing they seem to have. For the sake of our future, I hope we never repeat the mistakes of JSF.

Thats a ridiculous claim. And a lot of the reasons the JSF is where it is, is because implementing past lessons were attempted, and it turns out not every good idea from the last program is a good idea here. We wasted a lot of time to learn that Boeing couldn't make it work, rather than simply verifying the shaft driven liftfan via the skunk works and giving LM the contract sole source. That would have saved 5 years. There is a lot of blame to go around but to say that lessons were ignored is pretty ignorant. Again there are lots of lessons that were applied and applied successfully. but there were also many that were not. the issue with doing something new and untried is that with it having never been done before there are going to be some surprises, and not everything from the last thing you did applies. Hell the C model got delayed because NAVAIR supplied the wrong numbers. So whats the lesson? don't listen to NAVAIR when it comes to tailhooks and their dynamics? Ignore government supplied info?

So the lesson here is, ignore the bad lessons, and only follow the good lessons. sounds easy. Just pick the right lotto numbers, and always hit a hole in one. Never have accidents. Am I getting the hang of it?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to see in our political system, is once a party is formed that the elected officials try to work together, not as adversaries all the time.

I know at times the left and right will not agree, but when they should be working towards the best interest of the military they should join hands. Buy the equipment our men and women will have the best chance of coming home in.

I agree 100%...

Link to post
Share on other sites

dude give me a break. If you want to take your shots make them accurate. VMFA-121 was working 12 hour shifts around the clock for months to get ready for ORI and had to do a boat det on the other side of the country as well. People worked really hard on it, and I know some of them.

If you don't think it counts fine, but for a "PR exercise" a lot of people had to bust their tails and to have what was done (even if you don't think it was enough) simply dismissed is extremely disrespectful. They pushed very hard to get where they were, and there were flag officers at practically every corner. It was extremely stressful and the their high standards that had to be met.

No doubt those guys had to work their butts off, the plane wasn't close to being ready for prime time. I feel for them, it must have sucked.

The follies associated with that declaration of IOC have been well documented and yes, the bar was set ridiculously low. Please don't use the "You aren't supporting the troops" line. I do support the troops, I want them to have an aircraft that will work as advertised.

And for the record, it's (finally) making some nice progress. I'm actually thinking about building a model of one.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt those guys had to work their butts off, the plane wasn't close to being ready for prime time. I feel for them, it must have sucked.

The follies associated with that declaration of IOC have been well documented and yes, the bar was set ridiculously low. Please don't use the "You aren't supporting the troops" line. I do support the troops, I want them to have an aircraft that will work as advertised.

And for the record, it's (finally) making some nice progress. I'm actually thinking about building a model of one.

Didn't say you did not support the troops, simply saying it's disrespectful and just because you read a few reports doesn't suddenly mean you have the whole story. you will never guess but they have a very different story from the media and DOT&E. Those silly jarheads are convinced they have a better chance of fighting and winning in an F-35 than they do a hornet or harrier.

Maybe there is a middle ground between "not 100 percent "prime time" and a "PR" stunt?

Enjoy building your F-35.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is the military should pick the goodies they need to do their job effectively. Politicians are poorly educated to make military decisions.

Certainly that would be the key part of any deal, without political interference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...