F-35 Purchase

[bush_cheney2004]

A strong case for new gear for Canada if a Korean War era AA gun with a radar system made up of vacuum tubes can still blast a fast aircraft from the sky. That could have been "prevented" from a defence point of view. To the Turks credit, though, I doubt they were expecting action.

Then the Turks haven't been keeping up with current events. The Syrians have even been using AA fire on insurgents. They are keen to spot any aerial monkey business from NATO, Israel, or the USA.

[DogOnPorch]

Then the Turks haven't been keeping up with current events. The Syrians have even been using AA fire on insurgents. They are keen to spot any aerial monkey business from NATO, Israel, or the USA.

Yes. There's a cell phone vid going around of a government ZSU-23 quad 23mm mowing down pretty much everything. Man woman dog cat.

Edited June 24, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. These's a cell phone vid going around of a government ZSU-23 quad 23mm mowing down pretty much everything. Man woman dog cat.

The Syrians have thousands of AA pieces...that's what happens when you tangle with Israel so many times...and lose your ass.

[DogOnPorch]

The Syrians have thousands of AA pieces...that's what happens when you tangle with Israel so many times...and lose your ass.

Indeed. A large portion of Israeli armor is converted Arab-Soviet gear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_Operators_and_variants#Israel

Oddly, they don't convert MiGs.

[waldo]

Indeed. A large portion of Israeli armor is converted Arab-Soviet gear.

indeed... again... you've purposely derailed F-35 related thread after F-35 related thread with your jingo-porn. You know there is another dedicated thread for it - you know this. Yet, you persist. Yes, certainly... it's not entirely your fault as you have a most capable foreign-interloping enabler... from Regina!

[waldo]

wrong thread... have you forgot where to put your jingo-porn?

oh, by the by, according to DND, your Russian boogeyman... isn't!

Oooooo....a defence analyst. I wonder if he thinks that Hind helicopters are incapable of being used on civilians, too.

yes... a DND defence analyst - one from the DND’s ADM Policy branch... one who wrote the briefing for MacKay/Fantino. The briefing that shoots down your personal 'wet your pants' fears over a non-existent Arctic Russian boogeyman... the go-to you predictably played upon through many, many posts in this and other like threads.

[waldo]

flying the simulator, hey? Ya, ya... funny how the South Koreans are put off by Lockheed Martin refusing to allow them to actually fly a 'real jet'... is there a problem? Since you mention Elgin AFB training... and refused to bite on my earlier slag... any update on just when all those pilots waiting at Elgin will actually be able to fly a F-35? You know, when that missing F-35 safety rating will finally arrive?

What tier of membership are the South Koreans again?

right... what "tier" is preventing U.S. pilots from being able to fly the F-35 jets sitting on the Eglin tarmac, hey? Imagine... the South Koreans aren't so willing as all the other 'partners' to blindly accept whatever wild-assed promises Lockheed Martin feeds them.

[waldo]

I've mentioned multiple alternative scenarios in the past... from no jets to other existing 4th gen aircraft. Mentioning the Super Hornets was simply coincident with your recent reference to the Australia purchase. In that case, you put up a figure and presumed to contrast it with the unsubstantiated DND/Harper Conservative acquisition cost figure. It is heartening to now read you actually admit the Australia purchase cost was more than straight acquisition... that it also included significant extended support. Funny you didn't bother to make that distinction earlier, hey?

I also didn't say Australia purchased the Growler, proper. I most definitely spoke to a conversion aspect (an upgrade scenario)... which, again, you conveniently left out of that Australia purchase cost number you presumed to suggest/imply was straight acquisition costs. How disingenuous of you, hey?

Where did I contrast it with the planned 14.7 billion Canadian purchase? In said post, I contrasted the Super Hornet with other “alternatives”. Did you not imply that the 6.6 billion figure for 24 “Super Duper Hornets” was in fact due to the “upgrade”? If you like, we can revisit your passage, until then, this reference:

it's implicit with every one of your cost related posts... would you really like me to quote from the many, many posts where you speak to 'doing the math'... or 'playing with numbers'... or other like crapola. Your charade is to prowl for anything you believe shows costs more than the unsubstantiated and wildly dated DND/Harper Conservative acquisition cost figure. It's particularly telling in that you don't give a rats-patooey about cost - to you, whatever it costs... it costs!

as for what I stated... not implied... that Australian purchase cost was not straight acquisition; that a part of it was due to provisioning half of the jets for G variant conversion/upgrade. Again, you tossed the number into the mix and didn't bother to state that it was much more than a straight acquisition cost... that it also included extended (to 2030) support, that it also included the G variant conversion capability. As I said, just another of your intellectually dishonest best.

[waldo]

... as I, once again, ask you to step up and speak to that so-called "sweet spot" for presumed Canadian F-35 procurement. What imaginary year would you like to go with Lockheed Martin actually producing Canadian jets - 2021?... 2022?... 2023?... or what?

[waldo]

I note you didn't answer my question about the Super Hornet satisfying Canada's NATO commitments - yes or no?

wow! I couldn't even get a simple YES or NO! You can't even admit the ready-reach NATO commitment rationale for the 'must have a (F-35) jet' crowd, is that the ready-reach could be met with several alternate scenarios... not the least of which could be Canada opting for no jets and taking on a transport role - right? Again, simply (another) YES or NO?

[waldo]

care to comment on that $2 billion... soon to be $4 billion (???) upgrade costs to the Canadian taxpayers to keep the CF-18 flying while the F-35 continues its ever downward spiral into oblivion?

I did in response to Cybercoma’s reference……….

no, you didn't. You blustered about 'best before dates', presumably suggesting there won't be another full $2 billion outlay requirement... of course, this dovetails with you refusing to state just what year you anticipate Canadian production F-35 jets to be available. $2 billion already gone to retrofit CF-18s... while DND/Harper Conservatives conveniently cover-up the fact significant new expenditures will be required to keep the CF-18s flying given the ongoing protracted JSFail F-35 delays. No wonder you trot out your 'best before date' nonsense.

[Guest Derek L]

right... what "tier" is preventing U.S. pilots from being able to fly the F-35 jets sitting on the Eglin tarmac, hey? Imagine... the South Koreans aren't so willing as all the other 'partners' to blindly accept whatever wild-assed promises Lockheed Martin feeds them.

What are you talking about? The first non-test pilots qualified on the F-35 last month and once several others have qualified as instructors, the USAF will stand up the first conversion unit.

[Guest Derek L]

it's implicit with every one of your cost related posts... would you really like me to quote from the many, many posts where you speak to 'doing the math'... or 'playing with numbers'... or other like crapola. Your charade is to prowl for anything you believe shows costs more than the unsubstantiated and wildly dated DND/Harper Conservative acquisition cost figure. It's particularly telling in that you don't give a rats-patooey about cost - to you, whatever it costs... it costs!

as for what I stated... not implied... that Australian purchase cost was not straight acquisition; that a part of it was due to provisioning half of the jets for G variant conversion/upgrade. Again, you tossed the number into the mix and didn't bother to state that it was much more than a straight acquisition cost... that it also included extended (to 2030) support, that it also included the G variant conversion capability. As I said, just another of your intellectually dishonest best.

You now don’t like “fun with numbers” when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Guest Derek L]

Several years after we sign the deal.

[DogOnPorch]

yes... a DND defence analyst - one from the DND’s ADM Policy branch... one who wrote the briefing for MacKay/Fantino. The briefing that shoots down your personal 'wet your pants' fears over a non-existent Arctic Russian boogeyman... the go-to you predictably played upon through many, many posts in this and other like threads.

Your little article says nothing. Peter MacKay is a lawyer. Fantino is a cop. The DND analyst is so hush-hush he/she/it can't be named. It's all very well to state 'the Russians are not a threat', but you should at least provide a defence that goes beyond 'because I say so'. On the world stage, the Russians are acting like they've always done: in their interest. That you do not care what Russia does in the Arctic would be a more honest response from the likes of you. Try it...

[GostHacked]

That you do not care what Russia does in the Arctic would be a more honest response from the likes of you. Try it...

You are complaining about honest responses? Genuine responses would be good as well.

[Guest Derek L]

wow! I couldn't even get a simple YES or NO! You can't even admit the ready-reach NATO commitment rationale for the 'must have a (F-35) jet' crowd, is that the ready-reach could be met with several alternate scenarios... not the least of which could be Canada opting for no jets and taking on a transport role - right? Again, simply (another) YES or NO?

Couldn't Canada just "pull out" of NATO?

The more apt question is whether a purchase of a 4th generation aircraft will suit our needs, thus enabling us to maintain both our commitments to NATO and NORAD during the 2030-2050 timeframe…….The answer to that, is no.

Again your alternatives (No jets or anything as expensive and of older technology but not the F-35) seems quite telling, well at the same time allows you to shift your goalposts along both the x & y axis with impunity………. As Argus has stated, your alternative is anything but the F-35.……heck of way to make policy

[DogOnPorch]

You are complaining about honest responses? Genuine responses would be good as well.

Says the guy with nothing to say...

[DogOnPorch]

As Argus has stated, your alternative is anything but the F-35.……heck of way to make policy

We knew that back at yon Sopwith Camel video. Still an option for the waldos of the planet.

[Guest Derek L]

no, you didn't. You blustered about 'best before dates', presumably suggesting there won't be another full $2 billion outlay requirement... of course, this dovetails with you refusing to state just what year you anticipate Canadian production F-35 jets to be available. $2 billion already gone to retrofit CF-18s... while DND/Harper Conservatives conveniently cover-up the fact significant new expenditures will be required to keep the CF-18s flying given the ongoing protracted JSFail F-35 delays. No wonder you trot out your 'best before date' nonsense.

You do know the Hornet upgrade was initiated under the Chrétien government right?

And as stated by myself, my opinion on the entire mater was that it was a waste of money and that the majority of the “necessary upgrades” should/could have been achieved during the initial back end of our delivery of the Hornets in the late 80s………A clear demonstration of lack of Canadian foresight.

[Army Guy]

yes... a DND defence analyst - one from the DND’s ADM Policy branch... one who wrote the briefing for MacKay/Fantino. The briefing that shoots down your personal 'wet your pants' fears over a non-existent Arctic Russian boogeyman... the go-to you predictably played upon through many, many posts in this and other like threads.

To be fair that is not what is said at all...

Russia’s creation of new military units for the Arctic and its decision to conduct a survey of its seabed in the region doesn’t pose a threat to Canada, Defence Department analysts have concluded.

And i don't believe either of those to reasons were not listed as reasons to purchase F-35's .....

Just a question though if Russian aircraft do not pose any threat then why do we waste hundrds of thousands of tax dollars incepting every one...why not just ignore them , call it a day, and save a bundle...But in order for us to invest this kind of resource and manpower there must by a threat to warrent a response.

There is no context to the analyst opinion, just that whom ever works in the Adm policy branch, or adminstration branch, and may have written a briefing note for the ministers and now we are to tone our response SOP's based on this briefing note written by a clerk maybe you can give us alittle more than that.

[Argus]

you sir... are the last person to be speaking of social skills... I'll be glad to re-quote some of your recent gems within this thread. In any case, as I said, you haven't a clue... on one hand your F-35 reference is paper-work vapourware... on the other hand you most incorrectly referenced the Super Hornet in terms of the original F/A-18. Of course, when your boner play is highlighted you proceed to whine about social skills and your imaginary mentally challenged friend... bluster-bus!

Do you really think your juvenile blowhard attitude conceals the fact that you aren't answering the questions put to you - likely because you don't know?

The cost, little boy, the cost! How much would the savings be for buying an old, inferior aircraft over the new one!?

[waldo]

Do you really think your juvenile blowhard attitude conceals the fact that you aren't answering the questions put to you - likely because you don't know?

The cost, little boy, the cost! How much would the savings be for buying an old, inferior aircraft over the new one!?

cost? None of you wannabe fly-boys shilling for Harper Conservatives care a tinker about cost! If only you would quit ducking the concerns/issues raised within the formal accounts of the actual failings within JSFail... concerns/issues inclusive of the program's real costs and delays and their impact on the ultimate costs and delivery schedules both the U.S. military branches and JSFail partners will face. You foolishly compared the latter Super Hornet vintages to the original F-A/18... there's really nothing else that needs to be said about the value of anything you have to say/offer.

[waldo]

... as I, once again, ask you to step up and speak to that so-called "sweet spot" for presumed Canadian F-35 procurement. What imaginary year would you like to go with Lockheed Martin actually producing Canadian jets - 2021?... 2022?... 2023?... or what?

Several years after we sign the deal.

e-v-a-s-i-v-e => intentionally vague or ambiguous; equivocal

[waldo]

wrong thread... have you forgot where to put your jingo-porn?

oh, by the by, according to DND, your Russian boogeyman... isn't!

Oooooo....a defence analyst. I wonder if he thinks that Hind helicopters are incapable of being used on civilians, too.

yes... a DND defence analyst - one from the DND’s ADM Policy branch... one who wrote the briefing for MacKay/Fantino. The briefing that shoots down your personal 'wet your pants' fears over a non-existent Arctic Russian boogeyman... the go-to you predictably played upon through many, many posts in this and other like threads.

Your little article says nothing. Peter MacKay is a lawyer. Fantino is a cop. The DND analyst is so hush-hush he/she/it can't be named. It's all very well to state 'the Russians are not a threat', but you should at least provide a defence that goes beyond 'because I say so'. On the world stage, the Russians are acting like they've always done: in their interest. That you do not care what Russia does in the Arctic would be a more honest response from the likes of you. Try it...

I've been very direct and fairly complete in detailing the actual Russian Arctic aspirations... what Russia has openly conveyed to the UN about its current scientific based undertakings and formal intentions toward seeking lawful acceptance towards its related claim in the Arctic - a claim that simply extends upon an undersea bed Russia believes extends from its land mass... a claim that has nothing to do with direct challenge to Canada, or any other interested nation for that matter. It would appear this DND analysis simply aligns with that record of account. You can continue to wail away over your fears of the Russian bear... you simply haven't any foundation to attach them toward Harper Conservative puffery over Canadian Arctic sovereignty. Why, even today, Harper Conservatives are back-tracking on their fake trumped up urgency... does not bode well for your Arctic Russian boogeyman foundation:

New cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the U.S. government perceived Stephen Harper’s position on Arctic sovereignty only as a politically expedient way to win votes during the 2006 and 2008 elections, the CBC reports. While the PM often used strong rhetoric about the need to defend the region and rolled out a series of pledges, including the purchase of armed icebreakers and ocean sensors to beef up surveillance, the cables reveal that he did little to implement them. “The persistent high profile which this government has accorded ‘Northern Issues’ and the Arctic is, however, unprecedented and reflects the PM’s views that the North has never been more important to our country’ — although one could perhaps paraphrase to state ‘the North has never been more important to our Party,” wrote U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson in a January 2010 diplomatic cable. Jacobsen also said that during an extended meeting he had with Harper in January 2010, the PM did not mention the Arctic once. Since coming to power in 2006, Harper has consistently touted Arctic sovereignty as a top priority for the Conservative government, and has visited the region on several occasions.