waldo

there's always a point intentions are firmed up and brought forward to the public... by any government. Referring to some presumed 'leak' as being the "opposite" is just your inherent political opportunism - nothing more; nothing less! .

thought for sure your unusual interest in Canada's replacement undertaking would have made you aware of the 'Defence Policy Review'. There is actually a public consultation facet to that... you should look into it; I'm sure someone with a claimed (albeit dated) USN background would have much to offer in terms of helping shape a new defence policy for Canada. .

As I said, basic math. are you sure you read your own cite? What was it you were trying to state in doing so? .

weren't you the guy who forever said nothing would occur during the first term... probably not even the second term either (oh, sorry... getting ahead here)! Given all those posts of yours that followed this theme, what are you so worried about now? why won't you accept that any possible purchase of 'some number of Super Hornets' would be an interim 'gap-filling' measure... one presumably intent to allow those 'early adopters' of the F-35 to showcase their resulting review/analysis of an unproven product, with an unknown cost. Why are you just so adamant to have Canada adopt an unproven F-35 plane - why? What's your hurry; what's your rush? .

don't forget sequestration, military cutbacks, military re-prioritization requirements given funding cuts... and the inherent resistance of the USN to the F-35, etc.. America's Shrinking Military: The End of U.S. Primacy? .

and Kuwait (24 Super Hornets): Why the U.S. Is About to Sell Billions in Boeing Fighter Jets to Qatar/Kuwait I've read a few references that are speaking to the Kuwait sale as actually the 'Advanced Super Hornet'... but I've not found definitive confirmation. .

uhhh... about those regular hearings of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee... what do they keep asking? And the Pentagon... it keeps asking! And the respective branches of the U.S. military... yup, they keep asking. A whole lotta, 'probably can't afford it' going on, hey! By the by, do you have the numbers... the revised numbers... for the actual numbers the USAF, USN and USMC will be purchasing? .

profound! Uhhh... wait a minute now... you could throw that comment out against any option. It's a good thing the F-35 would be isolated from any of that "generic" concern you raise! .

the failed U.S. military procurement system so broken the call went out for... Watson! --- like I keep challenging you, any time you'd like to have a draw-down on U.S. versus Canadian procurement failures! Any time! .

thanks for confirming what I said... notwithstanding you have the gall to actually source a LockMart VP - heeelarious! Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning .

which includes or excludes the F-35 from his commentary? .

wouldn't that depend on the length of transition - ya think? Which brings us back to you providing schedule/numbers for the F-35, presuming on it's readiness and availability within the production cycle that fits to the transition, presuming on Canada slotting in, as required, against U.S. military branches and other nations - which, of course, equally presumes upon actual partner nation purchases and actual funded U.S. military branch purchases. .

citation request again... you made me do it! your statement presumes on the ~1/2 billion being spent to give the Hornets another 4-5 years... extending from 2020/21 to 2024/2025. Decision criteria is not yet finalized/approved and Air Force project lead states he has approximately to the end of the year to finalize (say worst case)... and states he then has 2 years to establish everything required to ensure work completes by 2021 (latest). His emphasis is that this must be the timeline to make the changes fiscally worthwhile. Seems doable. so... where does the F-35 availability and production figures for Canada line-up around that... presuming the most optimistic of optimists projections... which presumes the CF-18 fleet, in its entirety, is turned over to F-35s by 2025, or... some number of CF-18s are either not flown past 2025 or are flown without regard to the stated 4 year extension gain attached to this latest modernization option. let's see your schedule, projections... real (projected) numbers - yes? .

your declared "statement of fact" doesn't jive with the prior comments from the U.S. Pentagon's Under Secretary for Acquisition... can ya help a brother out here: what right did the related chief Pentagon rep have to offer those comments - just what is the role of the U.S. Pentagon's Under Secretary for Acquisition in this regard... anyway? I mean his emphasis on 'best value' was pretty clear and definitive: "We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program." . good on ya for finally coming around and adding a proper caveat like, "elects to fund the Hornet upgrade". I guess pressing you enough times for a cite actually worked, hey! But again, even if you line up your ducks to 2025... and the F-35 is actually ready for prime time somewhere in that 2021-2025 period, just how many F-35s would Canada get through that period? Do you have a latest revision on the "ever changing, every revising" production schedule with actual numbers attached to respective countries and U.S. military branches? You know, something that actually lines up with your "no need of an interim type" statement? . perfect! You're good to go with an interim purchase... just so long as it's not the Boeing Super Hornet! Yeesh.

"in the past I've trotted out a critique of stealth by USN Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert - 2012 dated now. This updated article reference also includes mention of the same Admiral Greenert speaking on stealth... within a broader context of USN views toward the F-35, particularly against the backdrop of the 'tried and true' workhorse, the Super Hornet: Analysts: Navy brass view F-35C's stealth as overrated" yet again? Well... a MLW member posted critical/questioning commentary on stealth and I quite naturally chimed in with this ole' chestnut. Of course, I'm still so confused as to how you view the F-35 doesn't get included in 'the mix'? Now some, certainly not the waldo, might interpret the Admiral suggesting to forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack. And, of course, this recent post has the good Admiral being quoted right from the NavyTimes itself: .

2 fleets? Huh... say what? Are you stating that Canada will be replacing it's full fleet of CF-18s all at one time? Really? Hot Damn, that LockMart line will just be cranking em out like 'hot cakes'! There won' be that sustaining 2 fleet concern you're raising, right? Oh my! .

again, per Harper Conservatives... former Defence Minister Jason Kenney: "A line was added to contracting regulations in June and gives the federal cabinet authority to award a deal to a single company if there are urgent “operational reasons” and it fulfills an interim requirement." and the urgency that necessitated Harper Conservatives introducing... and acting upon this revision was... what? In any case, it's a good thing LockMart has your internet lawyerly skills to draw upon! If only the F-35 wasn't into its second decade of development and would actually be ready for prime time in a known guaranteed time period with known cost attachment... why... there would be no reason for any of this gap-filling talk, right? .

about that proffered U.S. military procurement system; the supposed top-tier and infallible system... the apparent measured reference bar that the claimed, "lowly, miserly and failed Canadian military procurement system", could only dream to be: The Pentagon’s procurement system is so broken they are calling on Watson .

the missed payment was termed an oversight... that the outstanding commitment would be met. LockMart officials are now quoted as stating, "that existing contracts would be honoured until renewal, and once they expire, they would go to nations participating in the program." just what are you on about here? We've danced this tune already! Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning so now... now we have some 'bent out of shape' LockMart officials posturing with threats over... over what? A gap filling interim measure taken because their plane ain't ready... for prime time? you tell me - who calls the shots here - the Pentagon... or, apparently, whiny vindictive LockMart officials? You tell me! .

own "it"... own what? Exactly... what is it you're asking be "owned"? .

why have you so personalized this? There's real discussion going on here; (somewhat) respectful exchanges, and little (if any) critical attachment directly to the U.S. nation proper. Why does consideration in purchasing one American offering over another American offering so solicit this type of comment from you? .

as highlighted above; notwithstanding the vagueness of your "usable time" - are you speaking of between now and 2020? - if so, don't hesitate to provide details that speak to the delivery of F-35s to Canada by then to replace the entire CF-18 fleet... F-35s with guaranteed capability and certain costing. - if not so, citation request! And please don't just say a reference has already been provided. I'd like you to provide a reference and quote from within it to support your exact statement made, as quoted above - thanks in advance. .

you're right... those other countries with their "onesy, twosey" approaches! Why... all that does is allow LockMart to say they've secured another sale with another country! .

and yet, back to the prior thread discussion, we had a LockMart rep speaking most favourably and positively to the capabilities of Canadian firms being able to secure some of those contracts on their own merits. Presumably securing some of those contracts in spite of the inherent U.S. protectionism (aka pork barrel politics) that has all manner of U.S. politicians working feverishly to secure work/contracts for their native states. The initial program sign-up has no requirement to, "to buy... to belong"; equally, as of now at least, there had been no requirement to, "to buy... to bid". .

notwithstanding this potential Super Hornet option... gap interim option... doesn't preclude purchasing F-35s in the future - once the plane has been properly 'test driven/shaken out' in the future, I'll keep asking for some formal cited reference that actually supports this, "buy aircraft" reference that keeps getting played here. Anyone, anyone... anyone? .