F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

still playing with your distraction, hey? Years... you claimed, "over 30 years"... I didn't read that anywhere in the "prediction quote" you offered. Where is it... quote it.

Lifetime support would suggest the life of the aircraft no?

oh my! That's rich. Let's see... to DND, "lifetime" meant 20 years; to the PBO it meant 30; to the AG it meant 36. Apparently, to you, it means whatever is convenient to puff up your distracting prediction. A prediction which is meaningless, carries no weight, and has no basis in reality. But enjoy your self-aggrandizing chest-thumping, hey?

lets recap: your acquisition "prediction" failed, big time, when you presumed on the AG report... without actually reading it. Sorry to burst your bubble by actually quoting from the AG report. Even though you previously had no use for life-cycle costing, when you fall over yourself by incorrectly presuming on the AG report, all of a sudden your new best friend is Mr. Life-Cycle! Mr. Life-Cycle with a 'fill-in-the-blank' for whatever conveniently suits your interpretation of "lifetime support". In any case, we've wasted enough time on another of your distractions...

[waldo]

I note you're still having difficulty finding/quoting from that NATO single fighter jet "STANAG". You see, the way this works is you need to come up with something to actually counter the NATO Commander's statement - the onus is on you. But, of course, you know this and resort to flailing and wailing about... cause that's all you got! Right? Like I said, count up the number of different fighter jets across NATO member countries... apparently... no one got the/your memo, hey?

Again, an edited text in the MSM versus information sourced from the NATO website……..As for the onus, as I stated earlier, there is no STANAG agreement regarding the F-35 yet……..It’s not in full squadron service yet

the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statement stands - you have provided nothing to counter it. Either step forward and explicitly counter his statement, or STFU.

NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee Thursday.

"

We do not advocate a single type of aircraft

, single type of ships, single type of rifles," Abrial said. "

We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal

."

Abrial said

interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield

.

[waldo]

And if SACT was an American General stumping for the F-35, I trust you would cry foul?

it's quite pathetic to read you dissing the General... because he's French. Don't you support the troops?

[waldo]

You care to take a crack at the Japanese F-35 deal for 42 aircraft, with lifetime support, for 10 billion?

possible sale... no contractual obligation/commitments at this time. As MLW member 'punked' highlighted, the Japanese have given formal notice that they will bail if the schedule continues to slip or costs continue to increase. Notwithstanding, as stated, Lockheed Martin is desperate for good news... to the point of offering an incentive to shift manufacturing to Japan.

[waldo]

That isn’t self evident? The ~14.7 billion dollar figure is one directly related to the costs associated with acquiring and operating the specific F-35.……..Then the ~ 10 billion dollars in additional costs as “revealed” by the AG are sunk costs that we’re already paying and would pay regardless of aircraft type (HR costs, base maintenance, initial pilot and technician training etc)

and still... you continue to rattle off the DND number, even though its been pointed out to that the AG has critical comment towards that number... that it lacks detail, that it has no supporting information and that it can't be validated. But, of course, that's exactly your kind of number.

Edited May 6, 2012 by waldo

[waldo]

The Japanese Deal:

The Canadian Deal:

as pointed out to you, neither are "deals". As before, define the contractual specifics that dictate the cost Canada will pay... what's that price again? Don't make me quote the "costs in flux" statement from the AG report, hey!

[waldo]

The service men and women of our Air Force have stated they require the F-35 over all others. I’m glad you appear to take their interests into account, so why not put partisan politics aside and support the purchase of equipment that they need?

absolute BS. Canadians have been advised how Harper Conservatives/DND manipulated the whole process, from top to bottom, from start to present day. Plain and simple, you purposely choose to keep your self-serving war-hawk blinders on.

[waldo]

I’m forced to laugh when they question DND’s requirements

the post 2010 announcement requirements... those requirements? The ones fabricated after the fact... the ones purposely crafted to manipulate the already pre-determined outcome.

[DogOnPorch]

:D

Those red coats sure were spiffy, but the Colonials could see them a league away.

[Guest Derek L]

oh my! That's rich. Let's see... to DND, "lifetime" meant 20 years; to the PBO it meant 30; to the AG it meant 36. Apparently, to you, it means whatever is convenient to puff up your distracting prediction. A prediction which is meaningless, carries no weight, and has no basis in reality. But enjoy your self-aggrandizing chest-thumping, hey?

lets recap: your acquisition "prediction" failed, big time, when you presumed on the AG report... without actually reading it. Sorry to burst your bubble by actually quoting from the AG report. Even though you previously had no use for life-cycle costing, when you fall over yourself by incorrectly presuming on the AG report, all of a sudden your new best friend is Mr. Life-Cycle! Mr. Life-Cycle with a 'fill-in-the-blank' for whatever conveniently suits your interpretation of "lifetime support". In any case, we've wasted enough time on another of your distractions...

As per my prediction of last year, what would the total sum equal of 460 000 000 x 65=?

[Guest Derek L]

the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee edited statement stands - you have provided nothing to counter it. Either step forward and explicitly counter his statement, or STFU.

Fixed that for you.

[Guest Derek L]

it's quite pathetic to read you dissing the General... because he's French. Don't you support the troops?

The troops of France?

[Guest Derek L]

possible sale... no contractual obligation/commitments at this time. As MLW member 'punked' highlighted, the Japanese have given formal notice that they will bail if the schedule continues to slip or costs continue to increase. Notwithstanding, as stated, Lockheed Martin is desperate for good news... to the point of offering an incentive to shift manufacturing to Japan.

And you’re playing on possible predictions, based on an average obtained from three different aircraft and a measure of weight….

[Guest Derek L]

as pointed out to you, neither are "deals". As before, define the contractual specifics that dictate the cost Canada will pay... what's that price again? Don't make me quote the "costs in flux" statement from the AG report, hey!

The cost obtained from a measure of weight?

[Guest Derek L]

absolute BS. Canadians have been advised how Harper Conservatives/DND manipulated the whole process, from top to bottom, from start to present day. Plain and simple, you purposely choose to keep your self-serving war-hawk blinders on.

You don't support the troops?

[Guest Derek L]

the post 2010 announcement requirements... those requirements? The ones fabricated after the fact... the ones purposely crafted to manipulate the already pre-determined outcome.

And what might that outcome be?

[waldo]

Fixed that for you.

your desperation is peaking. If you feel the NATO Commander's House of Commons (HOC) Defence Committee statements conveyed here aren't representative of what he said, of what he meant... simply produce an alternate transcript of those HOC statements, one that supports your assertion.

clearly, you can't counter the NATO Commander's statements, so you choose to play your a-hole card... the one that usually comes out when you're flustered, cornered and have no where else to turn.

[waldo]

The troops of France?

no - the troops of NATO member countries... the troops that the NATO commander represents. You have nothing else to resort to - so you choose to denigrate the individual... because... he's French!

[Guest Derek L]

your desperation is peaking. If you feel the NATO Commander's House of Commons (HOC) Defence Committee statements conveyed here aren't representative of what he said, of what he meant... simply produce an alternate transcript of those HOC statements, one that supports your assertion.

clearly, you can't counter the NATO Commander's statements, so you choose to play your a-hole card... the one that usually comes out when you're flustered, cornered and have no where else to turn.

So what about that whole 5.56x45mm rifle cartridge…..I mean, what’s up with that?

[Guest Derek L]

no - the troops of NATO member countries... the troops that the NATO commander represents. You have nothing else to resort to - so you choose to denigrate the individual... because... he's French!

No, because he's selling French aircraft.

[waldo]

And you’re playing on possible predictions, based on an average obtained from three different aircraft and a measure of weight….

is there a problem? Is there a reason you refuse to produce the contractual specifics that dictate the absolute costs Canada will pay? As for variants, I thought it was your distracting pumped up prediction that said something about the C-variant!

[Guest Derek L]

is there a problem? Is there a reason you refuse to produce the contractual specifics that dictate the absolute costs Canada will pay? As for variants, I thought it was your distracting pumped up prediction that said something about the C-variant!

460 000 000 x 65 =?

What was the PBO’s weighted estimate last year?

[waldo]

So what about that whole 5.56x45mm rifle cartridge…..I mean, what’s up with that?

continued MLW member 'Derek L' distraction.

quote from/link to a NATO standards policy for a single fighter jet. Counter the NATO Commander's statement. Is there a problem in why you haven't done so yet... after being repeatedly challenged to do so? Is there a problem?

[Guest Derek L]

continued MLW member 'Derek L' distraction.

quote from/link to a NATO standards policy for a single fighter jet. Counter the NATO Commander's statement. Is there a problem in why you haven't done so yet... after being repeatedly challenged to do so? Is there a problem?

continued MLW member "Waldo" dodge.

[punked]

No, because he's selling French aircraft.

He sure is. I wonder how those could fit into our air command? I just wish some open transparent process could have answered all these questions from us.