ReeferMadness

Ah. Didn't want to read the report, eh? I don't blame you, it's pretty depressing. Spending a trillion dollars + on a plane that was supposed to do everything but really isn't very good at anything.

"Some around here" barely post any links at all and keep on repeating the the same tired tripe. It seems like the only people in favour of the butterball fall into one of three camps: Those who don't know anything Those who have a financial interest in the butterball Those who have a career interest in the butterball It seems to me that virtually all of the independent viewpoints are critical.

This recent report on the F-35 reiterates what the other sources have reported: 1. The butterball is too heavy, too sluggish and too slow to be effective in air to air combat. 2. It's beyond visual range capabilities are overstated and any advantage relative to the competition will decline over time. 3. The stealth advantage is already questionable even with today's technology and will almost certainly decline over time. 4. It's too flimsy and lightly armed to be effective at ground support. 5. It's too expensive. In other words it was a bad idea, poorly executed.

After the Marine Corp claimed the F-35 was combat ready, a DOD report contradicted that.

not to mention irrelevant...

Huh. And is Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert also lacking in credibility? Here's what he says: Nonsense. The butterball's operational costs are through the roof - and it has nothing to do with procurement costs.

I see there are a number of people who have drunk the kool-aid and will continue to swallow anything the pentagon tells them without question. I don't have time to respond point-by-point to everything that has been written. So, I just have a few points to make. 1. WRT F16/F18 pilots who say (publicly at least) that the F35 is superior, I ask you this? Would a test pilot who publicly shit all over a weapons system which has had hundreds of billions of dollars poured into it have any career options that didn't involve the words "would you like fries with that"? 2. I've seen multiple sources (including some credible ones like Richard Sprey) who've said that building a plane around stealth is a bad idea. The fact is that the F117 was brought down by a missile system from the cuban missile crisis era and I don't find the excuses offered here ("hey, no fair - my bomb bay door was open!") to be very reassuring. 3. Richard Sprey, one of the guys who designed the F16, has openly attacked not only the F35 but the concept of multi-mission aircraft and stealth. Maneuverability Air support On stealth the Mission On 5th generation One last thing: Derek keeps claiming that the F35 will actually cost less than the competition. In fact the F35 was designed to be a low cost, general-purpose aircraft. However, all the information I've seen says the the butterball is way more expensive than the competition, particularly when it comes to operating costs.

The difference is that the Ohio turbines are going to be place well offshore while the Ontario ones were going to be close to shore. Maybe that's something we should think of. They're looking at 5 GW of power, nothing to sneeze at.

Look. I get it. Those of you who get all starry eyed at the prospect of shiny war toys under the tree want the best. And even though there is no accepted definition of what 5th generation means (it reminds me of this), it must be better than all those 4th generation planes, right??. And for those of you with an acknowledge financial interest in the outcome, the butterball must be very attractive. Here's the deal. While the butterball may not be a great military weapon, it will be a tremendous economic and policy tool - for the Americans. It allows them to capture enormous amounts of money from other countries to subsidize their military R&D. And it effectively ensures that those other countries only participate in approved wars.

Most fighters are multi-role but not all are equally good at all things. Seems like the fighter part of the butterball has been mostly sacrificed to make a better bomb truck. Don't forget that the butterball was designed to play a supporting role to the F22 for the American military. When you have a 'money is no object' military, you can get away with a an under-performing bomb truck with a premium price. If the butterball can't fight, it will have its big brother the F22 to come in and protect it. Canada doesn't have a 'money is no object' military.

I've not seen any statistics from the butterball fans that say the F35 isn't a slug even compared with a loaded competitor. Just a bunch of claims (like this one). But even if that were the case, can you think of an instance when speed would be handy when you have no weapons? Hmmmm.... how about when you're heading home? I didn't make that assumption, I merely said that it seemed risky to trade away speed, agility and weapons loading for one trait which has yet to be proven in air to air combat and which could be defeated by technological advances. In fact, there are persistent stories that stealth aircraft can be detected by low frequency radar and that an F117 was downed over Serbia using an old SAM missile using this technique. The F117 also traded away speed and maneuverability for stealth. The butterball will be a hideously expensive flying white elephant if the stealth element is cracked. Sure, if you loaded it up externally and trade away stealth, the one advantage you traded away everything else for. Truly a bomb truck at that point. Brilliant for the Americans. They got all those unemployed engineers. And we bought useless missiles. Just like you want us to buy flying turkeys.

Let's recap. First I pointed out that CSP can provide power after the sun went down and then you claimed it wasn't being built anymore. I've proved you wrong and you change the subject to which is cheaper. I said CSP could provide power after the sun went down, I never said it was cheaper. I don't think so. At least I can follow the discussion

How can I possibly "hand-wave away" a trait that has yet to prove itself in actual air-air combat? Especially when other traits that historically have been instrumental in air-air combat (speed, agility, flexibility to carry weapons) has been traded away for this single trait? This whole thing reminds me of he disastrous Avro Arrow incident when the Americans convinced us that fighters weren't necessary anymore because missiles were taking over. Brilliant decision that was.

Once I find someone who actually knows something, I'll let you know. It seems like it strikes a nerve with you that base load can be provided by renewables. Wow. This guy seems to know you. Hmmm. I'm sure you and your nuclear-pimping Dr Brook hate it when people call out your bullshit.

And yet, there are so many studies out there that say exactly the opposite: I know, I know. Pesky science getting in the way of your 1950's way of thinking. So fair enough. From now on, I'll lower my level of smearing to be commensurate with your level of knowledge. In other words, zero. Dams stored a huge amount of energy. And excess can be captured using pumped storage. By "more rational" you clearly mean more amenable to supporting your dirty, unsustainable employment and lifestyle. Still, $40/tonne is not a bad start for CO2. Of course on top of that, we need a "fine air particulate" levy for burning coal and diesel, a toxic chemical surcharge for injecting toxic fracking chemicals into the ground and environmental degradation charges on tar sands companies for the biosystems they ruin. And of course, all of the above must agree to stop dumping heavy metals and other environmental toxins.

It's dead and yet it lives again.

Obfuscation from the guy whose job depends on current models of electricity production. You've ignored what I've said and repeated the 1950's logic of the last guy. Base load can be massaged and otherwise managed via the mechanisms I described (e.g. BC's hydro). There are a variety of mechanisms that can be used to match supply and demand. Some natural gas backup may be required for a transitional period but Alberta isn't doing anything close to what it could be doing. Yep. Fossil fuels need to be priced according to their real costs. Then the healing will begin. Sorry to all those of you who can't get past your fossilized mindsets. Like base load, peak demand can be managed. The trick is to match supply and demand. That limit is reached when the dams are full. You can store a lot of energy in the dams. Really. When did they move Medicine Hat to the equator? Did the world stop when the price of oil went over $150 per barrel? Price fossil fuels appropriately to reflect their true economic and environmental cost. People will change. Even people like you.

You don't know why they need it. You've admitted that you have concerns about them misusing it. And you still want to give it to them?

Thank you for your excellent example of 1950-style problem analysis. Unfortunately for you and others like you, it is now the 21st century. There are plenty of answers to the old "base load" canard. 1. It's not all or nothing. Even if you can't supply 100% of the peak electricity demand with renewables, you can always do more. 2. Smart grid and internet of things. You can have natural gas plants that can start up in response to short term load issues and you can have smart devices that will lower or defer demand in response to lower electricity supply. Think smart refrigerators and freezers that can shut down during peak demand. Or smart dryers that can be programmed to not run during peak times when electricity is more expensive. Or thermostats that can be programmed to heat houses during off peak times. The list goes on. 3. Peak demand pricing. Some jurisdictions have this already but not all. 4. Interconnected grids. Alberta and BC already share electricity grids. Alberta may not have hydro but BC has lots. Alberta wind and solar could be sold back to BC where electricity can be stored in the form of water in the dams. 5. Concentrated solar power. There are solar power systems concentrate the energy to heat water that can be used to provide power after the sun goes down. 6. Other types of energy storage - Still in their infancy, other types of energy storage (compressed air, batteries), are being adopted in other jurisdictions. I've recently read of examples in Australia and Korea where large battery storage systems are being implemented. Today, they are still expensive but as technology improves, they will become more feasible. Alberta's problem isn't technical, it's economic and political. Alberta isn't ready for the message that fossil fuels need to go away - there are too many Albertans whose big pickup trucks, boats and RV's have been bought with oil wealth. That's why Notley's measures are so timid. But eventually, either Alberta will get with the program or be left in the dust of history.

You seem to be getting this backwards. I've done of online reading on this topic and a pattern has emerged. I keep reading about cases where (like the Paris ringleaders), the individuals weren't especially devoted to Islam or like the 2 addicts in Victoria, converted to Islam but knew little about it. These people are angry, disillusioned for whatever reasons and are using Islam as a way to vent their rage. I don't see it being inherently different that angry young people joining a gang. A generation ago, these people might have wound up in radical Marxist groups or radical environmental groups. Now, they wind up in radical Islamist groups.

According to Snowden, the spy agencies are already doing this type of thing today. Why do the police need to do it too?

Go and search Google news for Korody Nuttall terrorist. There are dozens of stories going back to 2013. All major news media.

Syrian refugees? :lol: Good one. They were a pair of drug addicts who converted to Islam, which they apparently knew almost nothing about. This is what the media has reported about where the came from. From the National Post.

BC would prefer if everyone in Canada all got on the same page before we commented about anything.

The equivalent would be for the RCMP to set up a dummy gang and then recruit vulnerable kids so they could be arrested.