F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

Nobody respects you.

marginalization 101, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

oh my... I thought I had covered my tracks better!

like I said, avoid, avoid... in the face of any legitimate JSFail F-35 criticism... it's what you do!

And said concepts you “leveraged” were not one of networked centric platforms as the focus and their integration into the concept of ASB?

[bush_cheney2004]

like I said, avoid, avoid... in the face of any legitimate JSFail F-35 criticism... it's what you do!

U.S. = JSF production + domestic criticism

Canada = no production + imported criticism

That's right folks....even F-35 criticism is now being imported.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bleeding heart]

marginalization 101, hey?

No need to take remarks like that seriously in any case.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[waldo]

And said concepts you “leveraged” were not one of networked centric as the focus and their integration into the concept of ASB?

you were the one who purposely distracted away from the legitimate F-35 criticism by highlighting ASB - it's what you do... distract away! Yes, after that point, I most certainly chimed in on ASB in proper context; in terms of what Cartwright had stated in the talk/video. Again, your efforts are so transparent to the point of comic relief. In the new reality being spoken of/to, the F-35 platform is a strategic failure... regardless of its actual inherent failings. Of course, it's the strategic failure you're now attempting to deflect around. Just address what the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated about unmanned vs. manned performance within that strategy, within the new realities of technological advance. Here's a clue: F-35 is not on the leading/bleeding edge of that technological advance.

James Cartwright (former vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff)

: "While we squeal a lot about debt reduction and about how terrible it was, we were heading in that direction anyway. That’s the reality. We do not want to talk about the next increments. We’re willing to say the word ‘sequester’ without saying we’re going to do anything different."

"You really need strategy before you spend money, and what you spend it on needs to be something you can actually afford."

"Without a coherent strategy, you just go in and plan for everything and then let the budgeteers decide what you'll actually buy, which is what you're doing today."

"This is where the reality is. We’ve got to start defining where the leverage is. The leverage is in systems that can exceed the performance of the human being – can be out there longer than the human can last in harsher environments."

"The problem is that today's procurement process still focuses on "platforms" -- jets, ships, submarines, ground vehicles -- and not on the information technology those platforms carry. But technologies like the jet aircraft and the submarine are mature ones, with marginal space for improvement, whereas rapid advances in information technology offer huge returns for investment because available computing power doubles every 18 months. When the US discovers it's developed the wrong platforms and has to physically rebuild them, it takes years and billions of dollars, but a complete update to the electronics of, for example, the Reaper unmanned air vehicle fleet took less than $300 million and less than a year of time. Sometimes you will have to buy an MRAP, but it's a sign that the enemy has out-thought you."

"There is a nexus coming between electronic warfare and cyber, between traditional electronic jamming and countermeasures and new-fangled hacking. One knocks the door down and the other goes in and does the dirty work. The current turf wars between the electronic warfare and cybersecurity communities miss the vital point. In the cyber realm, we’ve been thinking 90 percent defense, 10 percent offense. That’s bass-ackwards for us. We need to stand ready to seize the electromagnetic offensive."

"We built the F-35 with absolutely no protection for it from a cyber standpoint."

"At the end of the day, the F-35 is not ready for a world in which there is cyber, it's not ready for a world in which you have huge strategic depth, it's not ready for a world in which stealth is only computational power and that's moving faster than you can field platforms, it's not ready for a world where the weapons systems are speed of light... that's the world we're moving into."

[bush_cheney2004]

...Here's a clue: F-35 is not on the leading/bleeding edge of that technological advance.

Who are you kidding? Do you think Canada is going to buy let alone afford the best kit? Hell, the Americans won't even sell it to you! See F-22 Raptor.

[cybercoma]

And as a follow up to the above discussion, a Canadian perspective of future war that aligns with the American’s approach …….One that I’ve been advocating for rather constantly, and as such, redefining our current force structure, well paying homage to fiscal realties.

Do you think Canadians generally support Canada aligning the American approach to war?

[Guest Derek L]

you were the one who purposely distracted away from the legitimate F-35 criticism by highlighting ASB - it's what you do... distract away! Yes, after that point, I most certainly chimed in on ASB in proper context; in terms of what Cartwright had stated in the talk/video. Again, your efforts are so transparent to the point of comic relief. In the new reality being spoken of/to, the F-35 platform is a strategic failure... regardless of its actual inherent failings. Of course, it's the strategic failure you're now attempting to deflect around. Just address what the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated about unmanned vs. manned performance within that strategy, within the new realities of technological advance. Here's a clue: F-35 is not on the leading/bleeding edge of that technological advance.

And I’ll revert back to the General stumping for Raytheon products………..Again the reference the General made here referring to a lack there of coherent strategy:

"While we squeal a lot about debt reduction and about how terrible it was, we were heading in that direction anyway. That’s the reality. We do not want to talk about the next increments. We’re willing to say the word ‘sequester’ without saying we’re going to do anything different."

"You really need strategy before you spend money, and what you spend it on needs to be something you can actually afford."

"Without a coherent strategy, you just go in and plan for everything and then let the budgeteers decide what you'll actually buy, which is what you're doing today."

Then he transitions to his sales pitch under the auspices of no defined strategy………Remember also, you’re the one to initially bring up A2/AD…..I also see you’ve failed to refute and/or reference the other remarks made by the Generals and Admirals in the second video, from the same conference that puts “cyber warfare” into the context of ASB, to say nothing of the reference of the F-22 and F-35 and how this all ties into a viable force structure and strategy…..Or the three “D’s” : Deny, Disrupt & Destroy

(Try from the 22:00 minute mark plus)

[Guest Derek L]

Do you think Canadians generally support Canada aligning the American approach to war?

Which approach? If you’re referring to the ideals of Air-Sea Battle, yes, as demonstrated by the political support (CPC/LPC/NDP) and lack of public outcry over the Libyan mission when contrasted with Afghanistan.

[waldo]

you were the one who purposely distracted away from the legitimate F-35 criticism by highlighting ASB - it's what you do... distract away! Yes, after that point, I most certainly chimed in on ASB in proper context; in terms of what Cartwright had stated in the talk/video. Again, your efforts are so transparent to the point of comic relief. In the new reality being spoken of/to, the F-35 platform is a strategic failure... regardless of its actual inherent failings. Of course, it's the strategic failure you're now attempting to deflect around. Just address what the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated about unmanned vs. manned performance within that strategy, within the new realities of technological advance. Here's a clue: F-35 is not on the leading/bleeding edge of that technological advance.

And I’ll revert back to the General stumping for Raytheon products………

of course you will... it's all you can do in the face of legitimate criticism of JSFail F-35. You would sooner denigrate a life-long distinguished U.S. military leader, one at the highest echelon... than even acknowledge the legitimate F-35 criticism. It's what you do; it's what you're about.

[Guest Derek L]

of course you will... it's all you can do in the face of legitimate criticism of JSFail F-35. You would sooner denigrate a life-long distinguished U.S. military leader, one at the highest echelon... than even acknowledge the legitimate F-35 criticism. It's what you do; it's what you're about.

Ahh you’re back…….I see you’ve yet to address the context in which the General spoke in relation to the overall topic, nor acknowledge (from the second video from the conference) how the F-22/F-35 will be a cornerstone of said strategy involving the “3 D’s”…….

[waldo]

Which approach? If you’re referring to the ideals of Air-Sea Battle, yes, as demonstrated by the political support (CPC/LPC/NDP) and lack of public outcry over the Libyan mission when contrasted with Afghanistan.

your reach-around is noted! You certainly are quick with the buzzwords, although I am kinda missing your grab bag that usually throws out, 'force projection', 'gun-boat diplomacy'... and the like. In any case, again, if/as ASB was developed as a strategy to deal with advanced A2/AD technologies... how did Libya fit that model?

[waldo]

Ahh you’re back…….I see you’ve yet to address the context in which the General spoke in relation to the overall topic, nor acknowledge (from the second video from the conference) how the F-22/F-35 will be a cornerstone of said strategy involving the “3 D’s”…….

haven't a clue what you're rambling on about - I certainly have no initial interest in whatever video you threw up. You need to entice me - sure you can!

[Guest Derek L]

your reach-around is noted! You certainly are quick with the buzzwords, although I am kinda missing your grab bag that usually throws out, 'force projection', 'gun-boat diplomacy'... and the like. In any case, again, if/as ASB was developed as a strategy to deal with advanced A2/AD technologies... how did Libya fit that model?

Cart before the horse Waldo………Libya merely required a down select of capability………..The LA Kings could play against the local junior team with little effort…….

[Guest Derek L]

haven't a clue what you're rambling on about - I certainly have no initial interest in whatever video you threw up. You need to entice me - sure you can!

Of course you have no interest, since both videos, from the same conference, on the same theme would afford counter context to your personal slant.

[waldo]

Cart before the horse Waldo………Libya merely required a down select of capability………..The LA Kings could play against the local junior team with little effort…….

what I read says Libya had little on paper... and less working in reality - certainly nothing that aligns with advanced A2/AD technologies. But don't let that stifle your buzzword predilection, hey?

[waldo]

Of course you have no interest, since both videos, from the same conference, on the same theme would afford counter context to your personal slant.

both videos? I certainly stand by Cartwright's commentary per the linked video I put up and quoted. I just (now) had a look at a couple of minutes of the video you linked... without you bothering to quote anything from your video (at the 22:00 mark you suggested)... soon after, the speaker highlights an emphasis on unmanned, on unmanned 'self-forming networks'. And you believe this helps you make a case for the JSFail? Oh my!

[Guest Derek L]

what I read says Libya had little on paper... and less working in reality - certainly nothing that aligns with advanced A2/AD technologies. But don't let that stifle your buzzword predilection, hey?

I think you’re missing the point…..The Libyan military was obsolete 20 years ago (being fair), as such, the bulk of the US commitment to Odyssey Dawn achieved their goals within several days, thus handing over the bulk of the responsibilities to the other partners once the “heavy lifting” was complete (Destruction of the Libyan air defence network and air force)

[Guest Derek L]

both videos? I certainly stand by Cartwright's commentary per the linked video I put up and quoted. I just (now) had a look at a couple of minutes of the video you linked... without you bothering to quote anything from your video (at the 22:00 mark you suggested)... soon after, the speaker highlights an emphasis on unmanned, on unmanned 'self-forming networks'. And you believe this helps you make a case for the JSFail? Oh my!

Perhaps watch/listen to the entire video........Closer to ~25:00-28:00 minute mark…..All three “D’s” in one platform.

[Guest Derek L]

And the panel on acquisition of the future force:

[waldo]

what I read says Libya had little on paper... and less working in reality - certainly nothing that aligns with advanced A2/AD technologies. But don't let that stifle your buzzword predilection, hey?

I think you’re missing the point…..The Libyan military was obsolete 20 years ago (being fair), as such, the bulk of the US commitment to Odyssey Dawn achieved their goals within several days, thus handing over the bulk of the responsibilities to the other partners once the “heavy lifting” was complete (Destruction of the Libyan air defence network and air force)

"Odyssey Dawn"... yowzer... how nice of you to add some fluff to your, uhhh... meat, ya meat!

I'm missing the point? Really? You acknowledge Libyan obsolescence in the face of your ASB buzzword? Here I thought ASB was intended to target actual advanced weapons/defense. Maybe you need to revamp your blog list, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

"Odyssey Dawn"... yowzer... how nice of you to add some fluff to your, uhhh... meat, ya meat!

I'm missing the point? Really? You acknowledge Libyan obsolescence in the face of your ASB buzzword? Here I thought ASB was intended to target actual advanced weapons/defense. Maybe you need to revamp your blog list, hey?

Again, you either refuse to, or are unable to acknowledge that said strategy is able to be implemented against a “lesser opponent”………. For example, as alluded to and confirmed in said video, a strategic bomber intended to strike the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, is able to “down select” and bomb a airfield of a third world despot with little effort.

[waldo]

Again, you either refuse to, or are unable to acknowledge that said strategy is able to be implemented against a “lesser opponent”………. For example, as alluded to and confirmed in said video, a strategic bomber intended to strike the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, is able to “down select” and bomb a airfield of a third world despot with little effort.

now you're into gobbledygook... hey, if you want to call it "down select" - git-r-done! Just don't call it conventional ASB in relation to advanced A2/AD - particularly when you acknowledge Libyan obsolescence - ya think?

[Guest Derek L]

now you're into gobbledygook... hey, if you want to call it "down select" - git-r-done! Just don't call it conventional ASB in relation to advanced A2/AD - particularly when you acknowledge Libyan obsolescence - ya think?

What is "conventional ASB"? What is "advanced A2/AD"? I don’t suppose you could expand on your statement(s)?

[waldo]

What is "conventional ASB"? What is "advanced A2/AD"? I don’t suppose you could expand on your statement(s)?

no, sorry - not interested in further enabling your distractions within this particular JSFail F-35 thread.