F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[waldo]

You said this before but I just don't buy it. I cant' see how we can participate without any modern combat aircraft in any peacekeeping role. Certainly, defending our own country off the coasts and in the far North would be impossible.

and, again, you still don't understand the peace-keeping role.

[Wild Bill]

and, again, you still don't understand the peace-keeping role.

Well, I think I understand how you define it.

"It'll never fly, Waldo!"

[YEGmann]

Russia has a bird at about the same production stage as the F35, their Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA and it is costed out at less than 60 million an aircraft.

Sorry, you don't have a slightest idea what you are talking about. Russia now has no more than an empty flattened tin barrel they call T-50. In no way it is a 5th generation fighter. It is not even a fighter yet (no proper engines, no radar, no avionics, no weapons). And even this empty can cannot fly. Out of three "prototypes" one is already broken and is cannibalized to allow imitating test flying to a single plane.

F-35A is in a low production rate state now. The end of testing is visible now. Yes, some ultra-fancy gadgets like the mentioned helmet visualization system require improvement, but none aircraft has these gadgets anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

and, again, you still don't understand the peace-keeping role.

You mean "peacekeeping" like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FESD75gjSas&feature=related

[Guest Derek L]

my comment was 'across the board'... again, there has been a liberal use of 'production' in the past - used to imply the plane is farther along than it actually is.

Liberal use of production aircraft? As I’ve said, I’ve stated the differences between LRIP and full production, and yes, as I’ve stated, low rate initial production aircraft are being produced and delivered to the end users…….

again, where's the conspiracy? That wikileak doc is actual U.S. diplomatic correspondence... whatever you state the Gripen is offered with today has no bearing on it's capabilities at the time of the initial Norwegian decision... and the U.S. pressure applied. Ya think?

I'll ask again:

So you allege, via Wikileaks, that the US Government is interfering with the efforts of the JSF’s competitors? I ask, why the subterfuge? If the Gripen was going to reduce the chances of selling the JSF to Norway, why wouldn’t BAE simply not offer it in the competition?

To add, if BAE is worried about dwindling market share that will effect potential JSF sales why are they marketing not only the Gripen NG, but their third product, the Eurofighter presently, and in some competitions, both the Gripen NG and Eurofighter concurrently?

To also ask, why are the Eurofighter and Gripen NG losing out to the F-35 in competitions held by first world air forces? Has the US State Department been bullying those nations also? Why Doesn’t the US pressure their partner, UK/BAE, to just not enter their other two less successful products.?

[Guest Derek L]

another WB gem that somehow misses the point on the Liberal party's stated policy position on advocating for an open bid - how convenient.

before the two threads got merged/mashed, there was insightful comment concerning the 2000 date references to Alan Williams, (retired) Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel, Canadian Department of National Defense... where it's very clear there was no (Liberal) emphasis on actual purchase; rather, the emphasis was on joining JSF to gain insight into the F-35 as a possible replacement... as one of the presumed mix in an open bid process undertaking... an open bid process the "accountable/transparent" Harper Conservatives completely ignored and had no use for.

I'll ask you again, since I don’t believe you answered the first time, other than the JSF, what other alternatives did the past Liberal Government have back in ‘02 as a Hornet replacement?

[Guest Derek L]

and, again, you still don't understand the peace-keeping role.

No, you clearly don't, as I asked you prior:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20531&st=210

As for “peacekeeping”, here is where we differ………I’ll ask several simple questions of you.

1. Why do we require an army to act as a “go between” for two warring belligerents? We have the RCMP for that here in Canada, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would be a better choice for maintaining the peace and enforcing cease fire agreements.

2. If you, Waldo, were seating in the big chair during the Rwandan genocide, how would you have changed it’s historic and tragic outcome?

[dre]

I'll ask you again, since I don’t believe you answered the first time, other than the JSF, what other alternatives did the past Liberal Government have back in ‘02 as a Hornet replacement?

Someone would need to do a lot of due diligence to provide a report on that, but it either wasnt done, or nobody shared it with us. Iv tried to research exactly what our airforce does and based on the information published on their websites the vast majority of their activity is flying routine patrols in Canada, and standing by ready to shoot down rogue civilian craft.

This role is accomplished just fine with the the current CF-18. You need decent range, decent speed, and modest air to air capability. So whatever the cheapest plane that offers capabilities better than the CF-18 would be just fine. Theres a whole bunch of planes that would suffice.

[Guest Derek L]

Someone would need to do a lot of due diligence to provide a report on that, but it either wasnt done, or nobody shared it with us. Iv tried to research exactly what our airforce does and based on the information published on their websites the vast majority of their activity is flying routine patrols in Canada, and standing by ready to shoot down rogue civilian craft.

Of course that’s what “they do” for the majority of their time………How many shooting wars/interventions have we been involved in since the early 80s? The First Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya……Of those four conflicts, our Hornets have been deployed to all those conflicts (the FRY twice) sans Afghanistan, but during our decades long deployment to Afghanistan, our Hornet fleet was committed heavily to NORAD and underwent a major life extension program……….And the reason we purchased the Hornet as opposed to a dedicated Interceptor/Air Superiority Fighter like the F-14 or F-15, was to fulfill our NATO obligation in West Germany providing modern attack aircraft.

This role is accomplished just fine with the the current CF-18. You need decent range, decent speed, and modest air to air capability. So whatever the cheapest plane that offers capabilities better than the CF-18 would be just fine. Theres a whole bunch of planes that would suffice.

Name them.

[cybercoma]

The Tories suck at cheating.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/27/pol-fighter-jets.html

They rigged the requirements so that the F-35 would be the only plane that could meet them and now with the program changes the jet no longer meets those requirements.

/facepalm (Shady, 2011; Shady, 2012).

Edited March 28, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

The Tories suck at cheating.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/27/pol-fighter-jets.html

They rigged the requirements so that the F-35 would be the only plane that could meet them

/facepalm (Shady, 2011; Shady, 2012).

What requirements?

now with the program changes the jet no longer meets those requirements.

What requirements won't the final production aircraft meet?

[dre]

Of course that’s what “they do” for the majority of their time………How many shooting wars/interventions have we been involved in since the early 80s? The First Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya……Of those four conflicts, our Hornets have been deployed to all those conflicts (the FRY twice) sans Afghanistan, but during our decades long deployment to Afghanistan, our Hornet fleet was committed heavily to NORAD and underwent a major life extension program……….And the reason we purchased the Hornet as opposed to a dedicated Interceptor/Air Superiority Fighter like the F-14 or F-15, was to fulfill our NATO obligation in West Germany providing modern attack aircraft.

Name them.

Name a modern multi-purpose fighter that WOULDNT work? We have pretty basic needs.

fulfill our NATO obligation in West Germany

When these various entangling alliances call on us, we have always been there and never asked for anything at all in return. A century of bloody wars we have already fought for these people, and if they need help again, we will be there. But we should decide for ourselves what we are willing to send and what we are willing to spend. And right now our government cannot even fund its own day to day operation and pay its employees without borrowing money from foreigners and Canadians.

[stopstaaron]

Help me understand something here.. this whole time the conservatives said these Jets were going to be used in the Arctic right? so why is Peter MacKay claiming we need the F-35s to fight alongside our allies in air missions?

God, this government is full of idiots and morons. Who was it here that said Harper was good with his messaging?! Because like the writers of the tv show Lost..the conservatives are just making this up as they go along

[YEGmann]

The Tories suck at cheating.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/27/pol-fighter-jets.html

They rigged the requirements so that the F-35 would be the only plane that could meet them and now with the program changes the jet no longer meets those requirements.

Solomon is absolutely incompetent. He invented these "requirements", he invented "non-compliance". It seems he's got some preliminary analytical document. Operational requirements, aircraft design specifications are secret documents. I hardly believe a journalist can get them without explanation.

For people who are in the business, Solomon's mumbling is ridiculous. Actually, I can say Solomon is lying here. The helmet issue has been known for some time. It works as specified. The problem is a time lag between receiving signals and dispalying the information. The lag is about 0.2 sec now. It's a new gudget. Nobody knew what the lag should be. Now the goal is to reduce the lag to something less than 0.1 sec.

In no way this means the aircraft doesn't meet performance requirements.

Edited March 28, 2012 by YEGmann

[Smallc]

Help me understand something here.. this whole time the conservatives said these Jets were going to be used in the Arctic right? so why is Peter MacKay claiming we need the F-35s to fight alongside our allies in air missions?

And?

[stopstaaron]

And?

What do you mean And? Tell your government to stick with one story instead of switching them and going back and forth

[waldo]

I'll ask again:

So you allege, via Wikileaks, that the US Government is interfering with the efforts of the JSF’s competitors? I ask, why the subterfuge? If the Gripen was going to reduce the chances of selling the JSF to Norway, why wouldn’t BAE simply not offer it in the competition?

To add, if BAE is worried about dwindling market share that will effect potential JSF sales why are they marketing not only the Gripen NG, but their third product, the Eurofighter presently, and in some competitions, both the Gripen NG and Eurofighter concurrently?

To also ask, why are the Eurofighter and Gripen NG losing out to the F-35 in competitions held by first world air forces? Has the US State Department been bullying those nations also? Why Doesn’t the US pressure their partner, UK/BAE, to just not enter their other two less successful products.?

suggest you should have cut your losses earlier... as I read it, even at it's highest engagement level, BAE only ever held a 35% stake in Saab. Apparently, that 35% was reduced to 20%, aiming towards a complete divestiture through market dissolution - all done in relation to a 2004 agreement that... apparently... and ultimately, involved UK Serious Fraud Office investigations that highlighted BAE bribery involvements in selling Gripen fighters to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria and South Africa.

in any case, you continue to miss the thrust of that Wikileaks cable that reinforces a U.S. desire/intention to thwart the underlying Nordic cooperative relationship between Sweden & Norway by delaying a U.S. decision on releasing AESA radar to Saab for utilization within the Gripen; i.e., making the Gripen less desirable to Norway prior to it's final decision towards the F-35... none of which has any bearing on any level/degree of BAE involvement in Saab.

[Smallc]

What do you mean And?

This plane will be used for many things. And?

[Guest Derek L]

Name a modern multi-purpose fighter that WOULDNT work? We have pretty basic needs.

With a projected in service date of later this decade, let’s say ~2020 by the time it reaches the operational squadrons, and an expected lifespan of ~30 years (Instead of the current Hornets lifespan of ~40) leaving us with an out of service date of ~2050, the answer to your question is quite simple……..Any and all 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft………..For instance, the projected out of service date of the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter are the late 2020 to early 2030s. Once the main operators of these aircraft start to retire them, we’ll be on our own for any future (and at that point required) upgrades and major logistical support……..

And as mentioned, these three other aircraft aren’t cheap…….The Australian’s just leased 24 Super Hornets for 6.6 Billion……..Both the Eurofighter and Rafale have a similar price tag of ~85-95 million Euros per copy, and of course, these are just flyaway costs and don’t included spares, training, integration of and purchase of required European weapons and logistic support.

When these various entangling alliances call on us, we have always been there and never asked for anything at all in return. A century of bloody wars we have already fought for these people, and if they need help again, we will be there. But we should decide for ourselves what we are willing to send and what we are willing to spend. And right now our government cannot even fund its own day to day operation and pay its employees without borrowing money from foreigners and Canadians.

That’s not an argument against the F-35.…..That’s an argument against our current foreign and defence polices, and as I said to others, I’d be willing to debate such views in another thread………FYI Ireland and New Zealand don’t have fighters, and Iceland doesn’t even have a military……….Think of the billions we could save……..But of course it’s not without consequence.

[Guest Derek L]

suggest you should have cut your losses earlier... as I read it, even at it's highest engagement level, BAE only ever held a 35% stake in Saab. Apparently, that 35% was reduced to 20%, aiming towards a complete divestiture through market dissolution - all done in relation to a 2004 agreement that... apparently... and ultimately, involved UK Serious Fraud Office investigations that highlighted BAE bribery involvements in selling Gripen fighters to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria and South Africa.

in any case, you continue to miss the thrust of that Wikileaks cable that reinforces a U.S. desire/intention to thwart the underlying Nordic cooperative relationship between Sweden & Norway by delaying a U.S. decision on releasing AESA radar to Saab for utilization within the Gripen; i.e., making the Gripen less desirable to Norway prior to it's final decision towards the F-35... none of which has any bearing on any level/degree of BAE involvement in Saab.

I suppose you’ll outline how the remaining partners are all in the pocket of Lockheed/US……….

Let’s assume your conspiracy is correct, what does the United States/Lockheed owe to Sweden/Saab? If the Swedish product is less desirable to the international market (as demonstrated by it’s sales) then the JSF, perhaps Saab/Swedes should have mirrored the financial investment committed to the Joint Strike Fighter program by it’s partner nations, namely the United States and the United Kingdom.

[stopstaaron]

This plane will be used for many things. And?

Those planes aren't built for the arctic rofl

[waldo]

I'll ask you again, since I don’t believe you answered the first time, other than the JSF, what other alternatives did the past Liberal Government have back in ‘02 as a Hornet replacement?

and why did it take until 2010 for the Harper Conservatives to "contractually" commit to the F-35... oh, wait... was there a contract, after all? Again, during the initial Liberal involvements in joining JSF there was never any agreement to purchase the JSF... clearly since nothing 'formally' was committed until the expressed 2010 Harper Conservative intention. Again, as you're well aware, the expressed reason for joining JSF was to gain, presumably, insight/knowledge of the F-35 towards an eventual open-bid undertaking.

[YEGmann]

Name a modern multi-purpose fighter that WOULDNT work? We have pretty basic needs.

You and the others similar to you cannot understand one simple thing. The war is about to kill AND to avoid to be killed. There is an enemy with his sophisticated killing machines too. "A modern Multi-purpose fighter" gives you 50/50 chances of survival. The 5th generation is about to shift the ratio towards something 90/10. There are only two planes that can do that: F-22 and F-35. F-35 is not simply a new aircraft. It's new quality.

[Guest Derek L]

and why did it take until 2010 for the Harper Conservatives to "contractually" commit to the F-35... oh, wait... was there a contract, after all? Again, during the initial Liberal involvements in joining JSF there was never any agreement to purchase the JSF... clearly since nothing 'formally' was committed until the expressed 2010 Harper Conservative intention. Again, as you're well aware, the expressed reason for joining JSF was to gain, presumably, insight/knowledge of the F-35 towards an eventual open-bid undertaking.

Who would have partaken in said “open bid”?

[waldo]

Let’s assume your conspiracy is correct

again, there is no conspiracy... I mean, really... are you disputing the Wikileak cables? Really? In any case, nothing like formal UK SFO fraud charges, fines and forced divestiture to burst your BAE bubble, hey?