Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "CNBC" channel.

Hey, that’s not fair! You forgot his brother and niece in that RICO scam. How dare you!
6
@alexmatthews7706 Muh capitalism and "free market" keeps Europe secure and has done so since 1945. European food regulations can be enforced because there isn't anywhere near as much money to be made off poor European peasants. It's one thing about Europe that really works, unlike NHS, military, energy, infrastructure, and weak parliaments.
5
@faintofhearttrading7648 Trump made all his money actually producing things in the private sector. Biden never built or provided any value-added service to the US, but instead sold the Nation out to foreign enemies of the US who paid him for access. The next question is, what did China and Russia get access to? We already know about the benefits for Burisma in the Ukraine. That’s easy. But what was in it for China and Russia?
3
@jensolsson9666 100% incorrect. Actual CPFH including personnel salaries is $17,333. This $36,000 number is simply pulled out of the air, with amortized projected costs over the life of all the Block II F-35s that will never be brought up to Block 4 and 5 standards when those come around, since the Block II birds will remain as training and testbed aircraft, and will never go to deployable squadrons. You can see the actual DoD Comptroller accounting with every single fighter, bomber, drone, cargo plane, AWACS, etc. I was surprised to see the F-35A costs about $1000 more per hour than the more complex USMC F-35B and USN F-35Cs. Another fact that isn’t being correctly reported is that F-16Cs in deployable squadrons cost way more per flight hour because they have multiple ancillary systems that are attached to them to do their mission sets. These systems are handled by separate repair and mx shops in the Squadrons, and don’t get included in any CPFH reports or mentioned in modern media sources, since none of them are familiar with the subject even to a basic level. Additionally, F-35As execute multiple mission sets in a single sortie that would normally take at least 5 different types of aircraft, so there are no actual relevant comparisons being made or presented in this narrative. The underlying story has nothing to do with CPFH, unit costs, or the framework of the arguments being made and repeated by presstitutes with zero fundamental knowledge of these programs. What it has to do with is Boeing losing contract after contract for fighters not only in the US, but abroad. Congressrats do not want to be left with only 1 prime contractor as their go-to in the long run, so there is a current effort trying to steer dollars to Boeing somehow.
2
@ivanlagrossemoule I’m looking at the DoD Comptroller Year-to-Year CPFH of every single fighter, bomber, trainer, cargo plane, drone, helicopter, electronic warfare bird, etc. This included Operations & Maintenance (O&M), as well as personnel costs. (With personnel costs added to CPFH): B-1B $42,687 F-15C $22,585 F-15E $17,599 F-16C $9,150 F-22A $40,481 F-35A $17,048 So how do we get from $17,048 to $36,000? Check out the USMC and USN costs: AV-8B $14,043 EA-18G $12,109 F-16A $15,873 F/A-18C $18,151 F/A-18E $12,945 F/A-18F $13,844 F-35B $16,992 F-35C $13,219 Why does a more complex F-35B or F-35C cost less for O&M in the Navy and Marines, than a conventional take-off F-35A does in the USAF? Why does an early 1980s F-16A cosy more for the Navy to operate as an adversary aircraft at TOPGUN than the USAF does to run a 1990s-2000s F-16C with far more complexity? The reasons vary, but at the end of the day, the numbers are very suspect that are being told to people in Congress and in the advertising-based press.
2
Basically, if CNBC was a band, after being bood off the stage, I'd advise them to take their equipment to the pawn shop.
2
What if I told you that most of these States have been involved in every other fighter program as well? There are a lot of subcomponents and sub systems that no single State can manufacture on their own. The industrial base of individual States simply can’t do it. Those Lockheed folks sure pulled one over on Congress by letting 15% of each F-35 variant be manufactured in the UK. Canada has a sizable contribution to the JSF parts production scheme as well. How did L-M let them get their grubby hands into the JSF industrial base pot? Norway too. Italy and Japan have assembly lines for F-35As and F-35Bs. How did Congress allow the work share to be so spread out? Oh, you mean it was a Joint Strike Fighter from the start if anyone had done their homework? Nah, forget studying. Let’s just throw out wild assumptions based on falsehoods, and form public perception that way.
2
It isn’t hard to out-perform garbage reporting with more garbage reporting.
1
@trkologia1628 F-35s basically maintain themselves with automation and prognostic healing, preventative operations managed by the CIP. They are far easier to work on than F-16Cs, for example. Every new system starts off with higher mx costs because bases go through an adjustment period to adapt to the systems and procedures with new jets. People have to be trained, parts have to be filled, and a new approach to conducting maintenance needs to be developed and evolved.
1
@TayBowie007 Some of the poorer States in the US have some of the lowest homicide rates though, but they don’t have many blacks or Indian Reservations. I looked at the US homicide rates by county on a map, and it’s very shocking what jumps out at you. Deep South along the Mississippi, the Carolinas, and any Indian Reservation correlate to the highest homicide rates.
1
@MOTO_DOSE Removal of the Black father and replacing him with welfare for women is probably far more of a factor. Lots of wannabe white kids listen to the same music and watch the same movies, but don’t murder each other for sport like in the hood.
1
@KenSDCA There are existing industries who have been providing manufacturing for various defense programs in every State since World War II. Lockheed-Martin is really an assembler of all the component subsystems, not the ones who manufacture the components. The only bribery we’ve seen was with the Saab Gripen sales to Hungary and Czech Republic, with an ongoing investigation into massive fraud with how Austria was screwed with Eurofighter sales to them, many of which were used and sold at more than full price, while not having any BVR missile or A2G capabilities. Saab’s marketing firm was found guilty, plead guilty, and was fined $400 million for a massive bribery scandal for the Gripen sales. Nothing like this has even been alleged related to the JSF program. It is under extreme scrutiny.
1
@411bvRGiskard The other countries who initiated it jointly with the US decades ago? This is the opposite of a boondoggle.
1
@411bvRGiskard What's simple-minded? I literally watched the development of the teen fighters from fly-off to the present from the perspective of being at the Air Force Flight Test Center, with involvement in EFA at the West German Test Center, F-16 & F-15 back at Edwards, and nearby T&E of Hornets, Harriers, and Tomcats at Navval Test Centers (Point Mugu and China Lake). My grandfather worked for Douglas Aerospace on A-3 & A-4 his whole career, and other family members worked for McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Northrop, and related sub contractors. The US has not built a single mission fighter since the F-15C. Even the F-4 was multirole before it. The F-16A, starting in 1977, was multirole, as was the Harrier, Hornet, Strike Eagle, F-14D, Super Hornet, and Raptor. Raptor is multi-mission/swing-role. The advent of solid state and digital avionics allowed single platform aircraft to perform multiple roles with a single seat starting in the late 1970s. JSF has far more pilot awareness due to processing power and sensor saturation, with an impressive payload, so they can do EW and ISR in addition to all the A2G, A2A, and anti-ship mission sets.
1
@rogerhonacki5610 You'd be hard-pressed to find a more adept and accomplished army of people when it comes to STEM and US aerospace industries.
1
Couldn’t even make it 2 minutes in, and every single declarative statement is totally false so far. The F-22 was not meant to be “the" USAF’s fighter, it was meant to be the high capability air dominance fighter produced in low numbers (750 units) to replace the aging F-15C air superiority fighter. The JSF-A was meant to work along with the ATF (F-22A) in a Hi-Lo mix, where JSF would eventually replace all the F-16Cs as they timed out over the decades of JSF production. Aircraft have service lives and relevant operational lives in the face of emerging threats. The F-16 has reached that point where it is less and less survivable in the modern IADS nets, as proven by the Syrian 2018 shoot-down of an even more advanced Israeli F-16I that has electronics that no USAF F-16C Block 50/52 even have. Your National Security reporter literally doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. The F-35 production line has been a revolutionary success in delivering consistent quality control and safe air vehicle airframes that has never been done on this scale in the history of fighter aircraft production. Any aviation reporter worth their weight should have immediately recognized that something like this was actually almost problem-free compared to legacy fighters like the teen series, Harrier, and A-10A. Once again, you all prove that journalism is a joke, while talking about turning the T-7 into a lightweight combat platform.
1
@infinitelyexplosive4131 If you ever start an argument with, "So you think that..." then insert a series of statements that were never made, it's time to take a critical thinking course where you learn about logical fallacies and how to avoid them. The biggest overlook every one of these hit pieces fails at out of the gate is labeling "the F-35" in the singular. There are 3 JSF variant airframes for multiple services and allies. These "journalists" skipped right over that fact, while only talking about JSF-A. It's another case of information-void millennials reading click-bait headlines, doing a rough compilation of a series of falsehoods, with zero background in the matter. Every fighter-type aircraft program starts out with a bathtub graph for O&M costs, where initial changeover to a new system involves a lot of up-front logistics and training, parts supply bottlenecks, and growing pains. Normally that includes really high mishap rates, but we just haven't seen that with all 3 JSF, including Navy & Marines. They got the unit cost wrong as well. It's $77.9m per F-35A, which is lower than the advertised unit cost ceiling threshold when JSF was envisioned ($40-$50m in 1995 dollars). They also didn't do any due diligence in researching O&M costs, which are less than half what is being advertised according to the detailed DoD Comproller annual reports. F-35A fleet average is $17,963 CPFH. Operational squadrons are less than that, but if you use projected worst-case upgrades over the life of the aircraft and amortize those, then back-fill that into the # and account for USAF wish list money, you see they just doubled it and rounded up.
1
@infinitelyexplosive4131 I'm pointing out that this shoddy presstitute "journalism" is overly-simplified, missing critical points of the story, then goes on to advocate for the Boeing T7 as a combat platform. RCPFH gives the actual CPFH before amortized inflated projections on future upgrades that will not be applied to roughly half of the USAF JSF fleet, since most of those are at Luke for B School. Nobody cares if those birds have the latest threat library, the new Raytheon DAS (25% of the N-G DAS cost), new weapons interface, Sidekick bays, etc. that aren't even on 3F birds. Look at the coincidence in RCPFH being doubled and rounded up to $36k, while operational squadrons at Hill including amortized logistics transition are seeing $21k CPFH. There are major efforts dropping CPFH with progress being made, but hit pieces like this don't account for that, and make a fake fleet average CPFH theoretical # seem permanent, then forecast it indefinitely. The real story has to do with strategic industrial capacity after Boeing has been losing aircraft contracts left and right, termination of the USN Super Hornet orders, Canadian reaction to Biden-su's Keystone Pipeline shut-down for his Chinese and Russian masters, where Canada told Boeing their KC-46 is no longer in the running for their aerial refueling replacement program. This has nothing to do with F-35 CPFH or these cat laser presstitute circular arguments.
1
@LoveFromLenore Because everything government touches they make worse. Organized crime families from Europe took over US government during Prohibition, and have never been purged from the system. Their regulatory bodies are kick-back programs for connected donors, not altruistic enforcement agencies that maintain safety standards.
1