Moonbox

The definition for corruption is far, far broader than that. The easiest way to define political corruption would be to call it the abuse of public power for personal gain, whatever that gain might be. Whether it's helping a friend, family or yourself doesn't really matter. The benefits don't have to be tangible and there are tons of examples I could give you off the top of my head, and I'm sure you could think of just as many.

I wasn't. I was saying all along that it was irrelevant. It was two planes. All I said was that the Australian purchase being cheaper did nothing to support your low ball cost estimates. I'm done explaining why. This isn't rocket science man. The fact that the F-35 was THAT far over budget put further strain on an already-strained DoD budget, making necessary cuts bigger than they should have otherwise been. The LRIP production of the Super Hornet wasn't hundreds of planes. In the hundreds, it was in full scale production. How many F-35's have been built so far, and how long will it be until it hits full production????? I never said either of those. Your poor grasp of reasoning just has you tripping over simple points. Daily? That going back to the 1970's, and was meant to illustrate the insane profit LM is making off the F-35, despite their colossal failure to deliver it on time or on budget . Something's not right when a government contractor fails to meet its commitments THIS badly and still gets filthy rich doing it all at the taxpayer's expense. Libelous charge!? Really!? After a comment like that, I don't think I could take you any less seriously. That's one of the most pathetic things I've read in 6+ years on this forum, and I've seen some sad stuff. Look up some definitions for the word 'apparent', and then read my comment again and tell me who I was committing libel against. After that, ponder the maturity level of someone who throws around accusations of libel on an internet discussion forum. What a joke.

It doesn't matter what the Australian deal entails. It was for 2 planes. It's even more foolish to believe that the biggest, highest-profile DoD program going (at least) 60% over budget did not contribute to its own cuts. The full-rate production of the Super Hornet was half that of the low-rate initial production of the F-35. That's an interesting concept. It's also damning evidence of how much of a clusterf*** the entire development phase has been for the F-35. The scale of the differences between the Growler and Super Hornet is an order of magnitude bigger than the differences between a Super Hornet equipped, or not equipped, with targeting pods. You don't have to, but it all goes back to my original point that those taxpayers probably aren't getting good value for what they paid. If you follow the money, it's very easy to see where it all went: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LMT#symbol=LMT;range=5y Yep. Despite this giant pissing match we're having, you and I both agree what the end result should be for Canada. My arguments regarding the program are more directed to apparent corruption and incompetence in the American political system, particularly with respect to the military industrial complex. While I'm not American, a lot of my family is, and I do believe that our continued prosperity is tied in with theirs. When I see how epically Lockheed Martin has failed to deliver the F-35 at cost and on time, yet watch their stock double despite this, I scratch my head. Delayed and over-budget can be expected, but not to this extent, and not without it impacting the company's bottom line. It's hard to look at this and not see blatant profiteering.

I don't think he's really up to date on world affairs like that. He's still stuck in Trudeau-mania (the 1970's version), with all of the empty words and concepts that came with it.

I think that it sadly has to be a grey area, where the vast majority of times you'd have to say absolutely not, but then in particularly exceptional circumstances....

Little bit more to it than that, especially in the case of WW1 and WW2, but I don't think you really care.

So what are you suggesting? That we don't buy modern fighters for our air force or ships for our navy? The procurement process was lousy, sure. Is that what you're saying? We didn't leave, we weren't voted on to it. Yes, your bias is very clear.

It doesn't, but whatever. Pure foolishness. If the F-35 program hadn't been hemorrhaging money for the last 10 years there would have been more money for procurement and less need for cuts. I know it wasn't, but full-scale production of the Super Hornet averaged less than 17 planes per year, whereas the more recent "LRIP" lots of the F-35 double that in size. To be clear, once more, I'm not suggesting the Super Hornet as an alternative, just refuting your claim that the F-35 will end up cheaper, despite it's 6:1 advantage in production scale. The Growler is a (mostly) dedicated electronic warfare platform. The reasons it costs so much more than the regular Super Hornet would be similar to why the E-3 Sentry is so much more expensive than the normal 707. You CAN pack tens of millions of dollars worth of extra targeting and jamming equipment, but that's not the case with the standard F-18. The F-35, I suspect, does carry a lot of this gear. I've no doubt they will either. The question is how much. Under $100M? I'd be surprised if it didn't. Under $90M? I start to doubt. $80M and below? Nope. Also, although foreign buyers don't really have to worry about this, the bloated development budget can't be ignored. They're sunk costs now, so it doesn't really matter moving forward, but when evaluating Lockheed Martin's success (or lack thereof) on delivering this plane, you do have to look at the hundreds of billions in cost overruns and realize that the American taxpayer underwrote and heavily subsidized the final cost of the plane for foreign buyers. Where's bush_cheney? I want to thank him.

Good judgement isn't a DNA trait, and even if it was his father was a terrible economist, a caustic and divisive personality and an antagonistic diplomat. Oh, but he gave us a Constitution...yay.

Nor was it his 'fault' that he became leader of the Liberal party. He was born into it, and if daddy Pierre hadn't preceded him Justin wouldn't be anything more than a drama teacher.

I don't think there's any question about that. Any of the alternatives don't make sense, just like Canada developing and producing their own plane wouldn't make sense either.

So again, what does this information provide to the debate? The reduced DoD orders are also a result of Lockheed's failure to get the program under control, on time and at a reasonable cost. The projected F-35 figures are just projections, ones given by the same company that failed to meet all of their other plans and projections. They're also based on a 6:1 economies of scale advantage over the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, unless it gets a big order soon, is going to have its production cancelled. It was essentially just a stop-gap measure in the first place. No, ECM and upgrades do not make up a (currently) $50M difference. The only thing that will make that up is if Lockheed's dubious commitments and cost projections finally, for once, turn out to be true. If you say so, but targeting pods and ECM doesn't cost $20M+ per plane. I never thought the program would be binned. I just think that Lockheed, P&W and various other partners need the Pentagon to b****slap them and get them in line. Considering how much the US has already spent, they damn well better get the per unit costs into the realm of reasonable.

Because that's where we're going to get the most accurate numbers for the ACTUAL cost of production aircraft? It's not going to be any cheaper per unit in Canada, is it? Yes, we've already been over that. They need to drop about $40M (1/3rd) off the current price at full-scale production to meet an $80M target. Lockheed says they will do it, but given how many promises and commitments they've broken so far we have no reason to believe them. The F-35 costs will go up with inflation in that same period. Are you suggesting otherwise? Okay, fair enough, but the US is buying Sniper ATP pods at ~$1.6M each. Australia's 18 pods seemed to have cost over $4M each, but apparently that's because there is a ton of training and logistical support needed to integrate them into the Australian armed forces, whereas the US is benefiting from prior experience and economies of scale. Either way, that doesn't make come close to bridging the gap between the F-35 and F-18E in terms of price. Okay, so with a small 500-unit production run, the fully-equipped Super Hornet is still coming out cheaper than the absolute best-case scenario F-35, with an anticipated ~3000-unit production run. It's not an apple-to-apples comparison, but even with the disadvantage of scale, the Super Hornet is still cheaper. All of this of course assumes that Lockheed gets its act together, which is hardly a given.

I can't tell if you're serious or if that was really heavy sarcasm.

Is this another one of your rhetorical questions? Seeing as though we both know the answer to this, why don't you just go ahead and make an actual point? I'll say again, my assumption is based on the numbers we see for planes built so far and from the US procurement budget for recently purchased and in-production aircraft. Your assumptions, as you mention, are based on nothing but the statements and promises of LM and the Pentagon, none of which have been credible thus far. As recently as 2012 they were promising allied partners there would be no more delays on the roll-out of the plane. We're now learning that software problems are going to push things up to another 14 months behind. OOPS! Usually, when someone's statements consistently prove wrong, exaggerated or deceitful, you stop believing them. You, on the other hand, seem to just cheer louder. I sure hope you're not that gullible with money. Uh...no. I'm suggesting inflation has the same impact on ALL defence programs, so using it as a point of comparison between different ones is foolish. That's an embarrassing display of reasoning skills. Can you decipher this abomination of grammar and verbal diarrhea so it actually makes some sense? A lot, lot less than an F-35. Flyaway cost is ~$65M today. Flyaway cost for an F-35 is generously stated right now at $120M. Even if they can get costs down to below $100M (far from certain at this point), there's still more than a $30M differential. Targeting pods and ECM suites don't even make a dent in that difference. The F-18E is cheaper because it's an older and far less advanced plane. Your claim that the newer and far more sophisticated F-35 will end up cheaper than the F-18E is a really good example of how deluded you are with respect to this topic. Don't forget your Lockheed Martin pom-poms on the way out.

Yeah, we're just a bunch of ornery right-wing corporate imperialists...right?

Any electorate. All electorates. Probably over 90% of people in Canada don't even read the news, so making intelligent and informed decisions simply can't be expected.

If there are items missing on the Australian purchase that are included in the American purchases, then the Australian purchase price is effectively understated in comparison. If so, this provides absolutely no useful data for you to support your low-ball F-35 production costs, nevermind the fact that the purchase was only for two freaking planes. No, and you know I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that since the Americans DO have the biggest financial stake, they're certain to get the best deal on the plane. Knowing this, when you see the Australian purchase coming in at a lower price than current American purchases, you can be almost certain that either they got a steep discount for testing/training purposes or that their purchase contract was missing items the American one had. Either way, it's useless information for our debate other than it gives a pretty clear indication Australia is going to purchase the plane. Yes, my assumption is based on the numbers we're seeing now, and based on the painful history of Lockheed Martin not meeting its targets and commitments. You, on the other hand, are basing your assumptions on nothing but the promises and commitments of the people who keep failing to fulfill their promises and commitments. Brilliant. Inflation? That's another big fat red herring. Aside from the fact that inflation has been at best lethargic since the mid 90's, it will have an equal effect on the F-35. Also, why are you bringing the legacy F-18 into this? It's out of production. As for targetting pods, we know Australia spent about $100M six years ago to outfit ~70 planes, so unless ECM systems on the F-18E cost roughly $30-35M per unit (which they don't), the F-35 still comes out way more expensive, best case scenario. It's a much cheaper plane, because it's not nearly as effective or sophisticated. Saying the F-35 is going to end up cheaper than it on a per-unit basis is just sad.

Sorry eyeball, but I'm having a tough time understanding what you're saying exactly. Is this an anti-Imperalism comment, or something more nuanced that I'm not understanding?

You didn't make a point worth agreeing or disagreeing with, so I'm not sure what I was supposed to get angry with. Your repetition of vapid phrases like "You're free to believe whatever you want", however, is boring and irritating, and better replaced with an actual discussion-provoking response or nothing at all. Thank you from sparing us additional banalities

Like how they planned to dislocate ~30-40,000 Bedouins in 2011, but then cancelled the plan due to UN outrage and publicity?

I wouldn't argue with that, but at the same time I would disagree with the implied notion that Israel is just carpet bombing Gaza and targeting indiscriminately. The old saying is that Israel protects its children with weapons, and Hamas protects its weapons with children. When Hamas fires mortars or launches rockets just outside a school, and Israel fires back at them, who's really to blame there? The IDF in this case has two options. Either they fire back and hope not to hit civilians (which isn't always the case) or they continue to take fire without being able to retaliate. The only reasonable option, unfortunately, is the one that makes for great PR victory on Hamas' behalf. Showing pictures and videos of dead/injured children and old people is what they've wanted the whole time. Hamas never intended to fight any sort of real battle here. They merely wanted to draw the IDF in force into Gaza and encourage as many civilian casualties as possible.

There comes a point where you can't take what you want. The rest of the world, if outraged enough, will move to stop you. This is what's starting to happen to Russia with Ukraine. Israel's settlement of 'occupied' lands, however, date back several decades and came about as a result of failed Arab invasions. Their blockade on Gaza ostensibly resulted from Hamas terror attacks. The world reasonably didn't have a lot of sympathy for the Arabs when their invasions failed and Israel pushed their borders outwards. The maintenance of that status-quo for decades, and subsequent settlement of these lands, almost makes them defacto Israeli territories. If, on the other hand, Israel attempted to subjugate and displace Gazans with Israeli settlers, they'd likely meet substantial resistance from the US and UN, and find themselves unable to continue.

All of that is well and good, but you don't need to copy/paste empty words repetitively. In this case, you quoted two posters and copy/pasted the same pointless 3-phrase response. If you don't believe that someone is being rational or fair, feel free to poke holes in their logic, or flat out state that they're being biased. You could also just ignore them altogether. We do not however, need you to clog up the board with banalities.

We don't need you to tell us we're free to our own beliefs and assumptions. We already know our rights.