waldo

notwithstanding it's not old, it's still current, is still in active production... and has an immediate upgrade path to the 'Advanced Super Hornet' level, how does your labeling line up against settling for an, at this point, unproven and indeterminate costed F-35 option. Does the term 'vapour-ware' mean anything to you? .

Defence Minister Jason Kenney, you say! Who knew? Supply ship gap prompted changes in regulations governing sole-source military purchases how does this line-up against the previous thread internet-lawyering? .

why do you feel it so important to perpetually highlight Canada does not have a developed aerospace industry to the point of manufacturing certain types/categories of military kit? Do you think you're providing revelations, new insights... or what? After the several hundredth time doing this, are you really bringing anything new here? Notwithstanding the United States is the world's leading military industrial complex (aka war-mongering nation), do you actually expect a country the size of Canada to match the U.S. on this... or many of the other things you keep coming here to MLW to "beat your drum over"? .

again, it would most useful to see that formally documented... and recognized. Source/cite request: . internetLawyers-R-Us .

on Super Hornets too? Oh my, your mini-Trump bravado is most appreciated here! .

"campaigning against for years"? Really? How so and why so - do you context/details to support that? I mean, sure... when the AG comes out and all hell breaks loose around what Harper Conservatives did to conceal actual costs, well..... that was why Harper pulled the pin and set in motion the, "Conservatives delay, don't do anything plan", right? .

no - effectively that was Northrup dropping it, the land-based option within the F-18 grouping, given the tactics of McDonnell Douglas - hence the lawsuits. Given those tactics, Northrup couldn't get any sales traction with other countries, leaving Canada in the position of being the sole potential purchaser. But it forever fits your narrative that has you continually throwing down these comments along the lines of, "stupid Canada, bought a carrier based plane"! Notwithstanding, of course, my repeated rallying around those comments of yours to remind you that there are over a dozen countries without carriers that have either purchased or 'kicked the tires' on the Super Hornet... coupled with the USN itself that has chosen to fly the Super Hornet from land bases in the past. .

no - we keep coming back to this - why? There never was a requirement in joining the program to actually purchase the F-35. If you keep insisting so, then provide a cite to that end. We also cycled round-&-round over being able to bid on contracts without purchasing... you know that's a fact... that's what'a happened to date, and it was one of the U.S. procurement 'big-cheeses' who categorically stated Canada would still be eligible to bid on contracts into the future without purchasing the F-35... just needed to be a part of the program (as in pay the yearly fees). This was all referenced and cited - are you going to make me actually dig up posts from whatever F-35 related thread that's in? so now we get LockMart uttering threats - nice! Of course, that's par for the course given some of the tactics used to secure sales, right? Don't make me post that wikileaks info concerning the Norwegian sale... don't make me do it! .

apparently... one can monetize 'free' speech... it actually isn't free! wait, what? Too soon? .

that's what you come back with? It's a profiled issue; the prior 2 modernization pursuits were covered to the nth degree pubicly and yet... somehow... you automatically presume that we (the public) would hear nothing about this latest one? Is that really your position or are you just so determined to... argue for the sake of argument? The "as I'm aware" usage is simply a statement that I've not found anything to the contrary - I can't give you something that might not exist - ya think! I could say the same wasted space comment as you've just thrown back to me - you not being able to find a source is not YOUR excuse, is it? you keep nattering on about "money approved by Harper" - here's the thing, once the Air Force actually figures out what might be needed and determines the practical and logistical aspects to realize that need... lower-level approvals are required from branches of government to actually realize those monies and initiate actions to dispense them - the DND, Treasury, PSPC, etc. Do you really think given the politicization around the CF-18 replacement undertaking, that there would be a dearth of information in that regard? In recent days, the so-called gap is playing prominently in comments, rationale, etc.. Could there be such a gap... if the latest modernization understandings/intent were known and work was proceeding to eliminate that so-called gap? In that article cited/referenced (April, 2016), the Air Force lead of this latest modernization pursuit is stated as saying, "Brzezinski said the upgrades have to be on the aircraft by 2021 if the project is to make financial sense. That means decisions have to be made and contracts placed within the next two years." I guess, for the sake of your own 'argue to argue sake', work can be progressing without any public knowledge of government approvals, of contracts having been let, bid on and selected... it's not like the government has a formal process around all that with full information available to the public! Ya think? I'm going to repeat the following since you so clearly chose to ignore/blow it off - perhaps you might be inclined to actually comment given another chance - yes? So... this is all predicated on the F-35 being in a full production state and a proven entity between 2021 and 2025. Based on past delays/problems with the F-35 program should this simply be "matter of fact" and accepted outright - who other than the most die-hard partisan F-35 proponent would accept that? An unknown quantity at an unknown cost! The alternative to that could be... purchase some number of proven Super Hornets as an "interim gap measure"... and allow the F-35 to actually settle in, prove itself and have realistic/actual costs determined accordingly. What a concept! .

and that is the case - as I'm aware, the "what must be done (and particulars from there) has not been finalized and presented yet - and approved"... that determining process started in Sept 2015 with that stated, "about a year" to complete. You continuing to state 'good to 2025', presumes on that process completing, the result approved, work to commence and complete... all to give an extra 4/5 years of life to the current end-life of 2020/2021 with the prior estimated ~1/2 billion cost. So... this is all predicated on the F-35 being in a full production state and a proven entity between 2021 and 2025. Based on past delays/problems with the F-35 program should this simply be "matter of fact" and accepted outright - who other than the most die-hard partisan F-35 proponent would accept that? An unknown quantity at an unknown cost! The alternative to that could be... purchase some number of proven Super Hornets as an "interim gap measure"... and allow the F-35 to actually settle in, prove itself and have realistic/actual costs determined accordingly. What a concept! .

"charges" for what? What U.S. law(s) were broken - specifically? As I previously posted, some other prior U.S. Secretaries of State have also been shown to have used their personal email in receiving/sending classified information... notwithstanding, as I'm aware, in regards Clinton, there were but 22 emails in question concerning the issue of classified information - I read that at the time she received them, they were not designated 'classified' and only subsequently became so later. .

how is it you're still stating this 2025 date? This has already been discussed, one of your own provided links shows this not to be the case... and I've replied to you twice with a reference that also suggests otherwise. Again, it's 2020/21 unless another ~1/2 billion is spent to extend the life another 4/5 years to 2025... details of that have been discussed and cited. .

perfect! The figures, the reference you keep pumping in regards to Finland costing turns out to be, wait for it... wait for it... "A recently retired senior air force officer"... anonymous yet. Oh Argus! . a decision criteria based on costing?... suspect as has been detailed with concerns formally registered with the Danish Parliament... tell me/us, what active, production, combat-ready version of the F-35 was evaluated against any of the other alternatives to the F-35? . start with Australia... by default, it purchased the Super Hornet, "instead"... cause it could no longer accept further delays with the F-35. You ignored my earlier reply. But really, you're so pumping the F-35... based on what - just how far out/long is the Argus ready to wait for an unproven F-35? if you want to keep speaking to 'other countries' I'm confused why you won't address earlier requests. Let me more precise: of the official JSF partner nations, (United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway)... how many F-35s have actually been purchased... not original commitments... not even rolled back commitments from the originals - how many have been purchased, by which countries and over what time frames? 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? .

in the last couple of days we see prominent Democrats coming forward to rally around Clinton and to even overtly denounce Trump. There is nothing similar happening with Republicans and Trump; they appear to be either formally renouncing previous endorsements, holding back endorsements or laying down timed ultimatums for Trump to "pivot" away from his nonsense... or playing up the appeasement card to suggest, "anything is better than Clinton"... to going outright moot and avoiding the media so intent to solicit Republican leaders reactions to Trump's latest racist pursuit. .

if not America's best... why not the best - what are America's best waiting for? Is it that the U.S. primary/caucus process... and the inordinate monies required to simply be, 'in the game/mix'... that doesn't favour, "the best"! Such a dysfunctional political system led and driven by the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling and the resultant big-time PACexpress... America, "the best"... money can buy! .

did you hear... or not? You were asked a few short posts back to support your "$600/ton" reference and you've now moved off that, to this! It appears to me many of your posts tend to lack specificity and cited reference... like this one - hard to discuss further without accuracy/context. .

huh! source/cite request: .

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 .

actually, I was keen to have you extrapolate on your exact phrasing, "setting the control laws of avionics"! You mentioned 'missing context', yet I don't read you stating just what that missing context was/is... in your own words. Care to do so? could you be very precise: are you suggesting the interpretation of that F-35 test-pilot's report is incorrect - and if so, how so... particularly in regards to your statement on missing context; context you haven't elaborated on yet. Is the article's title an accurate reflection on that report - if not, why not? You know, the title: Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight --- New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle .

so you keep saying - repeatedly. Yes, of course, Canadian military procurement has had failures... what would your need/purpose be to continually bring this same notice forward - repeatedly? In any case, as I've repeatedly challenged you, should you not also acknowledge the many and most significant failures within the history of U.S. military procurement... Canada's but a 'piker-nation' in procurement failures as compared to the litany of big-time U.S. failures. Anytime you want to have a failure draw-down - game on! .

which partner nations and what numbers? Don't forget to compare those to original commitments. .

why wasn't the F-35 test pilot in on that "context"? Do you have a ready-go cite in regards your "setting the control laws of avionics"? Ya ya... along the lines of all those excuses that came forward after the Rand exercise! Uhhh... your link is not an English reference... in any case, I might be inclined to fire up a translator... but only after the Penguins win the cup - CUlater. . .

citation request... specific to the costs you reference. in regards Denmark: so it's Parliament did approve it (yesterday)... for reference in line with my earlier comments about partner nations significantly dialing back their original commitments: Denmark originally committed to purchasing 48... through the long delays, ever increasing costs and inability to match the hype, Denmark peeled that back to 30... which has now become 27. I've not read of them yet but I expect details of the incentives LockMart had to agree to will reveal in short order. . that's a standard D2.0 ploy... 'no one has left the program yet'! You balance that against actual purchases and numbers therein... while comparing back to original commitments made. And, of course, you obviously factor in the ever extending timelines... "teasers" that keep countries hanging on... to the next shift, then the next one, etc.. Of course some nations remain because they keep waiting for evidence to counter the plethora of problems... some remain to allow them to bid on contracts - spending $30 million for fees (in Canada's case), is 'mice-nuts' when speaking of multi-billion dollar outlays should actual purchases proceed. .