YEGmann

Yes, Goodale was not caught. But "Following a 15 month RCMP investigation, a Director General of Taxation within the Department has been charged with breach of public trust for insider trading on advance knowledge of the announcement."

The aircraft is not bad operationally, it is no doubt airworthy. However the situation with the airfarme fatigue is really bad. Flight hours are still short of the MacDonnel assigned service life, but cracking is already occurring with full force. CF and L-3 MAS are doing a really great job to keep them flying, but they cannot overcome the mother-nature. All spare wings are already in use being constantly swapped among aircrafts. Maintaining a configuration status of each aircraft is not a nightmare yet, but it is challenging. I do not believe they will be able to fly them ten more years without significant operational restrictions. The same is with the Sea Kings.

Yes, they surely do. But these particular families chose a wrong avenue. I feel really sorry for them and partially understand them. Losing relatives is a tragedy. However they definitely made a poor choice. I think, it's emotions and probably greedy lawyers to blame. But still why somebody must pay for your mistake? They had known the rules before they started the lawsuit. They should have had plan B. Fantino here is just doing his job. His department forcefully spent money that could have been spend on law enforcement job. Now he is recuperating these money. I think you would do the same. Regarding the other avenues, I think, it can be their MP. Dziekansky's (I can misspell) case shows it can be done without going to court.

The families initiated the lawsuit. They lost in court. A looser must pay the bill. Don't you agree with this basic principle?

Wrong. F-35 won JSF tender. When? What are you talking about? Wrong. There are some european stuff in the US military: AV-8 Harrier and C-27 Spartan. US Coast Guard operates European planes and helicopters. Quite to contrary, these are Europeans who protect their aerospace indusry and are ready to bunkrupt themselves with projects like A400M and Eurofighter Typhoon, just for not to buy American planes. Lol! Antonov never won any competition in the US. Did you mean EADS? The story is a little bit more complicated than you are trying to present.

Sorry, buddy, you apparently have no idea about the aerospace industry if you refer to the Jane's as a source of reliable information. Do not trust them, trust me (it's a joke). I do not want to open a technical discussion in a political forum. If you want to have your brain washed - read Jane's. If you want facts - go to professional forums. This is just a friendly advice.

Sorry, buddy, a little correction. The T-50 IS NOT a fiftth generation aircraft. Right now it is just a flying piece of metal in shape resembling F-22. It carries no armament, there is no avionics, it flies on old engines. It must pass a long, long way of tests and modifications and maybe by 2025 it will approach the today's characteristics of F-35. And it is for sale right now. Russia tries hard to sell it to India, Brasil and Venesuela (please do not laugh).

Canadian companies can participate as subcontractors to Lockheed. However $9 bln. go mostly south. Maintenance contract (remaining $7 bln) can and I hope will be partially spent here. The C-130J purchase will be probably a model.

Your research on Su-35's OLS (the same will be installed on the future T-50) looks strange. The manufacturer of the OLS gives much smaller range of detection: 70 km from the rear and 40 km from the front of the detected aircraft. http://www.uomz.ru/index.php?page=products&pid=100175 Somehow no range presented in an English version: http://www.uomz.ru/eng/index.php?page=products&pid=100064 I can assure you that these data are obtained for probability of detection 50% (in the West something about 90% is used) in the ideal condition (clear sky - no fog, no clouds, not stealthy target) on a device thoroughly adjusted and calibrated by the OEM engineers before the test (which is a big problem with hi-tech equipment in-field in the Russian Air Force). As for the TV channel in the OLS-35, insiders say its range of detection is 10 - 12 km. By the way do you know how many Su-35S are in service with the Russian AF? Three or four. All are in a test unit, not in a regular combat unit. Total production of Su-35S is planned 48 aircraft. That means all data about them are highly mythological. F-35 will be well equipped. Maximum range of the AIM-120D missile is well over 100 km. No doubt it will be lethal at ranges 50 km and less. Do not forget, that AIM-120 family is combat proven and has an active homing system. Russians have neither on their tactical A-A missile. Stealth fighter have been demonstrating their unquestionable superiority over conventional aircraft since the first Gulf War. I do not know what is a basis for you admiration of EuroFighter. Bring it to the Red Flag excersise and make your claims after. So far Raptors just crushed indian Su-30MKs (which are very similar to Su-35 and better than the existing T-50). In combat F-22 overwhelms any other 4th generation fighter. Why the situation will be different for the pair F-35 - Eurofighter? My last note is amusement with your logics. It is OK for you (and the opposition) to call for equipping the CF with yesterday's technology (Super Hornets, Typhoons, etc.). This is not underestimating an enemy. But when I discribe you a real situation in the Russian aerospace industry, which is dully impotent right now, you cry it's underestimating the opponent.

Carlo Kopp is an australian crusader against F-35. Even in L-band detection of the 5th gen fighter is on shorter distances. On realy long ranges you need longer wave length radars. Their antennas cannot fit aircraft. IR and OLS can help but again it is practically a visual range and lesser chances of detection from the front of the aircraft, i.e., typical initial phase of the fight. I would not accept the claim about superiority of the Eurofighter over F-22 (let them bring the EF to the Red Flag!), but agree it can outmaneuver the F-35. However for EF to score, it must approach F-35 very close. Chances are high that the EF will be shot down well before it even detects the F-35. And prices for EF are skyrocket too. The Russian PAK FA (T-50) is not a fighter jet. It is a flying object to calm Russian public asking where billions of dollars went on their 5th gen fighter. Its another purpose is to draw tens of billions of dollars from third world countries for the right to participate in a never ending process of designing this technical marvel. You may relax. Russia won't have a true 5th gen aircraft in 2015, in 2020 either... I know, it doesn't make sense to discuss the T-50, but I want to remind you, that Russians already admitted they cannot design and built an aircraft comparable to F-22. By the way, the price of a "series production" T-50 is discussed in the range of $100 mln - $150 mln.

You probably read too much of Carlo Kopp. You are missing the point. A low observable aircraft is not invisible. You can see it even with L-band radar, but it is almost impossible to lock on an anti-aircraft missile on it. Because of the missile size. This gives a tremendous advantge in air combat. This saves our pilot lives. No plane on the market is even close to F-35. Forget about Russia, China, India having a similar aircraft operational in any near future (10 - 15 years). This quality justifies 100-million price vs 70 million of any existing fourth generation fighter. I would call 80 million for a Super Hornet much more ridiculous price. Neither multi-role aircraft does something exceptionaly well. We cannot afford several types of specialized fighter jets.

Please, do not spread your ignorance on thousands of people. Professionals in the aerospace industry know very well what is going on. A bid for F-35 will be a waste. The only possible contender, X-32, lost long time ago. "Anything else just doesn't measure up!" And exacly to be best prepared for future challenges we need today's most advanced weapons. That's what history teaches us.

nicky, Why cannot you understand that neither EADS, SAAB, Russians, nor anyone else can produce the aircraft for the future wars or conflicts? Boeing (read McDonnel) can, but its X-32 has been found inferior to the Lockheed-M/N-G/BAe X-35 by the best military experts. As has been its YF-23 inferior to LM's F-22. F-22 has set a standard for a new generation fighters. Actually, F-117 and B-2 forged the requirements too. Right now only F-35 can qualify. Any other aircraft on the market will be rejected by the very first criterion, i.e., RCS. Are you able to understand this? The claim, that the F-35 may not meet some specific (no one can tell which) Canadian requirements is just ridiculous. The F-35 is the most versatile aircraft in the world ever built. You (nobobody) can present an example of similar versatility. Your only claim can be the price. It is again interesting how liberals blaim $100-million tag on F-35 and do not mention that inferior options cost close to that. Another trick is calling the total price of $16 Billion while the aircraft cost only 9 Billion. The rest $5 - 7 Billion is a maintenance contract. This money have to be spent regadless what type of aircraft we buy. By the way, why the only complaints about this so called "sole-source" bid come from the opposition and not from the industry? We can see how fierce are demands to be in a tender right now: JSF design, C-130J maintenace, SAR aircraft, KC-X and so on. In this case there is no single voice from manufactures to present an alternative. The answer is there is no alternative for the first-class players. Our soldiers must have the best weapon available. It can easily be an election item.

It is funny how the media and the opposition haven't asked this simple question. We heard a lot of "never before!" "why now!" But nobody asked "how did we get the seat before?" David Frum from NP tried to analize this problem but wasn't heard. The answer is very unpleasant for Harper's critics: "Before there was no competition. The number of incumbents was equal to the number of seats." Countries changed on a convention. This time the EU decided agressively to change the convention. Germany interferred with large donation (i.e., bribes) to "right guys". This happened so close to the vote that it was too late to produce reliably favourable environment for Canada. Nevertheless our Dep of Foreign Affairs managed to obtain enough written commitments from representatives. Unfortunately for us, with the vote being secret, some Arab countries received a brilliant opportunity to punish Canada for our pro-Israel policy. To cheat the enemy is an honour in their mentality. And the EU block acted in its own interests. Canada simply did not have a chance. The mistake of the Foreign Affairs was not to report the gravity of the situation to the media. They hoped or wanted to believe that the written commitments were worth something. They should have known that the UN is a corrupt organisation. There is no honesty there any more. It can be concidered as a fact that the United States voted "pro" Canada.

I hardly believe Portugal can contribute as much (or even close) as Canada could. The UN vote is in no way objective. Little guys push their own agendas. Of course they do not like Canada cares about Canadian interest first. Portugal is one of those little guys and thus received this choice of solidarity or indifference.

Just watched Alan Williams on CTV Power Play. The man said no substanse. Just ridiculous crap. He gave a clear example of a liberal partisan. What tender is he talking? Since when military aircraft operational requirements, mission profiles are public domain? He wasn't able to name an alternative aircraft. Why does he thinks the public should select the aircraft, not military experts? Why we need a tender if no aircraft except F-22 can even closely match the radio signature (RCS) of F-35. Does he understand what it means? The US has conducted the tender. Lockheed's X-35 has beat Boeing's X-32. Is that Mr. Williams has no knowledge of the subject? He could have googled this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#JSF_Program_history Does he want Canada to repeat the tender? And so on, on and on... This man has no shame or he is merely incompetent.

Oh! The same liberal crap again! CO2 is not a polutant. It is a clean harmless substanse. It is not a byproduct. It is an ideal final product of any combustion process. Along with H2O. Why don't you suggest limiting production of H2O? In the real world as anyone with minimum scientific education knows both CO2 and H2O are extrimely useful for life on the Earth.

The RCMP reports on the gun control are available now. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/08/rcmps-report-on-the-long-gun-registry-sent-to-mps.html There is no statistics inside that proves the registry is useful. There is no single fact demonstrarting that the registry prevented a crime or saved a life. The reports show the registry keeps some hundred people busy with associated paperwork. Sidenote: didn't CBC told us before that the Harper's plan is to release the report after the vote?

This means the registry is not working or at least it is useless. Isn't it?

You either never saw a Tu-4/B-29 or you have no idea what an airframe is. For you, there is a saying in aircraft design "An airplane is its wing". My point is Russians have modern, brand new aircraft in their airforce. Fortunately, not many of them. To counter them we need modern and new aircraft too. Preferrebly, better than theirs.

You definitely have no idea what you are talking about. You just repeat stereotypes. Russia has written off its old Bears of "1954 design. Long time ago. These ones - Tu-95MS - are a completely new design. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 "Tu-95MS/Tu-95MS6/Tu-95MS16:– Completely new cruise missile carrier platform based on the Tu-142 airframe. This variant became the launch platform of the Raduga Kh-55 cruise missile. Known to NATO as the Bear-H and was referred to by the U.S. military as a Tu-142 for some time in the 1980s before its true designation became known." Steady series production started in 1983 and ended in 1992. You can compare to American B-52H and our CF-18. Presenting Russian bombers as flying rusty buckets of bolts is at least a mistake. I see this as a liberal's attempt to somehow embarass the government. Worse, it is directed to prevent buying really new F-35. Not for rational reasons, just because it is the conservative government who wants to provide our soldiers with modern weapons.

The Russian Bears - they are called Tu-95MS - in no way are old like B-52. In fact they are newer than our CF-18 (CF188 to be precise).

What wrong? Galloway is inadmississible to Canada because of his financial support to terrorist groups as it is defined by Canadian laws. His speech was actually delivered and presented. He monitored the presentation from the US.

Talk is cheap. Sarkozy just demonstrated his immaturity as a polititian.

Your numbers are absolutely idiotic. Where did you get this crap? What $4.4 billion this year?! This year spending on C-25 is only $90 million. This is in the recently approved budget. And Kevin Page presented complete crap as usual.