waldo

given you prowl some of the same blogs I do, I'm quite certain you're well aware of the significant controversy surrounding that Danish costing. In my quick scan of the previous 3 pages I did catch you trumpeting this sale at least once... and now here again. From what you understand... read... are you willing to state that comparative costing was done, as you interpret, fairly? on edit: I could link to Boeing's own raised concerns as directed to the Danish Parliament... but hey, I like the 'BestFighter4Canada' guys writing: Slanted F-35 Selection Report Is Another Danish Tragedy... and again, this is strictly costing since no functional comparison can be made between an actual working Super Hornet and the F-35 paper tiger! .

there's a MLW member here who regularly in the past has chimed in to keep reminding of the Hornet origination... always intended as some kind of bizarro slight towards Canada purchasing a "U.S. Navy carrier based" plane. Of course, in that regard, Canada is in the company of 15 non-carrier nations that either bought or kicked the tires in reviewing the Hornet/Super Hornet... along with the U.S. Navy that has also chosen to fly the Hornet/Super Hornet from land bases in the past. .

again, given technology advances... given where drone capability will be in 20+ years, it no longer makes sense to presume... to depend upon... any aircraft choice lasting 30-40 years. And, should the Super Hornet be chosen it most likely would be the 'Advanced Super Hornet' - from an earlier waldo post: per, 'Mike Gibbons - vice president of F/A-18 & EA-18 Programs for Boeing Military Aircraft: "A complete Super Hornet [F/A-18E/F], with engine and electronic warfare gear, currently costs about $51 million... a fully equipped Growler [EA-18G] costs about $60 million)"... he's also offered comment that the "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade, would add ~10% additional costs to that of the existing Super Hornet costs. A googly with 'Mike Gibbons, Super Hornet costs' will bring forward many article references stating these/like figures... one of those being a CBC article from early 2013. The Boeing rep is quoted as stating the current price for a Super Hornet is ~$51 million... with the Advanced Super Hornet 10% above that. .

the 'upgrade path' reference, Hornet to Super Hornet, is generally attached to operations/maintenance advantages... simply by being with the same manufacturer. Of course the Hornet is not the Super Hornet, which is not the Growler... which is not the Advanced Super Hornet. The only direct 'functional' related comparative association I've read about is one that suggests some degree of avionics is still shared between the Hornet and the Super Hornet. .

no - you repeatedly misrepresented the state of the CF-18 lifespan... current lifespan. You gave the false impression, repeatedly, that 2025 was already the limit year. Of course, that is not the case; that would require the (next) modernization to begin by 2021. If it were to proceed, I understand the cost estimate @ 1/2 billion dollars... we could add that to the prior $2 billion that needed to be spent to upgrade the CF-18 previously - that would be ~$2.5 billion because the F-35 kept being delayed... continues to be delayed. you also threw a lil' reference to me about Alan Williams being my previous go-to guy. Yes, he was... on a factual item level that takes us all the way back to the JSF program inception. I believe I've only ever mentioned him in a single context; that being, to reinforce that Canada joining the JSF program did not include any commitment that Canada had to actually purchase the F-35. That was a factual item/aspect associated with WIlliam... you're certainly free to repeat, many times over now, his personal opinion on anything else... fact vs. opinion, yes? .

perhaps you don't recall; in that post I mentioned the blog reference was but one example of several returned by the tool I used to search for that multi-sentence phrasing you wrote. Notwithstanding the liberty you've taken to call that phrasing "factual", you lifted it directly from somewhere... just shifting words, for some reason. Odd that you would need to shift words for something you declare as "facts". In any case, yes, what you wrote does appear in several places, shifted words or not. But there's no attribution given... by you... or anyone in the other examples presented. You wrote it as if they were your words - and, of course, it was quite easy to quickly find several other examples of you doing the same with other phrasing in other posts. As to your direct question, as quoted above: I will suggest you did - from whatever source site you actually drew it from. .

make your own interpretations of what the highly knowledgeable subject matter expert from the Ottawa Citizen is saying. It's an easy read and self-explanatory. what I am saying is that there is a gap that must be filled... and it can't have the ever-shifting dates associated with the failed F-35 as its reference point. What I am saying... said... is that the "interim measure" designation is a tidy fit to deal with a litigious-minded manufacturer. .

"boy"... please sir, that is clearly uncalled for, belittling name-calling. Since you feel so emboldened, please rise to the occasion and state why the U.S. President and his admin would presume to favour the Boeing Super Hornet over... another offering. Sure you can! .

I have an opinion; I offered it. Not sure why you feel so threatened to the point you make this low-brow comment. .

Time running out to upgrade Canada’s aging CF-18 jets .

nonsense - it will be highly popular... of course, any team representing Canada will/would have the nationalist appeal - Team Canada, ya think! The best players will be there - Team Europe and TNA will provide an alternate interest angle whether they have chance in the tournament or not. .

it was certainly a low blow for Ambrose to so disparage Harper - saying the bad man has left! .

it's always good to read an internet lawyer at his/her best - well done! Filling the described gap is significant, particularly given the over-ongoing, ever-continuing, ever-growing F-35 delays and extensions to so-called "production"; notwithstanding actual mega-problems with the F-35. Given the gap and the failed F-35, I would think there grounds on that basis to speak of public-interest and degrees of urgency... balanced against spending say another couple of billion to further extend the Hornets life even more. Alternatively, and somewhat related, aligning with an upgrade path that also speaks to Boeing being in a position to respond at reasonable comparative cost, that sure reads like a manufacturer ready to step right in. If you're going to go all internet lawyer, go all the way - Here try this: of course, never discount a 'Harper ploy'! You know, set requirements such that no other option (than the Super Hornet) could meet them. Harper tried/true, right? .

like I said, apparently you're unaware of the process for exceptions to GCR sole source: 3.15.1 Justification of Non-competitive Process again, you just said the, "Liberals weren't stupid"... do you think they don't have the exception covered... do you think government lawyers haven't been all over this like the proverbial 'dirty-shirt'? .

you absolutely are belittling... demeaning persons with an interest in that show. Would you like your related posts quoted for you? The only thing you're adding to the MLW Facilitator's action is your like belittling, your like demeaning. The role is there, the reaction was taken per the role... the proper reaction was taken per the improper initial (spoiler) action. .

I guess you're not aware of the process to follow to warrant exceptions to GCR sole source - of course, you do talk a good game! You just said the, "Liberals weren't stupid"... do you think they don't have the exception covered... do you think government lawyers haven't been all over this like the proverbial 'dirty-shirt'? .

under what obligation is Canada required to open up to a competition what is simply an upgrade path from the Hornet to Super-Hornet? .

baffle-gab! Citation request... I've got a few cycles this morning - are you ready to settle in? .

they have Hornets now... they're just going to Supersize them! How did the Australians manage their Super Hornet purchase... how did they deal with your declared "legal morass"... weren't there other options available to them? Reading you twist&squirm is worth wasting time reading your BS over the GOT spoiler. .

and there it is... it took you a while, but you got there! .

what legal morass? Super Hornets are just a bridge measure... to manage the gaps! Don't worry, there will still be an open competition to replace the CF-18s... count on it... sometime in the future! Uhhh, you believe that, right? .

you can continue to act the azzhole and justify your azzholiness by demeaning people for having an interest in a show you feel validated by simply dismissing it as nothing more than a "fantasy tv" show. No one has the right to purposely ruin something for others and have you weasel in and belittle them for having that interest. .

sorry..... missed the spoiler alert! SPOILER ALERT! If you are heavily invested in propagating LockMart propaganda and you live&breathe the F-35 fortunes... don't read the next post! SPOILER ALERT! .

Canada's government appears poised to do an end-around Lockheed Martin's threats should its F-35 not be included in an open competition... simple solution: purchase Boeing Super-Hornets and label it a, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, "interim measure/purchase"! Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s

you and your side-kick have been purposely demeaning anyone with interest in the show - why? "Overly invested in fiction... an easily ruined life" - really? That's the best you have? .