F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

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?

Lame? Quite obviously all of our purchases of fighter aircraft were meant to fulfill commitments made by past and the present Governments………….

[waldo]

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?

you can choose to jerk your own circle... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

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?

[waldo]

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

I didn't read a, as you stated, 'press release'... I didn't read a, as you say, 'statement released by the CNO'. Again, I read you link to some blog to read some flunky spokesperson coming forward to offer up a token party-line response!

but, once again, you breeze right over the salient point from the following - how predictable! Other than your self-serving want, what's so special about the F-35 "stealth" that it wouldn't be included within the USN CNO's critique of stealth?

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]

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?

Quite obviously all of our purchases of fighter aircraft were meant to fulfill commitments made by past and the present Governments.

it's unfortunate you can't articulate those 1100 fighter jets procured in terms of your expressed war eventualities? So yours is an unsubstantiated procurement catch-all then, hey?

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

[Guest Derek L]

you can choose to jerk your own circle... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

Can't the same be said for yourself? It is, after all your assertion

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't read a, as you stated, 'press release'... I didn't read a, as you say, 'statement released by the CNO'. Again, I read you link to some blog to read some flunky spokesperson coming forward to offer up a token party-line response!

but, once again, you breeze right over the salient point from the following - how predictable! Other than your self-serving want, what's so special about the F-35 "stealth" that it wouldn't be included within the USN CNO's critique of stealth?

So the statement was made by a “flunky” towing the party line? Not representative of the CNO? Is the CNO tied up somewhere? Reference Wiki leaks if you must

[Guest Derek L]

it's unfortunate you can't articulate those 1100 fighter jets procured in terms of your expressed war eventualities? So yours is an unsubstantiated procurement catch-all then, hey?

1100? Canadair built nearly 2000 Sabres alone......Perhaps you should check your sources

[Moonbox]

Okay move the goalposts from 1962 on. I don't think the Korean War or the Can. Sabre should really be part of the discussion, otherwise we might as well bring WW2 into the argument.

[waldo]

Can't the same be said for yourself? It is, after all your assertion

again, you avoid the questions! You threw up a claim concerning, 'security and availability of bandwidth'. The "pipe" today is adequately sized and ongoing measures are in place to extend upon both WGS/AEHF systems... any constraint reflects upon budgetary aspects relative to commercial. When you're questioned about security concerns your go-to is... the Iranian drone 'capture'... even though you haven't a clue as to how the drone came to be in the hands of Iran. It reaches epic hypocrisy when you use a possible 'hacking' aspect to question UAV technology... while you conveniently ignore the more probable recognition surrounding Chinese 'hacking/espionage' of F-35 data/information.

[Guest Derek L]

Okay move the goalposts from 1962 on. I don't think the Korean War or the Can. Sabre should really be part of the discussion, otherwise we might as well bring WW2 into the argument.

But Waldo Initiated the goal posts from the Korean War.

[Guest Derek L]

again, you avoid the questions! You threw up a claim concerning, 'security and availability of bandwidth'. The "pipe" today is adequately sized and ongoing measures are in place to extend upon both WGS/AEHF systems... any constraint reflects upon budgetary aspects relative to commercial. When you're questioned about security concerns your go-to is... the Iranian drone 'capture'... even though you haven't a clue as to how the drone came to be in the hands of Iran. It reaches epic hypocrisy when you use a possible 'hacking' aspect to question UAV technology... while you conveniently ignore the more probable recognition surrounding Chinese 'hacking/espionage' of F-35 data/information.

So that’s a no on disproving the concerns made by both American and French officials in the links I provided?

[waldo]

So the statement was made by a “flunky” towing the party line? Not representative of the CNO? Is the CNO tied up somewhere? Reference Wiki leaks if you must

on one hand we have a most complete and definitive article penned directly by the USN CNO... one that I quoted from, at length; in particular the section on his position on stealth limitations. Alternatively, we have you linking to a blog reference that doesn't even quote the USN CNO directly; somewhat amusing since you readily decry blog reference... unless it suits your own self, hey?

but again, you keep refusing to answer the question concerning the USN CNO's expressed concern over stealth... and what you believe precludes inclusion of the F-35 from the USN CNO's criticism of stealth. You won't touch this - not with the proverbial 10 metre pole!

[Guest Derek L]

on one hand we have a most complete and definitive article penned directly by the USN CNO... one that I quoted from, at length; in particular the section on his position on stealth limitations. Alternatively, we have you linking to a blog reference that doesn't even quote the USN CNO directly; somewhat amusing since you readily decry blog reference... unless it suits your own self, hey?

but again, you keep refusing to answer the question concerning the USN CNO's expressed concern over stealth... and what you believe precludes inclusion of the F-35 from the USN CNO's criticism of stealth. You won't touch this - not with the proverbial 10 metre pole!

Again, care to point out in said article were the CNO addresses the F-35 by name? That combined with the issued clarification of the interpretations made in the blogosphere clearly refute your assertion neatly.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

So that’s a no on disproving the concerns made by both American and French officials in the links I provided?

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns. While you're doing that answer the two questions you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge; Again:

... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

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?

[Guest Derek L]

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns. While you're doing that answer the two questions you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge; Again:

I already did........In said links, coupled to the link to the conference, the same conference you originally provided, addressing those very concerns from the experiences of the operators of said platforms, with perspective from both sides of the argument, expressing as to why UAV/UCAVs won’t be a replacement for manned aircraft, but a complement to, for the foreseeable future.

[waldo]

Again, care to point out in said article were the CNO addresses the F-35 by name? That combined with the issued clarification of the interpretations made in the blogosphere clearly refute your assertion neatly.

that's it... did USN CNO Admiral Greenert identify any platform by name? The USN CNO categorically spoke to the limitations of stealth, "above and below the water"... "of surface ships and aircraft"!!! Somehow... somehow, in Derek L world, this excludes the F-35 "stealth"!

would you like me to re-quote from USN CNO Admiral Greenert's article?

[Guest Derek L]

that's it... did USN CNO Admiral Greenert identify any platform by name? The USN CNO categorically spoke to the limitations of stealth, "above and below the water"... "of surface ships and aircraft"!!! Somehow... somehow, in Derek L world, this excludes the F-35 "stealth"!

would you like me to re-quote from USN CNO Admiral Greenert's article?

And yet, your interpretation doesn’t align with the CNO issued statement, coupled with ongoing USN “stealthy” programs such as the F-35, LCS and even UAV/UCAV

Sort yourself out, till then, completely unrelated entertainment:

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

[waldo]

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns

I already did........In said links, coupled to the link to the conference, the same conference you originally provided, addressing those very concerns from the experiences of the operators of said platforms, with perspective from both sides of the argument, expressing as to why UAV/UCAVs won’t be a replacement for manned aircraft, but a complement to, for the foreseeable future.

whaaa! "in said links"!!! Oh my... you're asking someone to read through your multiple links to attempt to glean out your supposed points... to make your argument... beauty!

but hey now! You managed to answer the first part of my post, but somehow (again, upon multiple again) conveniently bypassed the following. Is there a problem for you?

While you're doing that answer the two questions you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge; Again:

... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

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?

[waldo]

And yet, your interpretation doesn’t align with the CNO issued statement, coupled with ongoing USN “stealthy” programs such as the F-35, LCS and even UAV/UCAV

no need for you to dance and call it, "my interpretation". Take the USN CNO's words directly... his own words. This should be any easy go-to for you, given your expressed certainty. Why is the F-35 excluded from the USN CNO's critical commentary on the limitations of stealth? Just answer the question.

[Guest Derek L]

whaaa! "in said links"!!! Oh my... you're asking someone to read through your multiple links to attempt to glean out your supposed points... to make your argument... beauty!

but hey now! You managed to answer the first part of my post, but somehow (again, upon multiple again) conveniently bypassed the following. Is there a problem for you?

Did you not offer a similar go fetch routine just the other day? To add, did you not offer such routine with the initial video you posted, from the same conference in which I provided said reference?

[Guest Derek L]

no need for you to dance and call it, "my interpretation". Take the USN CNO's words directly... his own words. This should be any easy go-to for you, given your expressed certainty. Why is the F-35 excluded from the USN CNO's critical commentary on the limitations of stealth? Just answer the question.

I take the recent press release, issued to dispel such incorrect interpretations such as yours, as holy writ.

[Moonbox]

But Waldo Initiated the goal posts from the Korean War.

I'm not following the whole argument because it's probably become the most prolonged and boring head to head this forum has ever seen, but it seemed like waldo was merely trying to point out how very little we've used our aircraft over the last bunch of decades and how (in hindsight mind you) the expense hasn't really seemed worth it a lot of the time.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not following the whole argument because it's probably become the most prolonged and boring head to head this forum has ever seen, but it seemed like waldo was merely trying to point out how very little we've used our aircraft over the last bunch of decades and how (in hindsight mind you) the expense hasn't really seemed worth it a lot of the time.

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification, but as I mentioned, Waldo referenced RCAF fighter deployments back to the Korean war……….As such, RCAF fighter numbers over such time are a direct reflection of commitments made by the Canadian Government made to both NORAD and NATO….Be they hundreds of Sabre and Canuck fighters during the 50s, to the several hundred Voodoos, Starfighters and Freedom Fighters in the 70s, the selection of the Hornet over 30 years ago and now the F-35.……Clearly the reduction in numbers between then and now is a reflection of greater efficiency achieved through technological gains coupled with a decrease in said commitments over that span………..As to “usage”, I'll refrain from the insurance metaphor……or not……I’ve had life insurance all my life and yet to use it.

[bleeding heart]

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification, but as I mentioned, Waldo referenced RCAF fighter deployments back to the Korean war……….As such, RCAF fighter numbers over such time are a direct reflection of commitments made by the Canadian Government made to both NORAD and NATO….Be they hundreds of Sabre and Canuck fighters during the 50s, to the several hundred Voodoos, Starfighters and Freedom Fighters in the 70s, the selection of the Hornet over 30 years ago and now the F-35.……Clearly the reduction in numbers between then and now is a reflection of greater efficiency achieved through technological gains coupled with a decrease in said commitments over that span………..As to “usage”, I'll refrain from the insurance metaphor……or not……I’ve had life insurance all my life and yet to use it.

But there's life insurance policies...and then there's vastly more expensive ones whose costs are just too high.

[Guest Derek L]

And in other related news:

Lockheed Martin Successfully Completes First LRASM Captive Carriage Test Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/16/4634269/lockheed-martin-successfully-completes.html#storylink=cpy

Hmm, a long range, stealthy cruise missile that will be incorporated into the F-35.………Almost like it was planned that way, well affirming the CNO’s statement regarding stand-off weaponry....Funny that.