waldo

typically, someone so openly acknowledging a lack of subject matter knowledge... like you... that someone takes a more reserved, perhaps cautionary view instead of being just so absolutely certain. You continue to bristle and trash-talk anyone who doesn't line up with... with... your repeated refrain that has you simply deferring to, your preferred cadre of "experts". I certainly recall another MLW member Argus who quite regularly criticized Canadian procurement initiatives, DND, the military, etc.. Where's that guy now? I sure don't recall you ever being so forcefully engaged and pro-F-35 when it was the Harper show... when Harper let the RCAF game the requirements after the fact, when Harper kicked it down the road to avoid any attachment to the election - where was MLW member Argus then - MIA? . I don't know that. I do interpret the discussion possibility as an "interim" purchase. If in 'x' years time if the F-35 can actually prove itself - which it hasn't in spite of your "enthusiasm", I would expect it to position favourably in a real open competition. I thought asking you to reflect on your oft postured 'fiscal conservative' self might have you dial-down your drum beat - apparently not! .

the politicization/propaganda machine and F-35 IOC declarations: Marines Declared F-35 IOC Despite Deficiencies That “Preclude Mission Readiness” pot-stir time: countdown to D2.0's excuse list... Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight - New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

"operational" being the flavour of the day! 20 of those 171 are outright designated as 'DT' (development and testing). All this recent days Postmedia buzz about deliveries to "6 other nations"... having them sit on an American base tarmac... is that "delivered to other nations"? .

I've regularly brought uncomfortable reality to these F-35 related threads by referencing U.S. GAO audits/reports on the F-35... from the U.S. Pentagon's DOT&E... from independent U.S. government monitoring organizations, etc.. Of course, these get short-shift (or typically outright ignored) here. You can choose to relegate that level/degree of fact-based reality to, as you say, "a bunch of internet bloggers"! Of course you can. .

as propaganda based as the F-35 IOC declarations are... it's quite telling to read the guy actually stepping forward to tout the 'C' variant years before it's even lining up around that 'fake' IOC declaration. .

the Super Hornet is an adequate plane for Canada's needs... particularly if all it ever does it what the F-18s have done. There's also nothing to suggest that doesn't shift into the Advanced Super Hornet at a later point (10% upgrade cost). I would think your claimed penchant for "fiscal conservatism" would want to confirm the F-35 capabilities... unproven to-date... before jumping into that fray - yes? In that regard, purchasing a gap measure of 'some number' of Super Hornets seems like a most prudent first-step - yes? . where... where exactly are those 185 showing up forever in the latest articles pumped by the LockMart machine? Where are they, what iteration are they, and what real capability do they have? If you're going to trumpet the number/the plane, surely you must have those details at the ready - yes? .

no - Danish Parliament has yet to approve; again, Finland has not purchased (no monies). You talk of "selected" - original partner nations didn't select... they bought into the program site unseen... cause, wait for it... there wasn't anything to select! Some of those partner nations made initial verbal commitments. Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the list of those initial commitment numbers and where they stand today (as in dramatically reduced in number intent)... notwithstanding the absence of actual contracts, money exchanged, planes purchased. . no - that's the same party-line statement... Australia purchased Super Hornets/Growlers because it couldn't keep putting off purchases given the never ending F-35 delays. That's the same line D2.0 kept flogging... and then last night he trumpets a reference source who within the article referenced actually confirms Australia purchased those Super Hornets/Growlers for that very reason - ongoing F-35 delays. . your 'teething problems' reflects upon a decade+ of a failed program - to the point that U.S. politicians and the U.S. military itself has been awakened to the reality that there just isn't the money available to purchase those original touted numbers for the respective military branches; to the point where those cost projections (as nonsensical as they are/as they ever shift) won't have the volume purchases behind them to support those projections - notwithstanding, again, partner nations have significantly downsized original commitments (cutting into the same volume number based projections)... but again, "commitment" is nothing more than a verbal 'tire kick'. . I've been responding to you respectively - for some reason you can't handle discussion that counters your statements and have a resulting need to keep using the 'General' pejorative (intent). Much of what has transpired is 'body of motion'... countries joined JSF without anything other than, effectively, a concept. There's this forever spiel that F-35 fan-boys have about "winning competitions" - yet, for most of that period there was nothing but unproven 'on-paper' specifications as a part of any so-called competitions. .

you know I can't help myself here, right? So... with you calling into question her expertise, I'm forced to equally question her other points and the article itself - you made me do it! ok, play time over... an early start tomorrow - CUlater. .

don't make me reach for "Kopp & Goon"... or Winston (even if he's gone emeritus)! I kid, I kid .

another 'opinion' piece, properly annotated as such within the G&M... don't read too close because she confirms just what I've been saying about the Australian Super Hornet/Growler purchase caused by delays with the F-35 program. .

well - they will need to substantiate those submarine purchases... and those wascally Chinese make them a tad nervous - but at the expense of F-35s? Say it ain't so! .

increased difficulty and caused delays? That's as far as you're willing to go? It's not really a contentious point is it? JSF design, as is, wouldn't be as is, if not compromised by the Marines STOVL requirement. There's legions of articles written on the constraints caused by the compromised design... I mean, you can certainly choose to ignore it. You know, the so-called, "jack-of-all-trades but master of none"! .

I'm also not engaging in your silly buggar routine - look, if you're not even going to look at the posts you're linked to, why should I bother with you. Again, I put together a post that tracked your statements against a reference you dropped - one you never even quoted from. Eventually, when you were pressed on it several times, you finally quoted something from your original reference... unfortunately, it had no bearing on your prior statements. This reply I've now quoted is you slicing and dicing from your last post and completely ignoring the piece I'm objecting to within that post. It's the same statement you made previously... that I took the trouble to track and compare to your actual eventual quote... that bears no resemblance to your statement. And you make it again! I've created the tracking post... you ignored it. When you now just made the same statement I told you I was not playing your game and sent you a link to that tracking post. I'm quite sure you're now purposely replying, as quoted above, with everything from your prior post... except the piece I'm objecting to. Hence, yet another of your silly buggar plays! . .

would the Australians have purchased the Super Hornets/Growlers if the F-35 wasn't delayed, over and over and over again - yes or no? .

and LockMarts resultant F-35B STOVL compromised the design of all 3 variants... wouldn't you agree? .

such dripping snarc! I offered an opinion - you don't have to accept it... you certainly don't have the knowledge chops to call out anyone in these threads. My opinion isn't particularly unique and it's not a highly contentious one. Again, the state of drone warfare is ever accelerating, year-to-year. At some point there will be no requirement for manned flight. That's a tough nut for diehard fly-boys to wrap their heads around. There's also a reason why nation air-forces are re-focusing monies/procurement towards drones - today! My main point is that the days of expecting a new plane to last... to be required to last... 40+ years is just so 'old-school thinking'. My suggestion, again not unique, is to purchase something today... something capable, but cheaper... and use savings elsewhere... perhaps focused on drones if procurement requirements align. . F-35 IOC somehow takes on a whole new meaning from traditional 'combat ready'. The relatively recent farce with the U.S. Marines IOC is case in point.... declared combat ready and it can't do diddly squat... combat ready based on what 'low-rate production' iteration? Yup, combat ready... yet for some reason, it's not engaged in... uhhh... Iraq... Syria! What's the deelio there? And it's the same nonsense lining up with the USAF IOC... it's a politicization and propaganda measure the U.S. military is lining up around to support F-35 sales - volume sales... sales that just aren't happening! Wonder why, hey? .

not playing - I took the cycles to showcase your standard play where you make a statement and either don't provide a reference cite or if you do provide a cite, you never actually quote from that reference to actually support your statement made - what I affectionately call your "go-fetch" routine. I'm not playing again until you start to quote from your references and have those quotes line up with your statements. .

no - not all F-111s were retired together - ya think! The near end accelerated retirement necessitated the purchase of an interim gap solution... one forced because the F-35 delayed, and delayed, and delayed... and still delays! .

which has absolutely nothing to do with the resulting F-35 of today. Those were prototypes (from proof-of-concept) that bear little to no resemblance to the design result that brought forward the Joint Strike Fighter... which, as it turns out, ain't so joint after all, is it? What's that %commonality level now? You should have that figure ever-ready - c'mon, you can say it - sure you can! .

no - unless you have new information to cite... quote and cite... I showed your ongoing 'go-fetch' charade posts back - here: I'm not prepared to play your game on that one any further! .

no - to fill the gap between F-111 retirements and the ever-ongoing F-35 delays, the RAAF was forced to fill that gap by purchasing designated "interim" Super Hornets (24 initially)... then the additional 23 G-variant. We could go down memory lane and revisit some of those competitions - I'm always keen to talk about the incentive lengths LockMart will take to realize a sale. Of course, the easiest comeback to your same-ole, same-ole here is... just what state of the F-35 was actually being evaluated within those competitions? Such a paper-tiger! .

not sure who you're speaking to... please be clearer/more precise! you're confusing a so-called interim purchase (a stop-gap measure) and a full-competition. for a F-35 to win a legitimate comparative competition, it would need to have a ready capable final product... otherwise your apparent favoured pony would need to present 'on paper' capabilities or test results... independently verified test results - and it's not actually comparing plane-to-plane. I emphasize the independently verified aspect based on the suspect actions taken to ever shift the peas concerning F-35 test criteria and benchmark requirements... or simply eliminating test points altogether. If you've followed these F-35 threads this has all been presented previously in terms of U.S. GAO auditing and/or U.S. Pentagon DOT&E review/reports... posts typically ignored by the LockMart F-35 fan-boys here! .

no - in 1997, 4 U.S. manufacturers presented 'proof of concept'... 2 of those were selected (Boeing and LockMart) to develop prototypes - the LockMart prototype was chosen and bore no resemblance to the actual F-35 today. That multi-variant F-35 design, supporting unique requirements for the 3 distinct branches of the U.S. military (Air Force, Navy and Marines) developed over time from that initial prototype - 10 years later the first one came off the LockMart assembly line... the rest is a long & winding shyte-show of over-scheduling delays, under-delivery, over-hype and problems to the nth degree - problems that today have serious questions being raised by U.S. politicians in regards funding and just how many planes should/will actually be purchased by the respective branches of the U.S. military. Of course, all those 'artificial' F-35 costs projected all presume on volume purchases - not just those from the U.S. military... but also those initial 'on paper' commitments from partner nations. Notwithstanding the partner nations that have significantly reduced their initial commitment numbers... which are meaningless anyways since no contracts... with money exchanged... have been signed by those partner nations! Well... there are onesy-twosey purchases by nations so they can actually get their hands on an F-35. . .

you're right - too many mixed posts/discussions... I subsequently read you were actually speaking to the Danish comp. I'm not aware of any finalized competition within Finland - no monies available. Notwithstanding the dodgy process the Danish military followed, that final decision hasn't been made yet; as I understand there's a 2 week review process for the Danish Parliament... a part of that review with require an accounting of just what the Danish Military did - I read that Boeing (and others) have formal submissions before the Danish Parliament for a review of the unique criteria only the Super Hornet was held to. Kuwait intends to buy 28 Super Hornets; that commitment was reaffirmed this last January. The Super Hornet was leading the Brazilian competition... that was scuttled by Brazil when the NSA spying on Brazilian leaders came forward... that resulted in Brazil selecting the Saab Gripen. Of course, Australia purchased 24 Super Hornets... and has recently added an intent for another 12 (the F-18G 'Growler' variant)... something about an "interim purchase" brought on by continued F-35 delays - go figure... that sounds very familiar! . what I said was accurate in terms of joining the program... in 2001... that was your reference point I responded to. What year is it now? What is the latest ever changing production date... for this phase? Once actual LRIP development came forward those additional monies paid allow companies within partner nations to bid on F-35 related contracts... of course, pork-barrel focused U.S. politicians like to take care of their own States first! And, again, Canada is not required to ever purchase a single F-35 to continue bidding on F-35 contracts put forward. .