waldo

newsflash! The guy was born and raised in the United States... homegrown! .

wassup - you said it yourself... you self-acknowledged you weren't informed - I can look for your post if you'd like. Still waiting for your numbers - soon? I've already spoken of your tired refrain about being "equal opportunity critical" - it don't fly! CUlater... some kind of game on now .

I've not heard/read that yet... but lots of talk about the easy purchase of the assault rifle adding to the carnage numbers. .

this makes no sense and has no basis in fact. Your "making no choice" doesn't quite line up with bringing forward an 'interim gap filling' consideration, does it? .

this comment only solidifies your crass partisanship on the subject. To the typically uninformed, objections to the F-35 stemmed from the tactics Harper Conservatives used to push the purchase. To the informed, objections to the F-35 are also those and the actual long-tired history of the failed program. I'll keep asking: not that many posts back you acknowledged being 'uninformed' to the particulars of the F-35 aircraft itself... that you're simply basing your position on the number of nations "involved". Yet, in that regard, somehow... you can't even speak to the involvement you presume to leverage - again, the repeat ask you refuse to address and respond to. .

huh! You're out of context (or I am)... where did the F-15 reference come from? .

I believe the point being made... or at least the way I took it, was that not all countries "jumped on the early Hornet bandwagon". As much as you refuse to acknowledge it, the same can be said for the F-35 in terms of actual foreign sales... actual contracted sales with money exchanged with a pointed emphasis in stating the actual dates (over what time period, beginning and ending dates). Notwithstanding, again, what actual numbers will materialize from the respective U.S. military branches... funding is turning out to be a real beeatch! Surely, all this talk of resurrecting the F-22 has to mean something to you - if yes, what; if no, why not? .

my read/listen has the guy being investigated 3 times by the FBI... for 'suspected ties'. Per the FBI spokesperson today, the FBI found nothing substantive to that end - he was currently not under any type of surveillance. And it certainly didn't impact upon the guy's ability to purchase a handgun and assault rifle - go figure! I expect anti-Muslim types aren't pleased with some of the early talk/speculation about the guys mental state... that lil' gem, if accurate, will simply dampen the drum-beat narrative - yes? .

ya ya, that's right... that's what was being laughed at! Certainly not the right-wing charge to, per norm, attach this to the broader Muslim populace... that's not what was being made light of - nope, not at all. And my highlighting that tweet of Trump's was just me standing resolute and supporting the Trump ban! but by-the-by, have you suddenly found your 'gay-legs'? If so, good on ya - better late than never, hey! .

no - your suggestion that "not purchasing" is a testament to "wanting" doesn't pass the smell-test! Why... look at Canada Clearly, you won't touch that repeat ask being directed to you - of course you won't! .

the discussion point was on foreign nation sales... but hey, if it makes a difference to you, yes add those U.S. military branches in. Wait now... how is it whenever some damning critique on the 'B' and 'C' F-35 variants has been offered in the many MLW F-35 related threads, your typical response has been along the lines of, "no worries... that's not the military branch variant Canada is purchasing". .

no other comment you've made showcases just how uninformed you are! I would suggest you googly concurrency as relates to the F-35 development methodology... from there, look at the latest scheduled development "propaganda" that presumably speaks to "actual production" dates. Start there. From there get into the state of known and impacting problems... the ones that are actually being made public. how are you doing on my repeat ask - have you done the review/analysis yet... do you have the numbers yet? .

was that the point being made... how many of those countries purchased it in line with initial release offering... and how many did so, 15-20 years later? 2 of those 7, right? .

The AR-15 is the gun of choice for mass shootings and it’s easier to buy in Florida than a pistol .

embracing Islam... one crescent roll AND one croissant at a time! Uhhh... wait now! Couldn't that be counter-Jihad... symbolically devouring! .

you mean like I keep asking you to put definition and quantitative attachments to your repeated statement... where I keep asking you to put forward actual purchased numbers (contracts and money exchanged) and the time frame around those purchases... where I keep asking you to provide a comparative correlation between those actual purchases and the original commitment numbers? Like that, 'keep asking' - like that? I was sure the lil' review of Denmark's sale would have emboldened you forward; apparently not! Here, let me try again: perhaps you'd like to comment further on that Denmark sale: as reference, the original early program commitment had Denmark purchasing 48... over time (per countries concerns with delays, under delivery, suspect results, over costing, etc..), that got peeled back to 30... and now settles in at the 27 purchased. Since others around here have shown no qualms in the past in taking a quoted sale price (without regard to specifics of the sale) and equating it to a per/plane costing, let's examine in that regard: 20 billion Kroner equates to the $3 billion U.S. figure quoted... which comes in at ~$112 million U.S. per plane. Which, of course in current Canadian exchange equivalent comes in at ~$3.8 billion and ~$142 million per plane. How do those costs sit with you, hey? what seems to be somewhat lost in this hyping of the Denmark sale is it's 27 planes between the 2021 and 2026 period... it's odd that they're waiting so long - I mean, didn't they just evaluate "something"? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). The point of emphasizing the significantly reduced commitment number is that it's not unique to Denmark... notwithstanding mega-uncertainty concerning just what numbers the respective branches of the U.S. military will ultimately purchase. All these continued F-35 cost projections presume on expected sale numbers/volume purchases - why should anyone have confidence in any projections coming forward from JPO/LockMart? .

I try to keep somewhat current but missing Trump calling for a ban on Americans born in New York City and a ban on the sale of military assault rifles..... that's huge! I don't how I could have missed that! LINK TO IMAGE

no - Harper was held to the standard that had not been properly followed... as clearly outlined by the AG. Again, I'll alert you to the ongoing 'Defence Policy Review' undertaking. I thought you would have known about this given your unique interest in this subject. I trust once you acquaint yourself with this review process you won't keep asking like questions. By the by, as a claimed American, why would you take such an apparently partisan interest slant as to always speak so positively of Harper and so negatively of Trudeau? .

you question that... but not why Harper never released it... why Harper never acted upon something that, supposedly, gave the "green light"? Say what? .

thankee! Unproven. Yet... you want Canada to be an early adopter of the F-35... the plane that still has huge impacting problems that you simply choose to dismiss - outright dismiss. It's never mattered to you when those damning reports from the U.S. GAO, U.S. DT&E, etc., have been presented here - you've outright ignored them or given them 'short-shift' dismissal. Your quoted reference to "unlimited funds" is perfect - you've always been following a, 'whatever it costs' acceptance in regards the F-35 - whatever it costs! .

oh my! (Harper) Government's refusal to release 'public' report on F-35 to overshadow independent panel's stamp of approval still waiting on that report, right? .

huh! Correct me if I'm wrong... wasn't that described SLEP (extension to 10K) for the USN's usage patterns? Did I miss something here? .

oh my! Then... why are you and D2.0 presuming to hold land-based focused Canada to those end-life numbers of the USN's Super Hornet usage? Why so? .

on paper, you're saying? .

I'm reading a MLW member asking you repeatedly for cites to that end... the cite you provided, to me, simply stated the upward bound service life could be... 10K hours. I won't bother asking you for another cite... you have enough outstanding already. .