waldo

in your described 'open competition', what version of the current F-35 do you presume to suggest would be compared to other nation/manufacturer alternatives? Or are you saying alternative active working/flying options would be compared to an "on paper" F-35? .

good of you to step-in and speak for MLW moderation. Your presumption on "stealing" awaits clarification from the moderators... asking for clarity on how to properly post images within MLW. Oh wait, do you know the particulars to answer my prior questions? Please carry on and speak further for MLW moderation - thanks in advance. .

it's interesting comments from the highest U.S. military that state the F-35 will require the F-22 as combat support. If all you need the plane for is as a 'bomb truck' (which is how Canada has deployed the CF-18s), that's a pretty expensive truck! Countries without the F-22 are kinda SOL... which, of course, has countries then feeding their F-35s into the American mill where the F-22s will be there. That doesn't sound like independent foreign policy, does it... why that sounds like... aligning to the wants of the United States - yes? Which really puts into perspective the lengths taken by LockMart, the U.S. DOD and the American government proper to sway and influence attempts to sell the F-35. There's an interesting wikileaks reference I provided long ago that showcased this type of "influence" in how the Norway choice was made. in any case, there should be no discussion of 40 year life-spans for any modern purchase... think 20 years out and the state of drone warfare development in the interim. Accordingly, buy cheaper now, buy drones/capability now (for surveillance, possibly for degrees of defense)... and look to align with changes in 20 years. There is much conjecture as to the capabilities of the F-35 going up against those Russian/Chinese advances today and into the near future... of course, 'today' is a relative term as fits to the F-35... since it won't be ready any time soon. And even then, LockMart crafted a handy measure to avoid further delay embarrassment (and all that goes with that) ... all that "good stuff" that was a part of the initial design and promises, is now into the "next phase" - which has an indeterminate timeline since there is no certainly when "this phase" will actually deliver a production ready plane - a real one... not these LRIP versions coming out now. . .

that's right... you spoke of a competition held... and I expect you've now confirmed there wasn't one! Your roundabout way of acknowledging that is... interesting. You've spoken (at least twice now) along the lines of your above, "the program the Liberal party joined". Again, joining that program did not include any commitment (from any country) to actually purchase the F-35. Joining was to allow more in-depth access to information/documentation towards helping nations make a decision to purchase. .

thanks for your reply; however, respectively, you've hidden 4 images I presented (I believe it's 4 as they are now hidden and I can't confirm), and I'm not clear why. I've described what I believe is the makeup of those 4 in a prior post, a few posts back in this thread - here. The clarification I seek is both particular to this circumstance but also pertains to, of course, MLW members broad understanding of how to properly present images within the MLW forum. perhaps if I elaborate further, speaking generally without regard to the circumstance in question: - can I present an image (graph or table) taken from a PDF format file?... this would be a snapshot image taken and hosted on a 3rd party image hosting site and inline linked to MLW from there; reference linkage to the PDF file would accompany the MLW post that presents the image. This has been a long-standing practice; I quoted you yourself replying in the "Quoting PDFs" thread that, "Posting images of tables and graphs are OK." - can I present an image (graph or table) taken from a website that itself renders the image through dynamic code processing associated with interactive selection? That is to say, a snapshot of the image must be taken and hosted on a 3d party image hosting site and inline linked to MLW from there; reference linkage to the website page itself would accompany the MLW post that presents the image. .

a reference to it can be found in that original link I provided to you - this one: --- per that April 2016 article, this latest modernization requirement was officially 'kicked off' in September 2015... per Lt.-Col. Jean-Marc Brzezinski, who is leading the process in the RCAF’s fighter capability office, he has been given, 'roughly a year' => “My mandate has been given roughly about one year to look at what we need to do to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (and) interoperable,” The rest is... making it all happen and complete by 2021 in order to provide the extension to 2025. . .

I'm not interested in circling your... gyration. Without knowing anything whatsoever about that Danish competition, you've simply chosen to accept it, outright. If you don't care for the blogger reference you've been provided, try a googly - there's no shortage of discussion, like discussion, that details the unfair criteria that the Danish review body held the Super Hornet to. That criteria significantly favours the F-35 and can't be justified, on any level. If you don't agree... I don't care. All you've offered to counter it is your own unsubstantiated (and clearly questionable knowledge on the subject matter) opinion. Boeing challenges Danish decision to go with F-35 – company says Danes used flawed data

please describe the Canadian (Harper Conservative) competition held for the JSF F-35? .

you appear confused between EULA and Adobe Products that may create PDF format... notwithstanding, Adobe no longer has proprietary hold on the format (having relinquished it to ISO) and requires no attached royalties. Perhaps the fact so many vendors have products that create/edit PDF files should have alerted you to this. Try again, try harder next time. .

in this particular instance, if you've at all followed these many F-35 related threads, you would recognize the F-35, 'does not currently work" in any meaningful capacity... and will not for many years yet. Notwithstanding the capability it may ultimately present is highly suspect - aka, the 'paper tiger'. If you're going to jump in with such a politicized comment, without regard to the past, present and future of the actual F-35, why bother? .

I'd be interested in your qualifications that call out the blogger... in any case, there's no shortage of analysis of that Danish competition and just how skewed it was. As I said, I could have linked directly to Boeing's response (or many other representations of it) to the Danish Parliament. Rather than your natural penchant to attack Trudeau (that has no bearing on the Danish competition... ya think!!!), you could actually do some research and come back to support the Danish actions taken in that competition - one that you, apparently, in your unsubstantiated qualification, feel warranted to support... even without looking into it! .

that's the point of the clarification request... that clearly isn't being given the respect I believe it deserves. Without definitive understanding we end up with the swirling morass of uncertainty - you keep hearing it in member comments/complaints. This is not a "one off" circumstance; this pertains to how members should handle images, at large. what you're suggesting I do here reflects on, within the thread I'm speaking to... I believe (since they're now hidden), 3 images from pdf format files that do already follow your suggestion. In the 4th image instance (I believe it's just the one since, again, they're all hidden now), I ask how to properly handle images that can't be linked to directly on a site and that don't associate to a PDF file; rather, they are presented images within website rendered code, dynamically presented in response to selections made within the page... in that regard, for what its worth, I've offered my personal comment on how I interpret they should be handled. .

flim-flam competition - see here: .

clarification request regarding image posting: in regards a previous post within this thread, a previously moderator hidden image was subsequently 'put back on display'. as long as I can remember there has never been a raised concern about posting images from within pdf format files - as stated within the recent thread on "Quoting PDFs"... "Posting images of tables and graphs are OK." There is recognized moderator concern about posting "text" from PDF files... my take-away from that thread is that doing so is subject to moderator discretion as to whether or not the particular post will be allowed. => in a currently running thread, numerous posts have been removed that present image 'graphs' from PDF files from cited sources. I am unclear as to why these particular posts have been removed - respectively, please clarify. => in a separate instance, as pertains to dynamic (interactive) website presentation of rendered images, there is no ability to link directly to these type images... the only avenue available is to either take a 'snapshot' copy of the interactive image graph (and host it on a 3rd party image hosting site) and/or simply link to the related web page itself. On a personal note, I would suggest doing both as simply linking to the page will not present the interactive image to those following the link. Please advise - thanks in advance. .

no - it's a thread speaking to the OPs continuing interest in, 'new media journalism'... and it's foundation relies upon Canadaland (a news site focused on media criticism and media reporting) - and one particular episode. There is suggestion that there will be subsequent episodes forthcoming; in that regard, it's not clear (to me) if this thread will carry forward with all episodes or each will present within it's own thread. there's one particular statement that caught my eye as reflects upon the 'tiff' between Gawker and the Toronto Star and controlling the Rob Ford "Crackgate" narrative... with a direct reference to Canada (you know, the "passive aggressive" nation): "…it seems to me that there’s probably a connection between this inclination toward right thinking and good behavior and the fact that this monstrous thug of a bully was able to seize power… You know, in the land of the passive aggressive, the truly aggressive is king." I'm somewhat inclined to twisto-chango a few words in that statement and point it directly at your ongoing shtick here on MLW... but I'd just get another mod warning! overall I'm left with a change in perception on Gawker (where I'd dismissed it completely in the past as just another pap-vehicle for celebrity trash writing)... although I did like it's expose on Trump's hair - I really was wanting to bring that gem forward in the now dispatched, "Trump man-baby" thread, but I obviously missed my window! In any case, if you follow links within that Canadaland episode you can find your way back to another insightful piece (again, from Gawker) that speaks to media writings that project, "snark versus smarm, the tools of the smarmer, positivity versus negativity - no haters allowed, etc..". An interesting read... like I said, I too readily dismissed Gawker and now somewhat appreciate those who have taken to "standing with Gawker in it's right to print low-brow articles... even the sleeze", over the covert actions taken by billionaire Peter Thiel (outed by Gawker) to, as some are saying, "force Gawker out of business"... not to, at all, support that outing of Thiel. as for your quoted statement above... ya, ya - "Big Surprise" on your summary judgement of the thread. Big Surprise! .

uhhh... is winning more primaries significant if you're the only one left 'running'? "cross examination of Hillary by Trump" now Hillary Clinton is no orator (to the lengths of an Obama or her husband Bill), but Trump has to be one of the absolute worst public speakers imaginable. There's a reason the media is all over his use of a teleprompter for the first-time this evening! Those debates between Clinton and Trump will be great comedic relief as Trump... simply can't dance! .

the lengths you go to find some angle to presume to showcase AmericanCon... if only CanCon were pirate worthy! .

all that... and more! You tried to belittle the spoiler removal by personalizing her action taken and reason for (your, "it's a show she liked" type comment); you tried to belittle the show as nothing more than fiction/fantasy; and by association you tried to belittle anyone who might have taken exception to the spoiler... or spoilers in general. The "more" is indirect resultant showcasing of the reactions and lengths taken by you and your proSpoilerCrew. .

"what am I talking about"? This is case in point: the MLW link you provide above, as quoted, has you saying this: "regardless, per the MND's spokeswomen, the government has no intention (now?) to sole source Super Hornets........." in a prior post to that, you said this: ".........this gets leaked and now the MND's spokesperson goes on record as stating there is no intention of sole sourcing Super Hornets" now, again, you initially never actually quoted what you were basing your statement on... you simply dropped the link. Do you see the disconnect and the liberty you took with what you now quote when challenged/pressed to? You went from the article stating the spokesperson "denied cabinet has discussed a sole sourced deal" (notwithstanding, that's not even a direct quote... that's the journalist stating that)... to where you stated twice (drawing reference to the MND spokesperson), that there is, "no intention to/of sole source/sourcing Super Hornets". There's no correlation between what you stated and the quote you presume to base it on; again, notwithstanding it's not even a direct quote from the spokesperson... it's the journalist stating it. so... we went from the original PostMedia article (per Berthiaume/Ivison) --- to this latest offering, where we have one of those same two journalists stating, "while his defence minister refused to say if the Liberals will hold a competition to replace Canada’s aging fighter jets". In that article we read Prime Minister Trudeau making a very accurate statement on the status of the F-35 ("far from working")... we read references to Boeing lobbying efforts (which is nothing new for any of the manufacturers, notably the lengths LockMart has taken in many cases documented/discussed in MLW related threads)... and then we read PostMedia digging in by quoting nonsense from LockMart about deliveries already made and BS references to IOC... none of which, of course, speaks to the actual LRIP state/capability of those planes delivered or the interesting shifted narrative on what "combat ready" actually means in the face of an urgent need to pump the LockMart propaganda. .

I'm done with you... for now! You never/rarely provide actual quotes from your reference links... if you actually bother to provide a reference link. You made statements, drop reference links, and presume others will, "go fetch" to try and find somewhere in the reference that aligns with your statement. You now have multiple outstanding asks to support separate statements you're making... you simply say, words to the effect, "already provided"! Ya, right. .

in your standard avoidance mode... you drop a reference (one you claim supports your statement), yet you never manage to actually quote from it - go figure! It's always you dropping "go fetch' links! .

huh! What are you on about! You absolutely stated, in no futures context, that 2025 was the current life-span year. It's not... unless the next ~1/2 billion upgrade is set in motion, to begin no later than 2021. That has not been finalized yet. . no - what I've repeatedly said is the fix was in... there was no effective competition since no requirements initially existed... some other country made the decision for Canada! It was only long after-the-fact, when it became too embarrassing to continue to ignore DND finally worked to put forward a requirements statement... one that magically aligned with the F-35! Imagine that. you've stated your last sentence twice now (perhaps more) - just so we're all on the same wavelength and reference, please cite that "going on record" statement. I appreciate you are reluctant to often provide sources to your unsubstantiated comments; however, in this case, I think it prudent that you provide the reference - yes? . .

they'll need to fill that gap!

cite that... you've been asked once already. You do realize that requires the next modernization to begin by 2021, right? .