Canadian politicians have a better understanding of F-35 risk

Canada, and not the U.S. or Australia, has a better understanding of F-35 risk.

Along with that:

In the United States, we don't punish officials for offering misleading statements; we promote them. In 2008, the Air Force's manager for the F-35 program, Major General Charles R. Davis, asserted that the "flyaway" cost of its F-35As would be between $60 and $70 million by the time the purchase reached its fourth production lot and that it might even be less than that. Contemporary with Davis' forecast, GAO had been writing reports warning Congress about optimistic estimates of F-35 cost and schedule. The GAO reports were roundly ignored by Congress and the Pentagon, as were other insiders and experts who spoke out publicly.

In 2012, real-time Department of Defense data for that fourth production batch shows a flyaway cost about double Davis' prediction. For being wrong by a factor of at least two, Davis was given a promotion to lieutenant general and a new job: to oversee the entire Air Force acquisition budget -- more than $40 billion annually.

Similarly, from 2009 to 2011 Ashton Carter served as the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, overseeing all Pentagon weapons purchases. He took special interest in the F-35 program and frequently reported to Congress. When he came to office, Carter was confronted with an analysis from a Joint Estimating Team (JET) predicting $11.6 billion in cost growth just over the next five years, and a year later a "JET II" analysis predicted even more cost growth and delays over the long term. Carter postured, saying he favored the JET reports, but he implemented only some of their recommendations -- ignoring especially the long-term implications for cost growth. A subsequent GAO report made all that clear, and still -- two years later -- some, but not all, additional F-35 cost growth has been acknowledged by the Pentagon.

Despite Carter's half measures and disingenuous embrace of the JET recommendations, senators praised him and unanimously confirmed his promotion to be deputy secretary of defense in 2011. Today, he is a prime candidate to replace Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta if President Obama wins re-election.

Live--politics in 140 charachters or less...

McCain's latest battle

McCain, as one of the top chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee has to protect the taxpayer against wasteful DOD spending.

Or does he?

The Marines want to start training early at Eglin AFB, Florida, even if the capability, flight-envelop, and general management of the program is in serious question.

Amos, the cheerleader for the F-35 program, who went into a micro-manage mode last year with the need for daily updates on program metrics, conned a clueless Panetta (note the authors of the damning letter) into lifting a two-year get-fixed or death notice by a no-knowledge-on-airpower issues Gates in relation to the USMC F-35B. Amos is now dialing back; claiming going forwardness will put forth...something.

McCain goes to speak at Yuma; his home turf as an Arizona Senator.

Are the rent-seekers at Yuma ready to go? Well, there are no F-35s yet. Along with no credible pilot training program and robust operational test verification. It will be interesting to see how Yuma's F-35 reason to exist (training warfighters with the F-35) works out with an emperor-has-no-cloths scenario. They have high-hopes though. That is their future. Such as it is. The mission? Not the defense of the country. The mission is happy local businesses.

The rent-seekers at Yuma and the USMC have faith on their side.

At Yuma, McCain babbles generalities about the F-35 program and specifics about looming mandatory budget cuts. He goes on to fear-monger about Yuma not needing high unemployment as a result of budget cuts.

Not mentioned: the DOD would lose -$50B over ten years with the sequestration act. This would bring us back to a 2006-era defense budget. There are several wasteful defense programs which contribute nothing to killing stuff and breaking things in a war-like manner. That and we have too many flag-ranks and SES.

It is an election year.

Related? Well, it isn't synchronicity.

Rent-seeking or Defence?

The opposition wants to do something about illegal arrivals via boat. Good idea as in this area, the Howard plan worked.

The Opposition would fast-track plans to buy new Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) - a multi-purpose warship displacing up to 2000 tonnes and capable of long-endurance border protection tasks.

However, some are a little confused. They would consider a defective U.S. requirement built in part by an Australian effort:

Senator Johnston said he was particularly impressed with the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a cutting edge trimaran designed by WA-shipbuilder Austal.

Maybe someday we will actually get some politicians that study warfare instead of rent-seeking.

Feel-good policy

The chattering class has a new project of self-importance. It is called; 'Australia in the Asian Century'.

Can't say I have ever liked the word "Asian" because it doesn't describe much given there are so many different kinds of peoples with different concerns in the Pacific Rim and beyond.

I agree that "all the way with LBJ" was a bad idea. Just as having Australian troops waste any more time in Afghanistan is a bad idea.

With that, I don't think being a useful tool for Communist China is especially worthwhile.

How would Australia react if they were instead located in the space occupied by the Philippines; facing a bullying Communist China who have over-reached on their definition of territory?

How is the China appreciation club going to react if the only sane response to an increasingly aggressive North Korea is to have a JDAM party once and for all?

Smith made the right response or at least an OK response.

I look forward to the new white paper on Australia in the Asian Century.

Representative Kay Granger (LM)

Read this article about a recent Israeli tour of the F-35 plant in Fort Worth.

Forget all the idiocy of the poor Israelis who are on their way to get stuck with this lemon.

Instead, notice the rest of the article. You have people like Representative Kay Granger who think the F-35 will be useful in future combat.

"China is preparing for the future, Russia is preparing for the future, we have to prepare for the future and the F-35 is the future."

I wonder how that is so?

Granger, like some other proponents of the F-35 thinks delays are anyone but Lockheed Martin's fault. I wonder why that is? It is a known pattern with F-35 cheerleaders.

Granger, the former Fort Worth mayor who plays a key role as chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations and as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, blamed changing Pentagon requirements for delays and the higher price tag.

So the answer is this. Look at the PDF below which shows political contributions from Lockheed Martin in general and Lockheed Martin officials specifically to Rep. Kay Granger. Notice all the names on there that anyone who follows the F-35 program will recognize.

Kay Granger is bought and paid for. There is no other explanation for the misinformation about the F-35 program which she parrots.



data source: opensecrets.org

Different times

One of my favourite reads is Sam over at the Lowy Blog.

This is an interesting thought on today's U.S. politicians. However I wonder about this quote:

To put it another way, figures such as Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan would have a hard time getting nominated in 2012, in part because their foreign policy views would be seen as dangerously moderate. Yes, the Republican Party has always had a 'black helicopter faction' (I believe the phrase is Bill Clinton's), but that fringe belief has grown in recent years, and Republican presidential candidates have to pay obeisance to it.

I don't think today's mainstream republicans are conservative. Big spending, foreign war and big government love are not conservative values.

The democratic party is certainly different. Many years ago, you could have conservative democrats. They could be defined as church-going, union workers or many of what is more rare today; those in family owned farms.

Where "conservative" certainly doesn't have every single box ticked. Unions can be looked at as socialist. With that though, what defines a republican or a democrat is variable depending on one's belief system.

And, both parties have their nut jobs. One only has to look at the George Soros crowd or Moveon.org loons to match up with the "black helicopter comment" above.

Then there is the idea of the extreme-right evil. Which is different than being conservative. Well, you cannot get much more "extreme-right" than a Southern Democrat that supports the idea of water fountains based on a person's skin colour.

Where no party was or is innocent.

Like unions that too is part of the history of America. Evolving; but evolving to where?

Conservative values in the Democrat party have been taken out back and shot. They have no place in their machine. JFK may have been the last democratic president with anything close to conservative policy.

While I wonder if we could elect an Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan, one has to put that in a different view. Then, there was a Soviet Union. A Carter of the day was useless. JFK didn't have any problem telling communists there was a line that could not be crossed.

We have a similar grave threat today: a major debt and communist sympathizers. Extremes on both sides being a danger to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Also today, we have a Lyndon Baines Obama and a new "Great Society" full of business-killing welfare state initiatives. Thanks for nothing FDR and LBJ. FDR's ideas assumed an American actually wanted to work. Today, that is not always the case. For some, working is defined by going to the mailbox to pick up a government benefit check.

What defines a conservative is elusive. Which makes for a valuable tool for various political factions.

I do not see Bush I or Bush II or many of today's RINOs as "conservative". As for both mainstream parties, they are corrupt and responsible for off-shoring everything that was and isn't nailed down. How a vote for either party equals the best interests of the United States of America is beyond me.

Enjoy your carbon tax citizen

So the government is going ahead with the carbon tax.

This should get interesting. After all, the scam is based on the great global warming swindle.

In the old days, the Australian government was created to support business. The current government is business unfriendly. Without all the stuff that is dug up out of the ground and sold to other countries, the Australian economy would not be much. Yet, this current government is trying to destroy our prosperity.

Just over a year ago an attempt at a tax-grab by government cost the PM his job. The current PM is in political peril. If there was a vote today, I doubt she or her party would be in power.

The alternatives to the current party are just as much of a joke. The party lead by a not-so-bright Tony Abbott (who also believes in the global warming scam) claims that they are “conservative”; maybe like a Maine Republican (not that today’s Republicans are that conservative—they sure love their wars).

The Greens? They hate business even worse. At least they have the guts to call the Australian involvement in Afghanistan unnecessary unlike the chicken-hawks from the other two parties.

Funnier still is a publication here called The Australian Financial Review. One would think these people would be business-friendly but that doesn’t seem to be the case with a lot of their writers fawning over the carbon tax con.

But back to that “interesting” thing. It will be interesting to see various organisations (those that are lucky enough) pass this tax on to the consumer. That is what businesses do. They pass along extra expenses like the carbon tax onto the consumer.

Those unlucky enough may find themselves out of business. For instance; data centres. They consume a lot of electricity and have been aggressive (so as to be competitive) at finding ways to save energy. However, this carbon tax could be the last straw; especially with all the hype about putting data into the “cloud”. I wonder where clueless politicians think the cloud is? It may end up being off-shored as competition that doesn’t have to pay Rocko and Moose extortion money (aka, the carbon tax) takes the business.

And what if other countries find out they can get a percentage of raw materials from other countries for less because Australian business has to hand over extra money to the government? What then?

It will be interesting seeing this bloated government operate with an ever decreasing tax base.

Maybe voters will stop putting politicians into office who have never run a business. I doubt it, but it is possible. Until then, enjoy your carbon tax.

.

National broadband?

National Broadband? I do wonder. It is big money and a big discussion here. Plenty of opportunities to make it a political football too.

This is the same government that couldn't even get home insulation installed without...well you know that story.