F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

That's all you have? Try again when your insults improve.

I've most certainly not insulted you... personally. I'm not the one who just offered comment on your, as you stated, SFBs.

But, I think others will agree with me when I say 'no aircraft is suitable for waldo'. Your contempt for Canada's military is MORE than obvious.

see MLW member 'DogOnPorch' selective recall in regards discussion around alternatives. You can keep repeating your purposeful stated untruth; again, I've shown and expressed no contempt for Canada's military. I most certainly have criticized and expressed reservations over the Canadian military handling/hand-off of the F-35.

[DogOnPorch]

I've most certainly not insulted you... personally. I'm not the one who just offered comment on your, as you stated, SFBs.

see MLW member 'DogOnPorch' selective recall in regards discussion around alternatives. You can keep repeating your purposeful stated untruth; again, I've shown and expressed no contempt for Canada's military. I most certainly have criticized and expressed reservations over the Canadian military handling/hand-off of the F-35.

I highly doubt anyone cares. You've shown your colours.

[Guest Derek L]

I was going to blow this off initially with the standard pat answer to anyone that beaks off about 'bandwidth' - "buy a bigger pipe!" Before doing that I thought I'd check a bit on just how much of a smokescreen you were throwing up as you rushed mightily forward against even the suggestion of unmanned UAV touching upon the sanctity of your venerable manned F-35 platform centric myopia. Hey now, is this secure and robust enough?:

- further extension on the

existing Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite system

- continuing to maximize commercial (as available/appropriate), while divesting in favour of

a military bandwidth migration path, one aligning with WGS extension

- oh look, another international partnership -

Canada’s Participation in the Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) Communications System

and, oh ya - "buy a bigger pipe!"

To clarify, your contention is that there is no current shortage of “bandwidth” that would effect the operation of remotely piloted vehicles?

[Guest Derek L]

still too fast, hey? Slow down!

it would seem you've got it quite conveniently covered (your backside, that is)... vests on, it's a problem; vests off, it's a problem!

You're still having a problem with the concept?

as for your latest, 'expert opinion', regarding the two most recent incidents (the ones you're attributing to "incomplete g-suits" (vests off), I'm reading where the USAF is attributing those two recent incidents to, "malfunctions in the F22's life support systems - so called mechanical problems". Perhaps your slow typing distracted you from this revelation, hey?

uhhh, by the by, any 'expert opinion' on the 'hypoxia like problem' encountered by that F-22 ground crew? Ground crews don't wear g-suits, right?

Source?

[waldo]

To clarify, your contention is that there is no current shortage of “bandwidth” that would effect the operation of remotely piloted vehicles?

to clarify, your contention is that... not only is there not a secure and robust enough bandwidth, they haven't even figured out how to, as you say, "make a secure and robust enough bandwidth"? Is that your contention?

Once they figure out how to make a secure and robust enough bandwidth……

[waldo]

You're still having a problem with the concept?

no - not at all

Source?

would you really like me to fire you up a lmgtfy link?

[waldo]

see MLW member 'DogOnPorch' selective recall in regards discussion around alternatives. You can keep repeating your purposeful stated untruth; again, I've shown and expressed no contempt for Canada's military. I most certainly have criticized and expressed reservations over the Canadian military handling/hand-off of the F-35.

I highly doubt anyone cares. You've shown your colours.

my colours? How do you like the following colours?:

waldo factoid

: in the so-called 'jet age', Canada has participated in 5 varying levels of conflict, with the following fighter jet commitments to the respective conflicts:

=> Korean War (0), Gulf War-1 (24), Kosovo (18), Afghanistan (0), Libya (6) --- total 48

during the period of time associated with the varying levels of conflict and Canada's 48 fighter jet commitments, Canada has purchased a total of 1100 jet fighters.

1100 purchased <=> 48 committed in conflict

Edited July 14, 2012 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

to clarify, your contention is that... not only is there not a secure and robust enough bandwidth, they haven't even figured out how to, as you say, "make a secure and robust enough bandwidth"? Is that your contention?

At present, yes. Coupled with the fact that due to the lack of situational awareness, all UAV/UCAV are limited to operating in restricted (and contested) airspace………..

[Guest Derek L]

no - not at all

would you really like me to fire you up a lmgtfy link?

Is it another blog?

[Guest Derek L]

my colours? How do you like the following colours?:

waldo factoid

: in the so-called 'jet age', Canada has participated in 5 varying levels of conflict, with the following fighter jet commitments to the respective conflicts:

=> Korean War (0), Gulf War-1 (24), Kosovo (18), Afghanistan (0), Libya (6) --- total 48

during the period of time associated with the varying levels of conflict and Canada's 48 fighter jet commitments, Canada has purchased a total of 1100 jet fighters.

1100 purchased <=> 48 committed in conflict

Over said period you label the “jet age”, how many Canadian jet fighters were/are committed to NORAD and NATO based out of Germany, and others based in Quebec and committed to Norway in the event of war?

[Guest Derek L]

And despite what some esteemed members, aided by “blogs” thought:

Spokesman reaffirms CNO’s faith in F-35

Despite what’s circulating in the blogosphere, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert is firmly committed to the F-35C Lightning II, a Navy spokesman said.

Greenert recently raised eyebrows with an article in the July issue of Proceedings, the magazine for the U.S. Naval Institute, in which he touched on the limits of stealth technology. Some interpreted these comments as a slam on the stealthy F-35, even though that aircraft was not specifically mentioned.

[bush_cheney2004]

And despite what some esteemed members, aided by “blogs” thought:

Spokesman reaffirms CNO’s faith in F-35

As a member and subscriber to the USNI's Proceedings Magazine, I would expect nothing less in the way of healthy debate about US force structure, which has been the hallmark of that periodical for decades.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings

[Guest Derek L]

As a member and subscriber to the USNI's Proceedings Magazine, I would expect nothing less in the way of healthy debate about US force structure, which has been the hallmark of that periodical for decades.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings

Indeed, and with such discussions in a free and open society, the misrepresentation of comments is clearly a natural offshoot………Hence the clarification by the CNO……….Cleary his comments aligned with the integration of the AGM-158, Storm Shadow and Joint Strike Missile into the F-35’s weapons carriage requirements………

[waldo]

to clarify, your contention is that... not only is there not a secure and robust enough bandwidth, they haven't even figured out how to, as you say, "make a secure and robust enough bandwidth"? Is that your contention?

At present, yes.

so... not a malfunction and crash as stated by the U.S. Government, hey? I trust you will share the insights/absolutes from your blog world on just how the drone was "acquired" by Iran... make sure to explain why the self-destruct didn't work - that's a hoot... Iranian's penetrating Langley, no less! Oh my!

it is quite disconcerting to have you allege that not only is the aforementioned Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite system not secure... I guess you're also alleging neither is the existing Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite system (oh look; another international partnership Canada joined in on). That's a lot of insecurity you're perpetuating, hey?

Coupled with the fact that due to the lack of situational awareness, all UAV/UCAV are limited to operating in restricted (and contested) airspace

does your "situational awareness" concern extend to include the failings of the F-35 HMDS? I can replay the latest U.S. GAO report, uhhh... situational awareness on those failings... if you'd like.

[waldo]

And despite what some esteemed members, aided by “blogs” thought:

that's right... when the USN CNO spoke of the weaknesses, failings and limitations of stealth... he wasn't including the F-35C 'stealthiness' in that mix, hey?

[waldo]

my colours? How do you like the following colours?:

waldo factoid

: in the so-called 'jet age', Canada has participated in 5 varying levels of conflict, with the following fighter jet commitments to the respective conflicts:

=> Korean War (0), Gulf War-1 (24), Kosovo (18), Afghanistan (0), Libya (6) --- total 48

during the period of time associated with the varying levels of conflict and Canada's 48 fighter jet commitments, Canada has purchased a total of 1100 jet fighters.

1100 purchased <=> 48 committed in conflict

Over said period you label the “jet age”, how many Canadian jet fighters were/are committed to NORAD and NATO based out of Germany, and others based in Quebec and committed to Norway in the event of war?

I don't have those figures... I eagerly await you supplying those figures... while speaking to the particular "war eventualities" you presuppose on. Ideally, it would be quite helpful to have you match the figures to actual, particular (as appropriate), eventuality. Thanks in advance.

[Guest Derek L]

so... not a malfunction and crash as stated by the U.S. Government, hey? I trust you will share the insights/absolutes from your blog world on just how the drone was "acquired" by Iran... make sure to explain why the self-destruct didn't work - that's a hoot... Iranian's penetrating Langley, no less! Oh my!

it is quite disconcerting to have you allege that not only is the aforementioned Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite system not secure... I guess you're also alleging neither is the existing Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite system (oh look; another international partnership Canada joined in on). That's a lot of insecurity you're perpetuating, hey?

You’ve never heard of Aldrich Ames or John Anthony Walker?

Regardless, if the UAV was “hacked” or has per the official story, malfunctioned and landed intact inside of Iran, tis hardly a beaming dose of confidence with said technology…………

does your "situational awareness" concern extend to include the failings of the F-35 HMDS? I can replay the latest U.S. GAO report, uhhh... situational awareness on those failings... if you'd like.

Nope.

[Guest Derek L]

that's right... when the USN CNO spoke of the weaknesses, failings and limitations of stealth... he wasn't including the F-35C 'stealthiness' in that mix, hey?

Glad you comprehended his press release.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't have those figures... I eagerly await you supplying those figures... while speaking to the particular "war eventualities" you presuppose on. Ideally, it would be quite helpful to have you match the figures to actual, particular (as appropriate), eventuality. Thanks in advance.

That’s easy Waldo, our entire fighter strength, spread over said timeframe that you defined as the “jet age”……..

[waldo]

so... not a malfunction and crash as stated by the U.S. Government, hey? I trust you will share the insights/absolutes from your blog world on just how the drone was "acquired" by Iran... make sure to explain why the self-destruct didn't work - that's a hoot... Iranian's penetrating Langley, no less! Oh my!

it is quite disconcerting to have you allege that not only is the aforementioned Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite system not secure... I guess you're also alleging neither is the existing Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite system (oh look; another international partnership Canada joined in on). That's a lot of insecurity you're perpetuating, hey?

You’ve never heard of Aldrich Ames or John Anthony Walker?

ahhh, yes... your tangled web weave expands! So, it was an inside job then, hey? Aren't you the guy continually pulling out your Alex Jones card? But again, about your security and bandwidth lament - with all your fevered expertise, are you asserting that the WGS and AEHF satellite systems are unsecure? Yes or No? Equally, again, are you asserting there is a current 'bandwidth' constraint/limitation? Yes or No?

Regardless, if the UAV was “hacked” or has per the official story, malfunctioned and landed intact inside of Iran, tis hardly a beaming dose of confidence with said technology…………

hey now! About all that Chinese espionage/hacking of F-35 'design & systems' data/information... as you say, "tis hardly a beaming dose of confidence with said technology", hey?

does your "situational awareness" concern extend to include the failings of the F-35 HMDS? I can replay the latest U.S. GAO report, uhhh... situational awareness on those failings... if you'd like.

Nope.

no? Of course not. It hardly fits your buzzword bingo... situational awareness!

[waldo]

that's right... when the USN CNO spoke of the weaknesses, failings and limitations of stealth... he wasn't including the F-35C 'stealthiness' in that mix, hey?

Glad you comprehended his press release.

his press release? All I read was you link to some flunky spokesperson coming forward to offer up a token party-line response! So, again, when the USN CNO emphasized, in the face of stealth weaknesses/failings/limitations, a need to shift towards long-range precision weapons and electronic warfare systems... that completely and absolutely wasn't intended to include the F-35 "stealthiness"? Right? Why not? What's so special about the F-35 "stealth"?

[waldo]

I don't have those figures... I eagerly await you supplying those figures... while speaking to the particular "war eventualities" you presuppose on. Ideally, it would be quite helpful to have you match the figures to actual, particular (as appropriate), eventuality. Thanks in advance.

That’s easy Waldo, our entire fighter strength, spread over said timeframe that you defined as the “jet age”……..

that's quite a lame response! Surely you must be able to qualify... to quantify... your figures per war eventuality, clearly speaking to each respective war eventuality... surely! Surely yours is more than an empty catch-all... cause, like... how do you measure the effectiveness of your catch-all against perceived war eventuality? How does your measure gauge/determine whether the fighter-jet acquisitions were too few... were too many... or were just right? Don't you have any 3-bears insight into that too few/many, just right measure?

[bush_cheney2004]

..... What's so special about the F-35 "stealth"?

Canada wants it, but you don't want to pay for it. Any questions?

[Guest Derek L]

ahhh, yes... your tangled web weave expands! So, it was an inside job then, hey? Aren't you the guy continually pulling out your Alex Jones card? But again, about your security and bandwidth lament - with all your fevered expertise, are you asserting that the WGS and AEHF satellite systems are unsecure? Yes or No? Equally, again, are you asserting there is a current 'bandwidth' constraint/limitation? Yes or No?

hey now! About all that Chinese espionage/hacking of F-35 'design & systems' data/information... as you say, "tis hardly a beaming dose of confidence with said technology", hey?

no? Of course not. It hardly fits your buzzword bingo... situational awareness!

Quid-pro-quo no? Let’s back track, are you asserting the previous linked article on the subject of concern relating to the operation of UAV’s and bandwidth are false?

[Guest Derek L]

his press release? All I read was you link to some flunky spokesperson coming forward to offer up a token party-line response! So, again, when the USN CNO emphasized, in the face of stealth weaknesses/failings/limitations, a need to shift towards long-range precision weapons and electronic warfare systems... that completely and absolutely wasn't intended to include the F-35 "stealthiness"? Right? Why not? What's so special about the F-35 "stealth"?

So you’re suggesting the recent statement released by the CNO is incorrect?