waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Though his answer is clearly noncommittal to purchasing a particular version of the JSF, he is highlighting an assessment of our needs and capabilities at present yes, clearly, as you reinforce... Williams is completely noncommittal in that 2002 U.S. DOD news release. Your initial quotes of his have no bearing on the actual assessment/capabilities/needs/decision/timeline, as equally reinforced by your subsequent quote of his; this quote: We will take our time between now and then to assess our capabilities and our needs and make a decision by that time who is better equipped to make an assessment of our required needs and capabilities, politicians or the military and Canada's requirements are... what, again? Quite clearly, the F-35's stealth and advanced weapons, in themselves, align with a supposed commitment to continue to participate in air combat operations abroad. However, in these supposed times of fiscal restraint, towards "fiscal conservatism" while balancing domestic needs/services/spending, deficits/debt... while also juggling a massive expenditure to modernize the Navy, does a self-serving DND, get to manipulate those CF-18 replacement requirements? In balance, is there an all-around justification for the degree of the F-35 expenditure? About those requirements and Canada's continued role... in JSF? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) ....The US Congress wouldn’t allow F-22 technology to be exported (even though there was interest by the Japanese, Israelis and Australians) and production of the F-22 has now (or about to) be ceased by the Obama administration. F-22 production ceased in Marietta, Georgia at 187 units (December 2011). All tooling and fixtures will be mothballed for potential production restart in the future, a la C-5 or B-1. Stopping production and preventing export has the very intended effect of protecting what's left of planned F-35 sales. It would cost several billion dollars to set up foreign military sales (FMS) of the F-22 even if approved by the US Congress. Edited March 21, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Derek L.. I read the link.. You are misleading the readers How so? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 yes, clearly, as you reinforce... Williams is completely noncommittal in that 2002 U.S. DOD news release. Your initial quotes of his have no bearing on the actual assessment/capabilities/needs/decision/timeline, as equally reinforced by your subsequent quote of his; this quote: and Canada's requirements are... what, again? Quite clearly, the F-35's stealth and advanced weapons, in themselves, align with a supposed commitment to continue to participate in air combat operations abroad. However, in these supposed times of fiscal restraint, towards "fiscal conservatism" while balancing domestic needs/services/spending, deficits/debt... while also juggling a massive expenditure to modernize the Navy, does a self-serving DND, get to manipulate those CF-18 replacement requirements? In balance, is there an all-around justification for the degree of the F-35 expenditure? About those requirements and Canada's continued role... in JSF? That’s a political and a policy question…………..If, politically, our Government deems we can’t afford Hornet replacements, that’s a valid argument against the JSF, just as if the Government deems Canada has no requirement for foreign intervention, then clearly, that too is a valid argument against the JSF……If this is the case, we should retire the entire Hornet fleet tomorrow without replacement (New Zealand and Ireland deem this so, hence neither nation fields a fighter force). If the Government deems the inverse the case, in that they wish the ability for foreign intervention, then they have to set forth the funds for the JSF……….As Wild Bill suggested in another thread, there isn’t a middle of the road approach, both fiscally nor morally , that can justify spending billions of dollars on an inferior aircraft, that won’t be able to meet the objectives, ~5-10 years after entering service, of the Government’s stated policy. Quote
mentalfloss Posted March 21, 2012 Author Report Posted March 21, 2012 What would be a better, cheaper alternative to the F-35? It's clear that this is not the plane we should go with; especially for arctic defense. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 What would be a better, cheaper alternative to the F-35? It's clear that this is not the plane we should go with; especially for arctic defense. Care to expand on that as to why? Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 What would be a better, cheaper alternative to the F-35? It's clear that this is not the plane we should go with; especially for arctic defense. This whole thing is SO Canadian! We long ago established that there is no other plane in the world with stealth technology and suited to our needs. Nobody has been ignoring the entire world of aviation technology for the past 15 years! The idea of politicians setting the specs for our aircraft is downright scary! I wouldn't let most of our politicians set the specs for a new bathtub! They are for the most part poli-sci majors and lawyers. What do such know about technology? They couldn't program their VCR! Some of them need a secretary to access their emails! No, their idea of important factors would be all political. The idea that the aircraft actually has to PERFORM A MISSION is irrelevant to those bozos! I can see the way this is going. In the truest Canadian fashion, based upon our proven history of handling such issues, we are going to abandon the F-35. At that point, we are going to study things all over again for another 10 years. Then the politicians will fight with each other so that their opponents won't get to take credit. If there is a change of government whatever was chosen will be cancelled, no doubt to incredibly high cancellation fees. The next government will begin the selection process all over again, being careful to write the specs so that the previous government's choice will not be an option, even if it was the best choice. 20 years from now we will still be flying whatever is left of our fleet of CF-18s. Our international partners will refuse to let us fly in any peacekeeping mission because our aircraft will be dangerously obsolete. This won't bother our politicians at all because they never care if our military is effective anyway. It's enough to be there, show the flag and bask in the glory of the photo-op. The CF-18s of course will be so old that they will be regularly falling out of the sky, like our SeaKings before them. Eventually the government of the day will be so embarrassed that they will implement their final option. They will appoint a Royal Commission to study if it is a federal or a provincial matter! Why do we even bother? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) This whole thing is SO Canadian! We long ago established that there is no other plane in the world with stealth technology and suited to our needs. Nobody has been ignoring the entire world of aviation technology for the past 15 years! The idea of politicians setting the specs for our aircraft is downright scary! I wouldn't let most of our politicians set the specs for a new bathtub! They are for the most part poli-sci majors and lawyers. What do such know about technology? They couldn't program their VCR! Some of them need a secretary to access their emails! No, their idea of important factors would be all political. The idea that the aircraft actually has to PERFORM A MISSION is irrelevant to those bozos! I feel the same way about these bozo's determining the reasons for going to war in the first place. Ever seen the threads around here where people argue till they're blue in the face that there is no one better suited for that job? Edited March 21, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) You don’t call them “impact weapons”? If you hit me with your rock or explode a fertilizer bomb in my basement what is going to kill me? Why certainly it’s the rock (energy in motion) and debris and/or blast overpressure (energy in motion) no? Is something not impacting me, be it said rock, my house or the blast itself? I have to believe now that you're being intentionally obtuse here. I'm arguing terminology and your contextual misuse of it in a discussion like this. You're trying to turn it into a science debate where the science itself is not in question. I'm going to have to revert to analogy here, just to try, in any way I can, to get you to realize how pointless, unecessary and foolish your science rants are. Consider the term personal computer. The term has a fairly accepted meaning right? If we were going to use the framework of our argument and replace what we were talking about with the term personal Computer, the argument would look something like this: Derek: I'm sure glad I brought my personal computer with me. I didn't realize I'd be waiting in line this long. Now at least I can read the news while I wait... Me: Your personal computer? Don't you mean your Iphone? Derek: No. I mean my personal computer. Me: You usually call it your phone...or your Iphone...you don't call it your personal computer. Derek: Well it's a computer, I'm a person, and I'm using it, so it's a personal computer. Context, meaning and implication are all very important parts of the English language Derek. The term personal computer has a generally accepted meaning. So does the term kinetic energy weapon. Edited March 21, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) However, in these supposed times of fiscal restraint, towards "fiscal conservatism" while balancing domestic needs/services/spending, deficits/debt... while also juggling a massive expenditure to modernize the Navy, does a self-serving DND, get to manipulate those CF-18 replacement requirements? In balance, is there an all-around justification for the degree of the F-35 expenditure? About those requirements and Canada's continued role... in JSF?That’s a political and a policy question…………..If, politically, our Government deems we can’t afford Hornet replacements, that’s a valid argument against the JSF, just as if the Government deems Canada has no requirement for foreign intervention, then clearly, that too is a valid argument against the JSF and is the recent Fantino front show a sign of that 'afford' aspect... finally... coming under consideration/review? There is a certain level of criticism playing out over available DND funds - you seemed to skirt my question in terms of a presumed internal tug&pull within DND over prioritizing F-35s against naval modernization... do you maintain both are 'affordable', particularly when considering an emphasis on domestic coastal 'protection' and Arctic sovereignty? as for said "foreign intervention": until the recent Nov 2011 Libya deployment, one can only look back to the 1991 Gulf War (with very limited engagement) and 1998 Kosovo. Quite clearly Libya was a purposeful political anomaly born out by MacKay's own purposeful words; i.e., "Canada punching above it's weight". Overall, is this the level of past engagement that would substantiate a continued emphasis towards the F-35... or... do you want more, uhhh... engagement? Edited March 23, 2012 by waldo Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I feel the same way about these bozo's determining the reasons for going to war in the first place. Ever seen the threads around here where people argue till they're blue in the face that there is no one better suited for that job? So eyeball, are you saying that we should not have an effective military at all? Is that real-world option? You do realize that it would be the end of any Canadian peacekeeper roles. How many snipers does a UN force need? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 There is a certain level of criticism playing out over available DND funds - you seemed to skirt my question in terms of a presumed internal tug&pull within DND over prioritizing F-35s against naval modernization... do you maintain both are 'affordable', particularly when considering an emphasis on domestic coastal 'protection' and Arctic sovereignty? I don't quite understand your point here, Waldo. Are you saying we actually have the option of choosing one over the other? Wouldn't that mean if we beefed up our navy we would have no defense against aircraft, or vice versa? Would any enemy be so polite as to give us the choice of weapons? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I have to believe now that you're being intentionally obtuse here. I'm arguing terminology and your contextual misuse of it in a discussion like this. You're trying to turn it into a science debate where the science itself is not in question. Moonbox, you do realize that Derek is a techie? Techies don't use terms dependent upon context or popular usage. To the engineering mind, every term is specific and consistent. Anything else is synonymous with "thingy" or "doohickey". Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I have to believe now that you're being intentionally obtuse here. I'm arguing terminology and your contextual misuse of it in a discussion like this. You're trying to turn it into a science debate where the science itself is not in question. I'm going to have to revert to analogy here, just to try, in any way I can, to get you to realize how pointless, unecessary and foolish your science rants are. Consider the term personal computer. The term has a fairly accepted meaning right? If we were going to use the framework of our argument and replace what we were talking about with the term personal Computer, the argument would look something like this: Derek: I'm sure glad I brought my personal computer with me. I didn't realize I'd be waiting in line this long. Now at least I can read the news while I wait... Me: Your personal computer? Don't you mean your Iphone? Derek: No. I mean my personal computer. Me: You usually call it your phone...or your Iphone...you don't call it your personal computer. Derek: Well it's a computer, I'm a person, and I'm using it, so it's a personal computer. Context, meaning and implication are all very important parts of the English language Derek. The term personal computer has a generally accepted meaning. So does the term kinetic energy weapon. You need to have this conversation with my wife. Quote
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 defense against aircraft cue another MacKay photo-op pursuit of the "Bear" uhhh, you avoided answering the question and turned it back... on me! Are you saying there are... there will be... funds for both F-35s and naval modernization? And, if so, what else in Canadians needs/services might be compromised? And, if not, could there be, should there be, a political policy driven review that leads DND in it's own internal prioritization of naval versus air-force upgrade/modernization? Quote
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Canadian peacekeeper roles just what are the ground rules here? Just when do proponents throw scorn on a Canadian peace-keeping role and when do they presume to leverage it? Just sayin... Quote
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 uhhh, you avoided answering the question and turned it back... on me! Are you saying there are... there will be... funds for both F-35s and naval modernization? And, if so, what else in Canadians needs/services might be compromised? That's already been solved. Operational expenses will be pared back for the next few years in order to make up for a slightly smaller budget going forward. This will allow the procurement projects to happen relatively on schedule. Quote
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 That's already been solved. Operational expenses will be pared back for the next few years in order to make up for a slightly smaller budget going forward. This will allow the procurement projects to happen relatively on schedule. ah yes, I am well versed in the magic of playing operational off capital expenditure! Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 cue another MacKay photo-op pursuit of the "Bear" uhhh, you avoided answering the question and turned it back... on me! Are you saying there are... there will be... funds for both F-35s and naval modernization? And, if so, what else in Canadians needs/services might be compromised? And, if not, could there be, should there be, a political policy driven review that leads DND in it's own internal prioritization of naval versus air-force upgrade/modernization? Hey Waldo, I'm the techie, remember? I haven't turned the question back - I simply don't feel you've answered the REAL question! I don't see how it matters if you can only afford one and not both. In a military situation, you either can do the job or you can't. You have the ability and resources to win or you lose. Period and end of story. If things are as bad as you imply that we can only afford one or the other then we must examine whether or not we should even try! You are focused on the money. It's a valid point that we have to examine our resources and our priorites. However, we have to keep in mind that it takes a certain amount of resources to get the job done. The most expensive military is the one that turns out second best. If affordability is truly that much of a problem then perhaps we should chuck it all and invest in a case or two of white flags! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Hey Waldo, I'm the techie, remember? ya, I think I've read that before... a brazillion times before! I don't see how it matters if you can only afford one and not both. In a military situation, you either can do the job or you can't. You have the ability and resources to win or you lose. Period and end of story. I cited 91-Gulf (most limited engagement) & 98-Kosovo... 2011-Libya, I interpret, was MacKay's/Harper's purposeful manipulation to aid in substantiating the F-35 (see Parliament fly-over optic effect). In any case, even if you include Libya, do 3 engagements over 2 decades (one of which was very limited), substantiate the F-35 and your emphasis on "winning"? Edited March 23, 2012 by waldo Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 ya, I think I've read that before... a brazillion times before! I cited 91-Gulf (most limited engagement) & 98-Kosovo... 2011-Syria, I interpret, was MacKay's/Harper's purposeful manipulation to aid in substantiating the F-35 (see Parliament fly-over optic effect). In any case, even if you include Syria, do 3 engagements over 2 decades (one of which was very limited), substantiate the F-35 and your emphasis on "winning"? That's a valid question Waldo but I don't think it's a complete one. A better one might be "How many such missions would we WANT to be in?" Another might be "Did we want to be in more than we were but were just too ill-equipped to participate?" The 3 engagements you cite might well have been the only three we could even pretend to make a contribution! Also, you are only talking about peacekeeping style missions, where we go "over there". Unmentioned is what we need for our own defense and expression of sovereignty. Or do you also believe that we should just stick the Americans with it while complaining that no one on the world stage takes us seriously? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) That's a valid question Waldo but I don't think it's a complete one. A better one might be "How many such missions would we WANT to be in?" it's the very question I posed directly to Derek L... just not the 'royal we'; rather, the degree of his personal desire to 'get it on'! Also, you are only talking about peacekeeping style missions, where we go "over there". Unmentioned is what we need for our own defense and expression of sovereignty. huh! I now recognize your earlier misstep in attempting to leverage a reference to 'peace-keeping'. I'd suggest a short departure for you to review just what Canada's actual and traditional peace-keeping role has been... it most certainly does not include flight sorties into the Gulf, Kosovo or Libya. My complete emphasis has been on a national/continental theme... beef up the Coast Guard, build ice-breakers in aid of sovereignty posturing and scientific endeavour, and provide required support in aid of a legitimate, traditional, ground-based Canadian peace-keeping role - there ya go! Edited March 23, 2012 by waldo Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 ...The 3 engagements you cite might well have been the only three we could even pretend to make a contribution! True....Canada needed tactical aircraft in Afghanistan but was unable to forward deploy and support CF-18's in theatre. It was a war too far that exposed other shortcomings in CF spending. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) True....Canada needed tactical aircraft in Afghanistan but was unable to forward deploy and support CF-18's in theatre. It was a war too far that exposed other shortcomings in CF spending. What Canada needed in Afghanistan. A wee bit 'o organic support. Edited March 21, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Moonbox, you do realize that Derek is a techie? Techies don't use terms dependent upon context or popular usage. To the engineering mind, every term is specific and consistent. Anything else is synonymous with "thingy" or "doohickey". First off, it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity with the spoken/written word. Context affects meaning and that can't be avoided completely. It's fair to say that a technical discussion amongst experts in a given field is likely to be much more terse and precise, but even there Derek flounders. His explained usage of the term kinetic energy weapon is so broad and all-encompassing that it's rendered meaningless in a technical discussion. He'd be just as well off saying weapon or more specifically conventional weapon. Instead, however, he choses kinetic energy weapon, which for his intended usage is extraneous and indicative of an attempt to show off what he believes is his expertise in the subject of military hardware. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that the term already has a specific meaning in military literature and discussion that's completely different from the way he was using it. Apparently he's not such an expert himself. My original comment was merely meant to highlight the irony of his condescension earlier in the thread towards other posters, but I found it amusing how I somehow managed to get an irrelevant 7-page education on basic physics and limited military history, and learned nothing new throughout. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.