segnosaur

First of all, while there may have been some "positive changes" in Cuba, similar changes have also occurred in other Latin American countries. For example, education... many like to point to the fact that Cuba has all but eliminated illiteracy. Admirable. But other countries have improved too. For example, Chilie and Brazil have also seen education standards improve substantially. Similarly health care is improving too: life expectency has also increased in Brazil by about 5 years over the past 2 decades. And those improvements also occurred at the same time they improved economically, yet they still managed to maintain a democratic government. So while things improved in Cuba under Castro, any improvements should be compared relative to other countries in the area, not just based on what it had been pre-Castro. http://www.developmentprogress.org/sites/developmentprogress.org/files/case-study-summary/chile_summary_-_final_digital.pdf http://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/life-expectancy-in-brazil-rises-to-75-2-years/50000263-2778815 Keep in mind that most of the 'squeezing' was done by Castro himself. Ok, Batista was a dictator that shouldn't have been in power... fine. Overthrow him, stabalize the country, then hold free elections. It was Castro's decision to maintain power for decades. It was Castro's decision to send Cuban troops all over the world in an attempt to spark revolutions world wide and annoy the U.S. It was Castro's decision to implement a command economy. And while many Castro apologists claim "its all the fault of the U.S. and its embargo", other countries DID trade with Cuba.

NATO and NORAD seemed to be happy with the arrangements that we had previous to the new policy. Given that, I don't think you can really argue that we were "backed into a corner". The claim that there is some sort of urgent need to change the policy was manufactured by the Liberals.

There are several things people are concerned about: - that the purchase of the F18 Super Hornet may "bias" future competitions (after all, if we're already flying some F18s, it may artificially bolster the case for the F18 in the competition, since "we're already familiar with it". - If a competition does end up selecting the F35, and we decide to scrap the F18s, then we've just wasted money. We buy jets with the idea that we'll use them for several decades. Granted, maintenance costs do go up near the end of the lifetime, but if we scrap a bunch of fighter jets after only 2 decades we're not getting our money's worth. Oh, and by the way, if the government actually holds a competition and they select the F35, we'd end up flying a mixed fleet within a decade, not 25 years out.

You know, there is a happy medium between praising a person like Castro and condemning him. Its possible for someone to issue a statement regarding the death, without either gushing all over the person or breaking out in a chorus of "Ding Dong the witch is dead!" I think Obama handled it much better by being more or less neutral... he expressed condolences to the family, but directed other comments at the people without saying they should be happy or sad. He talked about how he impacted people's lives, but it was vague enough without claiming that that impact was for the better or worse. Granted, his statement wouldn't necessarily please everyone, but it was a smart political statement, and certainly nothing to laugh at. No, they weren't "precise and short". If he wanted to be precise and short, he didn't need to mention his family's relationship with Castro. He didn't have to mention how Castro was supposedly loved by the Cuban people or lie about how even his detractors knew he cared about Cuba. He could have simply said "We extend our condolences to the family. We look forward to continued diplomacy with Cuba.". Drop mike, peace out. That would have been precise and short.

How do you know? It seems like NATO/NORAD commitments would be the type of thing that such a review should cover, since it impacts the type of equipment we purchase. Yes, the Navy will use the F18 for a couple of more decades at least. But Canada's CF18 fleet will have been more than 40 years old by the time they are replaced, so its conceivable that, if we purchase the Super Hornet, we will be using them for more than 2 decades after the Americans have retired theirs. And that's the problem. The cost of maintaining planes goes up as they get older. Trying to keep them flying in decades 3 and 4 will be the challenge. The Super Hornet may be "standard" now, but it will be out of date (at least compared to our allies) by about half way though its life span.

At his point, the Liberals deserve 100% of the blame going forward. They are the ones in charge.And during the election, they were the ones who made rather questionable (and contradictory) election promises that they have to live with. The current CF18 fleet would have been capable of lasting until at least 2025. While the conservatives failed to run a competition during their time in office, the remaining life time on the current fleet meant that it wasn't critical. Now the time is running out. And the Liberals are fumbling the ball much worse than the conservatives did.

Shouldn't you be complaining to the liberal government then? After all, they're the ones who seem to be wanting to avoid a competition by sole-sourcing the F18. And by the way, we've been defining the requirements here in the thread for years... Cost, range, operational functionality. Its also been discussed in the media and among military experts. It is possible for a plane to have so many overwhelming advantages that a competition becomes a waste of time and money.

They may be temporarily strengthening the air force, but they appear to be setting up a situation where we end up flying substandard planes for the next 4 decades. So, short term gain for long term pain. Keep in mind that this is the same government who has delayed military purchases because they want do a defense review first. So, they're being rather 2 faced about this. Either the defense review is important, in which case a change to commitment levels should wait until after the review, or the review is not important, in which case they should proceed with needed military purchases (including a proper competition for fighter jet replacements).

No, actually we don't. In fact, I think I've posted more about: - The long-term costs of the F35 likely being lower because production will continue for a lot longer than the F18/Gripen/etc. And this has absolutely nothing to do with stealth. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. - The advanced avionics, which allows better interconnection with ground forces and other planes, and the advanced helmet and sensor fusion which gives the pilot better situational awareness. This has nothing to do with stealth. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. (It will also have ALIS, a system that allows maintenance crews to more easily maintain the planes. There are currently many bugs in the system, but even with the problems ground crews seem to find it a useful feature. None of the competitors have the same system.) - The ability to fly in a 'clean' configuration for at least some of its missions, which gives it better speed and range than an F18 or gripen with even a light load. (While the use of internal weapons bays is marginally related to stealth, the advantage here isn't to do with its radar cross-signature, but with its performance overall. So even if the F35 had no stealth, there would still be compelling reasons to purchase it. Stealth is a nice feature to have, but its just icing on the cake. Ah, so many things wrong with that particular quote... First of all, stealth is not an all-or-nothing thing. Yes, adding exterior drop tanks/weapons increases radar cross section, but an F35 with external drop tanks will still be harder to detect than an F18/Gripen even without drop tanks. Secondly, drop tanks are not the only way that planes can increase their range.. The CF18 fleet uses air-to-air refueling, and the F35 has that ability as well. Thirdly, I doubt that any plane would use drop tanks throughout the entire mission (because they decrease the plane's performance). The most likely scenario is to use the tanks in the first leg of the journey, then drop them when entering enemy territory (going the rest of the way on internal fuel). This would allow the F35 to use its stealth when the risk is greatest. The U.S. used the stealth F117 successfully for many years, sending it in to many of the most dangerous situations, and only once did the enemy manage to shoot it down (which seemed to have more to do with bad tactical decisions by the U.S. rather than failings on part of the plane.). Seems like the U.S. air force managed to get around that little problem of radar detection and drop tanks. So the whole "F35 can be detected with drop tanks" is a red herring. A non-existent problem that the F35 critics like to use but doesn't exist.

Wow, a country that likes the F35 so much they're buying more. Not really. Israel may be modifying the F35, but I doubt anyone thought it would be relevant to anyone but Israel itself. Ummm... proof? Evidence? Link? I haven't heard anything specifically about Israeli pilots, but most accounts I've seen showed that pilots prefer the F35. According to Wikipidea: Combat radius of an F35: 1158km Combat Radius of a JAS 39 Gripen: 800km So, the F35 certainly doesn't have a problem with range. The problem is, the F35 detractors tend to lie a lot... they compare the range of an F35 on internal fuel with the range of one of their competitors with extra drop tanks, etc. First of all, even if it is carrying weapons externally, it will still be stealthier than a Gripen or F18 carrying a similar weapons load. (Stealth isn't an all-or-nothing issue.) Secondly, whether it carries external weapons will depend on the mission. An initial attack will probably use F35s with internal weapons only until the immediate threats are eliminated. Secondary attacks can use fully loaded F35s (with external weapons) since the primary threats will be eliminated. Pilots will still be better off than flying a Gripen or F18, which is always going to be more visible on radar, since they won't have the option of flying i a 'clean' configuration. Sure you don't mean Kuwait? They tend to be the ones buying the F35. Saudi Arabia flies the F15 and Typhoons. I don't know why they don't seem to be interested in purchasing the F35. (Perhaps they want to keep the current mix of planes, or maybe the U.S. doesn't want to sell such technology to them.) The F22 and F35 are planes with different purposes and missions. The F22 was designed to be a pure air-superiority fighter. It has things like vectored thrust (making it more manourverable) and supercruise, but its weapons bays are designed for missiles. The F35 is designed to be an all-around plane. It can handle air-to-air combat, but it also has air-to-ground abilities that far surpass the F22... able to carry larger weapons in its bay, better communications abilities with ground forces. Its similar to the past situations where they had both the F15 for air superiority and the cheaper F16 for everything else. Canada isn't able to afford planes for both roles. But the F35 will be able to do good enough in the air-to-air role (should we ever need it) as well as an air-to-ground roll (again, should we ever need it.) First of all, I don't think anyone is claiming that air power lone is enough to stop terrorism. Yes, ground forces are necessary. But air power does contribute. Use jet planes to take out major enemy infrastructure, so that ground units can operate with less risk. You suggested that the U.S. failed because all they did was bomb afghanistan and Iraq, but the fact is, the U.S. had plenty of soldiers on the ground. The problem was not air power. The F35 is more than capable of filling the roll of an interceptor. A little history lesson... The conflict in Libya was not started by western bombing attacks. Libyan civilians were protesting, and Rebels (ground forces) were attacking the government, and in response the government was cracking down on its own population. Western countries got involved because of the Libyan crackdown that was killing too many innocent civilians. Had the west not gotten involved, it is likely the civil war would have been longer, more brutal, and had a higher casualty count. So would a few F35s. However, since the F35s are capable of flying missions without external weapons they can fly faster and fly further. They can also carry a larger array of anti-ship weapons.

And you don't think ~9 years (the time frame between now and when our planes are supposed to be good for) is "ample time"? Heck, 9 years is almost the length of time since the F35 was first flown.

And? What's your point? I already pointed out that he was in the military. But it was a different branch of military than the air force, and as such he'd be less likely to know the details about aircraft maintenance than someone (like Lt. Gen. Hood) who actually heads the air force.) And whatever he was in the past (and he does deserve respect for his role in the military), he is still a politician. The Liberal's military plans have been foolish... during the election promising to scrap the F35 to save money to build the navy, ignoring the possibility that the alternatives would be more expensive in the long run. And the Liberals failed to maintain previously planned spending proposals. Even if he were a good soldier in the past, he hasn't exactly been a forceful proponent of doing what's best for the military.

Ah, I think I see where your problem is. The "Minister of Defense" is a politician. As such, he is as beholden to the party that he is a member of (i.e. he's a Liberal) as he is to the people under his command (i.e. the military). The claim that the current fleet of CF-18s will be adequate until 2025 comes from Lt. General Hood, who is a member of the military, and as such is expected to be both unbiased (at least in public), without the divided loyalties that plague the Minister of Defense. Given a choice, I would much rather trust the comments of a non-politician who is more or less an expert in the subject matter over a politician who needs to respect party lines and who has never been in the Canadian air force. (He was in the military, but as an officer in the army.) http://globalnews.ca/news/3089202/canadas-fleet-of-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-fly-beyond-2025-says-air-force-commander/

Yes, yes they can. As has been pointed out many times before... the current upgrades mean that the bulk of the fleet will remain airworthy until at least 2025, and perhaps longer. While it will take time to run any competition and/or have the planes built and delivered, there is more than enough time to do both of those before our planes are unable to function at all. How about actually start an open competition? There is nothing preventing the Liberals from doing that right now. Well, except for the political embarrasment they'd feel if the F35 won the open competition (as they have done in other countries).

A product that Canada has been involved in the development of, for many years. As opposed to the Liberals sole-sourcing the F18, for which Canada has not been involved in the development. Already pointed out that all planes have defects. Even the F18 has serious problems (e.g. the system that provides air to the pilots. Most people would prefer if pilots didn't black out.) Already pointed out that the F35 is already cheaper than some of its competitors, and will likely cost less than the F18 in the long run. You know you keep making bogus claims. The fact that you repeat them does not make them any more true.

It is true that apart from the drop in foreign markets, the stock market has performed well and the Dow has increased since the Trump election victory. But, you need to keep a couple of things in mind: - Not all stocks reacted the same. If I remember correctly, right after the election things like bank and resource stocks went up (expected, given Trump's election promises of dialing back environmental and economic regulations), but other stocks (like tech stocks) decreased. - Investors often base their investment decisions on short term rather than long term predictions. One of my criticisms of Trump was that his promise repeal of banking regulations would return the American economy to the unstable state it was in pre-2008 recession, which would leave the economy open for another collapse. So, investors are probably looking at the same campaign promise, and instead of thinking "Oh oh, my bank stocks may tank in 3-4 years", they are probably thinking "Woo hoo! Bigger profits for the next 3-4 years. Who cares what happens later?" Its also possible that investors are predicting that Trump will break many of his election promises, such as his "giant tax cuts for the wealthy, huge deficits for the rest of us" plan, or his isolationist trade policies.

Before I deal with this posting, I just want to point out: Omni made many claims about the F35... too expensive, lacks maneuverability, Pretty much all of those claims were debunked. So what does he do? Ignores the fact that most of what he's already said has been debunked and flings yet more stuff around. Guess we can call that the spaghetti method. I'm sure there are plenty more. I can even point out ones you haven't even mentioned yet. However, I never claimed the F35 was flawless. I admitted in an earlier post that there were still problems, and there will probably be new problems in the future. All jet fighters have had problems, both during development and during deployment. Its the nature of the beast. That the F35 seems to have more problems than other planes is partly due to the fact that its such a step up when compared to other planes. Pointing to the F35 and shouting "Problems!" while ignoring similar faults with the F18, or the Gripen, is rather weak tea. Ok, so lets take a look at some of the problems listed in that particular article: - Wing drop; Problem: fixed, by simply rewriting part of the control software. See: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/dont-ask-alis-yet-f-35-wing-drop-issue-fixed/ - Radar requiring reboot: Last I heard, a fix in the software was currently undergoing testing and seems to have solved the problem. See: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35-software-glitches-fixed/ - Problem with ALIS (software used for maintenance)... a new version is expected early next year. Yes its out of date and still buggy. But its a feature that our current CF18 fleet doesn't have, so even if its never used, its not like we're loosing functionality. And furthermore, ALIS is being used by the Marines on their squadron of F35Bs, and even with the bugs it still seems to be making maintenance easier. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/04/27/f35-marine-maintainers-alis-uk-us-f35b/83614074/ Much like the problems they had with the F18s and Gripen during development and deployment... they'll eventually solve the problems, or find workarounds.

Sounds like a huge rewrite of history. Not really. The first F35 produced costed over $200 million. Once they started producing them, costs dropped to ~150 million. Now the cost is below $100 million. As another poster pointed out, you are making the mistake of comparing unit cost with program cost. Now, it is true that development costs were higher and the number of planes ordered is lower than expected when the program started. This might increase the price per plane relative to initial plans. But that's irrelevant... we are not comparing the current price of the F35 now with the theoretical price from a decade ago when the program was started. We are comparing the current price of the F35 with the current price of the F18, or of the Gripen, or of the Eurofighter. So, instead of being a good plane at a GREAT price, it becomes a good place at a GOOD price.

That depends on the given airspace and ROE, for instance, missions over the Persian Gulf are found within heavily trafficked areas.......both by allies and civilians. Likewise Canada, on a NORAD tasking, they wouldn't splash a lone airliner from beyond visual range.......a stream of Russian bombers is of course a different story. My comment was referring to a specific claim... that the ability to dogfight was important because the U.S. experiences in Vietnam showed that missiles were sometimes ineffective. I was pointing out that the reason they had to dogfight wasn't necessarily that long range missiles were ineffective, but that the rules of engagement in that conflict required visual confirmation (which would have resulted in more dogfights.)

We need a plane of some type that is capable of meeting our basic defense requirements and our commitments to NATO. Actually we can. While there are accusations that the costs of the F35 are "out of control", the fact is that the unit price has dropped significantly as the production rate has increased, and will drop further in the near future. The F35A (the model we would get) already costs less than the Eurofighter Typhoon, and by the time we purchase them will probably be comparable to the F18. Also, considering that the production line will be active long after those of the Eurofigther, F18 and Gripen have shot down, long term maintenance will probably end up being cheaper in the long run. Yes, jet fighters are expensive. Its the nature of the beast. But ALL such fighter jets are expensive. Lets put this into perspective... The previous cost estimates for the F35 that the conservatives gave suggested ~$40 billion over 4 decades. That works out to roughly $1 billion/year. Canada spends roughly that amount on the CBC. If you don't think we can afford the F35 (something that contributes to national security) then you should also demand that the government get rid of the CBC. Except it doesn't. The whole claim that it "lacks maneuverability" comes from a very poorly thought out article on a website called "war is boring" where it looked at some flight tests pitting the F35 against the F16. The problem is, that was never a proper evaluation of the F35s ability to "dogfight". It was a test of its control surfaces to see what software tweeks could be made, and as a result its abilities have been improved. From: https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/ The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16. But that's the problem. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Liberals are not having an "open competition". At least not now. They're buying a bunch of F18s, with no competition, and labeling it an "interim" measure. Which might mean that either later competitions are tainted, or we end up having a mixed fleet of F18s/F35s in the future, driving up costs. Sorry, but that's how open competitions work. You let potential suppliers compete. [/quote] Trudeau made contradictory promises. He stated quite definitively that they would not buy the F35, AND he said they would hold an open competition. The problem is, if it were truly an open competition there is no way he could have guaranteed that the F35 would not be chosen (as has happened in multiple competitions around the world). First of all, your claim that the Russians and Chinese can "see through" stealth is far from proven. There are claims from various people about magical radar systems that can detect stealth jets, but we've never seen proof of such technology deployed anywhere in any military in a way that would actually threaten a stealth jet. Secondly, and more importantly, stealth is only one of the features of the F35, and why purchasing it makes sense. You also have: internal weapons bays (that minimize drag and increase useful speed and range), advanced avionics (sensors in the plane, plus its ability to communicate with other planes and ground forces), and the fact that the production line will probably be open for a lot longer than any of its competitors (making replacements and spare parts cheaper). Even if the F35 were not stealthy... Even if it broadcast a signal to all planes saying "Here I am!" there would still be reasons to consider buying it. From: http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35-not-too-pricey-performance-better (An F35) ordered in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will cost $85 million in “then-year” dollars ($78 million in today’s dollars). That is in the same ballpark as the latest F16 Or how about from: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/the-super-hornet-under-the-microscope-how-the-fighter-jet-compares-to-the-f-35 The Danish Government approved a deal this week that quoted a price of $125 million per superhornet and $84 million per F35 in 2019

No fighter jet is 100% perfect. Even the F18 has had problems (the navy found significant structural problems with the wings that required significant repairs; plus, they still don't know why they are having problems with the pilot's oxygen supply.) Its true that the F35 has had significant problems in the past. Yes, there are still some issues to be fixed. And yes, I'm sure there will probably be other glitches in the future. But the major problems have been ironed out, and the plane is more than stable enough to be used in service. And there will always be trade offs. The F35 has far more capabilities than the F18 or the Gripen. But with that comes more complexity and more chance for something to go wrong. But if we stick to only minor changes (e.g. CF18 to Super Hornet) our air capabilities will probably fall far behind.

So what are the requirements there? Stealth? - no While they may not need stealth if they are on a mission that involves visual identification, we aren't going to have multiple planes each with a different role. We will have one plane, which may use stealth when in combat, and other capabilities when not engaged in combat. Oh, and even if it is required to visually identify its target, it doesn't mean that stealth wouldn't serve some purpose, if the plane being identified is hostile. Actually, being able to go supersonic would actually be useful here (as would the ability of the F35 to "sort of" supercruise.) If a plane needs to be intercepted it makes sense to intercept it as soon as possible. Being able to go supersonic would help with that. Again depends on the situation. We are unlikely to have a mixed fleet, so while our planes may not need a full complement of weapons for one mission, they may need them for others.

I believe that philosophy causes a lot of losses in the Vietnam War. The US assumed the F4 would never need to engage in a dogfight so it had crappy mobility and many were lost. This was already discussed previously. Part of the reason there was more dogfighting than expected in Vietnam may have been because the rules of engagement required visual identification of their targets. Remove that requirement (as will probably happen in future conflicts) and long-range missile attacks become more effective.

Or, more likely, in 5 years to rig the competition in favor of the F18 by pointing at the extra cost of running a mixed fleet of aircraft. The fact that you keep claiming it makes the most sense does not make it so. Unless of course Boeing slows down on their orders in order to keep the production lines open in the expectation that there will be further purchases in the future. And speaking of production lines... I already pointed out that the F35 will likely be built for decades to come. The Gripen has about a half dozen customers. Do you really think they're going to keep the Gripen production line open for anywhere near as long as for the F35? Plenty of reasons. You just seem to ignore them. We've got: smaller capacity to carry weapons (as well as less flexibility on what weapons are carried), no advanced 'helmet' like in the F35 (giving the pilot ability to 'look down' though the plane), probable shorter production run. I'm sure we can dig up others. Ah yes, when in doubt blame it on the "military industrial complex" rather than the capabilities of the plane.

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more. While I don't think our pilots will regularly be engaging in dogfights, that doesn't mean situational awareness is no longer relevant. For example, our planes may need to approach aircraft in order to identify them visually and/or escort them through our air space. (Although this might not be relevant in a combat situation, it may well be important during regular patrols.). Or they may be in a close-air support situation with targets on the ground, in which case being able to see the entire terrain (to differentiate potential targets/threats from innocents)