waldo Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 ... the associated “spin” used by critics of the program to cloud the optics as such…… optics? Is this perhaps a way to finally get you to engage the meat of the U.S. GAO reports, of the U.S. Congressional testimonies, of the Pentagon's own SAR F-35 reports... you know, all that, "optics" stuff!!! Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 I thought Bloggers were fair and accurate sources? At least "Dr. Feelgood" has been to Fort Worth...... blog sources are as, as you say, "fair and accurate", as relevant as the content brought forward. Your standard pattern had been to dismiss any blog source that offered critical assessment on the JSFail F-35 - regardless. Of course, you yourself had offered blog sources (whether you call them that, or accept they were). Your latest source is one well known for his position writings... one well known as a LockMart consultant... that speaks for itself. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 optics? Is this perhaps a way to finally get you to engage the meat of the U.S. GAO reports, of the U.S. Congressional testimonies, of the Pentagon's own SAR F-35 reports... you know, all that, "optics" stuff!!! Such as costing of pilot’s bootlaces, airbase landscaping and catered food served in the mess? Naturally, these are also costs associated with operating a fighter squadron today (and into the future) regardless if said squadron is operating F-35s or Biplanes (Hit it Porch Dog!!!) Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 blog sources are as, as you say, "fair and accurate", as relevant as the content brought forward. Your standard pattern had been to dismiss any blog source that offered critical assessment on the JSFail F-35 - regardless. Of course, you yourself had offered blog sources (whether you call them that, or accept they were). Your latest source is one well known for his position writings... one well known as a LockMart consultant... that speaks for itself. Ahh, so it’s alright to reference Blogs that align with ones own agenda? Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Such as costing of pilot’s bootlaces, airbase landscaping and catered food served in the mess? Naturally, these are also costs associated with operating a fighter squadron today (and into the future) regardless if said squadron is operating F-35s or Biplanes (Hit it Porch Dog!!!) I suggest you bundle this into a tight package and find it's equivalencies... and relevance... within the U.S. GAO reports, within the U.S. Congressional testimonies, within the Pentagon SAR F-35 reports... when you do that, bring them forward and let's begin a real dialogue on the failings of JSFail F-35. Don't hurry back as I'll be out the rest of this evening... but will check back in for your follow-up. Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Ahh, so it’s alright to reference Blogs that align with ones own agenda? do you have... an agenda? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I suggest you bundle this into a tight package and find it's equivalencies... and relevance... within the U.S. GAO reports, within the U.S. Congressional testimonies, within the Pentagon SAR F-35 reports... when you do that, bring them forward and let's begin a real dialogue on the failings of JSFail F-35. Don't hurry back as I'll be out the rest of this evening... but will check back in for your follow-up. Are these not relevant costs associated with the operation of Lockheed F-35s and as such, is not the taxpayer entitled to know? Of course, if they misinterpret the “optics”, that’s ok. Don’t drink too much and call a cab little buddy!! Edited June 23, 2012 by Derek L Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 do you have... an agenda? Is that....Not obvious? Quote
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 How is it that the red-blooded military fetishists among us are unaware of these interesting little facts? I'm not a red blooded military fetishist. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a logical alternative to this aircraft. Care to offer up something? Waldo obviously isn't able to come with a thing. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 qualify said, 'lip service'... while you're doing that, would you care to lay out the actual authority hierarchy you're presuming upon - sure you can. Weren't you going to provide an alternative? I keep asking and you keep ducking the question. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Now if you want to know why we need the F-35s specifically, the answer is we don't. So you know of some other fighters we can buy which will do the job for much cheaper? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
punked Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 So you know of some other fighters we can buy which will do the job for much cheaper? Depends on the job we want them for doesn't it? Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Depends on the job we want them for doesn't it? Well punked, so far all I've seen proposed is alternate planes that could fill the job as ornaments or flying targets! In all the months we have been chewing over this any alternative has really been just a debating point that leads to not having any planes at all, for a plane that can't do anything useful is indeed just an ornament or a flying target. 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 June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 I'm not a red blooded military fetishist. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a logical alternative to this aircraft. Care to offer up something? Waldo obviously isn't able to come with a thing.Weren't you going to provide an alternative? I keep asking and you keep ducking the question.So you know of some other fighters we can buy which will do the job for much cheaper? I gave you an answer... one I've given several times - apparently, it wasn't an answer you could fathom. In your typical blowhard style you... you... continually ducked my direct challenge put to you. Again, step-up and speak to the myriad of concerns/issues raised within the many linked/quoted references made to U.S. GAO reports, U.S. Congressional committee testimonies, U.S. Pentagon SAR F-35 reports, etc. Quit ducking Argus... quit ducking. more pointedly, as MLW member 'Derek L' continually ducks, step-forward and state what paperwork version of the JSFail F-35 you're comparing as a reference... cause you got nothing to compare to today, to the near future... or to the relatively distant future. As I keep asking, what's the new updated so-called "sweet spot" for projected Canadian deliveries... 2021?... 2022?... 2023? As well, don't be afraid to make your case for no alternatives... cause, I'm sure you've done your homework in that regard, hey Argus? Oh wait... perhaps this is just you being a blowhard again, hey? Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 The old ones will are becoming too costly to maintain and will soon be too dangerous to use in regular service. They need to be replaced. We at the very least need fighters to protect our own airspace. "protect our own airspace"... from what? At least you're not echoing the "first-strike" nonsense... as we have seen reflected by Canada bombing... bombing... in two separate "campaigns" over a decades period. That's it... a couple of 'bombs away' undertakings over multiple decades. In any case, for those die-hard, "gotta have a jet" types, we already laid out 2 billion to extend the life of the CF-18s... get ready for... some more: Further Life Extension for RCAF CF-18s Being Considered As Delivery of F-35 Expected to Be Delayed “The planned CF-18 estimated life expectancy is currently 2020,” reads one email dated Sept. 21, 2011, and obtained by Postmedia News through access to information laws. “However, the current Next Generation Fighter Capability project scheduled is based on the last of Canada’s F-35s being delivered in 2022 or 2023. CF-18 estimated life expectancy requirements are currently being assessed and a request for an extension will be made once the required date is confirmed.” It also comes after the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the equivalent of Canada’s auditor general, warned on June 14 that allies are increasingly delaying their plans to purchase F-35s, and testing of the stealth fighter is behind schedule. Both issues have consequences for Canada as the government’s plan to purchase 65 F-35s requires doing so when full production is already underway. Now if you want to know why we need the F-35s specifically, the answer is we don't. correcto mundo. Again, for the crew that just must have a jet, Canada could follow the lead of Australia - purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Now, in a most disingenuous mode, MLW member 'Derek L' through up the price associated with Australia's 2007 purchase of 24 Super Hornets... of course, what he didn't bother to advise on was that half of those were equipped to convert to the "Growler" version. In any case, this lil' Reuters ditty suggests what Australia would pay for another 12 of the Super Hornet (only) version - $1.6 billion. What you also won't read from the disingenuous types is some of the design direction Boeing is taking the Super Hornet toward... like being able to mount/launch UCAVs. now, equally... for those "must have a jet, we have NATO commitments" types, would a Super Hornet meet those commitments? Yes or No? Notwithstanding the argument previously made that Canada could, alternatively, decide to become the world leader in transport... would this not meet those NATO commitments? Yes or No? I have one word for both of you: minutiae. the devil is in the minutiae Quote
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 I gave you an answer... one I've given several times - apparently, it wasn't an answer you could fathom. In your typical blowhard style you... you... continually ducked my direct challenge put to you. Again, step-up and speak to the myriad of concerns/issues raised within the many linked/quoted references made to U.S. GAO reports, U.S. Congressional committee testimonies, U.S. Pentagon SAR F-35 reports, etc. Quit ducking Argus... quit ducking. Stop ducking the question. I don't have to answer yours because I'm not arguing that this jet is without problems or better than others. You're the one screaming we shouldn't buy it. I'm the one open to alternatives. So far you have yet to provide any alternatives. That we haven't used them a lot in the past is a pointless argument. I haven't used my insurance at all in the past. Should I do without it on that basis? We are required to furnish armed forces in order to be part of a military alliance which protects us. The only alternative you have hinted at is not having any armed forces. That means no alliances, which means, so far as I can discern, your 'alternative' is to simply hope for the best. That's not an alternative most adults care to seriously consider. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Stop ducking the question. I don't have to answer yours because I'm not arguing that this jet is without problems or better than others. You're the one screaming we shouldn't buy it. I'm the one open to alternatives. So far you have yet to provide any alternatives. standard blowhard response! Your disingenuous "openness" is a charade... other than your blanket acceptance to anything/everything Harper Conservatives do/say, what effort have you made to showcase/express your so-called "openness". Again, what's your F-35 reference point... what paperwork version are you comparing to... what substantiated delivery schedule are you working to... what substantiated cost are you working to? again, quit ducking the raised issues/concerns, hey Argus. C'mon, step-up and showcase your... uhhh, "openness"! That we haven't used them a lot in the past is a pointless argument. I haven't used my insurance at all in the past. Should I do without it on that basis? the point was made in relation to the much touted "first-strike" capabilities... which Canada has never truly exercised... where Canada has only utilized the CF-18 a couple of times over multiple decades. That's quite the insurance policy you have there, hey Argus? We are required to furnish armed forces in order to be part of a military alliance which protects us. The only alternative you have hinted at is not having any armed forces. That means no alliances, which means, so far as I can discern, your 'alternative' is to simply hope for the best. That's not an alternative most adults care to seriously consider. you simply refuse to read Quote
Argus Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) correcto mundo. Again, for the crew that just must have a jet, Canada could follow the lead of Australia - purchase F-18 Super Hornets. Now, in a most disingenuous mode, MLW member 'Derek L' through up the price associated with Australia's 2007 purchase of 24 Super Hornets... of course, what he didn't bother to advise on was that half of those were equipped to convert to the "Growler" version. In any case, this lil' Reuters ditty suggests what Australia would pay for another 12 of the Super Hornet (only) version - $1.6 billion. What you also won't read from the disingenuous types is some of the design direction Boeing is taking the Super Hornet toward... like being able to mount/launch UCAVs. now, equally... for those "must have a jet, we have NATO commitments" types, would a Super Hornet meet those commitments? Yes or No? Notwithstanding the argument previously made that Canada could, alternatively, decide to become the world leader in transport... would this not meet those NATO commitments? Yes or No? The price quoted by reuters appears to be the simple purchase price. Ie, this is the kind of thing you and others have decried as fraud since you insist on the full lifetime cost of maintenance and operations, right down to the stickers on the pilots helmets be applied at the outset. Second, your cite states this is merely a stopgap measure until the F-35s are ready. Third, the F-18 super hornet is already a 19 year old aircraft with very old technology. They would be a 25 year old aircraft by the time we started taking delivery. Do you realistically expect them to be able to do the job for twenty and thirty years after that? You are talking about using an aircraft as the main fighter for the RCAF some 50 years after its development! By way of comparison, the F-14 was an excellent aircraft in its time. It was developed some 40 years ago, though, and no one flies them anymore other than Iran. Another comparison would be the Starfighter. It was the mainstay of the RCAF in the 1960s. You would have us still flying them today? Do you think the Starfighter, being flown today, would adequately fulfill our defense needs and be acceptable to our nato allies? Edited June 23, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 I'm not a red blooded military fetishist. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a logical alternative to this aircraft. Care to offer up something? Waldo obviously isn't able to come with a thing. Since our aircraft will be out of commission before the Americans are ready to deliver, paper airplanes equipped with elastic band guns would be a more logical alternative at this point. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 "protect our own airspace"... from what? Not being able to protect our own airspace for myriad reasons would be mind-blowingly stupid. Sometimes fighters needed to intercept commercial jets even for various reasons, not the least of which would be a hijacking. We need fighters of some sort. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 the F-18 super hornet is already a 19 year old aircraft with very old technology. They would be a 25 year old aircraft by the time we started taking delivery.You know, people are saying this and every time I see it, I stop and wonder. If I bought a brand new 2012 Dodge Charger, would you say "that's a 46-year-old car with very old technology"?I'm not the most well versed on all the details about what's in these aircraft and how they're purchased, maintained, etc., obviously. I'm not sure that they use all the exact same equipment in the Super Hornet that they used the first day it rolled off the lines. I say this because even the JSF would supposedly be delivered to Canada without engines. Don't they upgrade the many of the other components in these jets over time as well? Quote
wyly Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 Not being able to protect our own airspace for myriad reasons would be mind-blowingly stupid. Sometimes fighters needed to intercept commercial jets even for various reasons, not the least of which would be a hijacking. We need fighters of some sort. when has that ever happened anywhere? and just what do you think a fighter jet will do to a hijacked passenger plane? shoot it down?(never), taser it? arrest and hand cuff it?intercepting and accompanying a commercial jet is futile and pure posturing, there is nothing they can do... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 when has that ever happened anywhere? and just what do you think a fighter jet will do to a hijacked passenger plane? shoot it down?(never), taser it? arrest and hand cuff it? intercepting and accompanying a commercial jet is futile and pure posturing, there is nothing they can do... Don't be ridiculous. You may as well dismantle NORAD the way you're talking.I'm as guilty of this as anyone else here is sometimes, but I really think you're having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 intercepting and accompanying a commercial jet is futile and pure posturing, there is nothing they can do... Oh really? Explain that to the dead passengers and crew of KAL Flight 007: Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 You know, people are saying this and every time I see it, I stop and wonder. If I bought a brand new 2012 Dodge Charger, would you say "that's a 46-year-old car with very old technology"? I'm not the most well versed on all the details about what's in these aircraft and how they're purchased, maintained, etc., obviously. I'm not sure that they use all the exact same equipment in the Super Hornet that they used the first day it rolled off the lines. I say this because even the JSF would supposedly be delivered to Canada without engines. Don't they upgrade the many of the other components in these jets over time as well? and a Super Hornet is more than adequate for any third world enemy we may encounter on NATO missions, any superpower enemy with the capability of invading/attacking canada will brush aside 60 F35s, our country is too large and population too small to offer any serious opposition to any superpower that wants to take us out...the only defensive deterrent we could present is a nuclear defense...splurging billions on useless toys that make the military boys wet their pants is stupid and futile... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
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.