F-35 Purchase

[punked]

Both the Eurofighter, and Rafale are a generation behind and cost just as much (or more) then the F-35 and with European protectionism we’d see little economic benefit……..And the Super Hornet, aside from it’s production ceasing in several years, the US Government has also citied that they won’t fund any future upgrades to the airframe………Remember the Australians paid 6.6 billion (with support) for 24 Super Hornets….

Lets be fair the Eurofighter is a half generation behind.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Aside from the French, the only other international order for the Rafale has been India and possibility Brazil………The rest of NATO has scorned the French entry……..

[waldo]

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

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!

No, because he's selling French aircraft.

I thought you were a proud military guy. Because you don't like what he had to say in his House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... because you can't counter what he said, because what he said negates your/Harper Conservatives trumped up "interoperability sham", you resort to this pathetic level? Is that your mettle? Is that what you're made of?

[Guest Derek L]

Lets be fair the Eurofighter is a half generation behind.

As is the Rafale, they both were born simultaneously out of the same requirement in the late 70s and early 80s, and at one point the French had been partners with the EuroFighter consortium……But left over work share, a carrier requirement and plan hold politics.

[waldo]

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.

no dodge - coming straight at you. Counter the NATO Commander's statement... is there a problem?

[punked]

Aside from the French, the only other international order for the Rafale has been India and possibility Brazil………The rest of NATO has scorned the French entry……..

I tend to agree the Rafale would not be the jet for us however if we got the same deal India did it might be something for our country to think about. I mean they are getting the aircraft at cost and the French are moving manufacturing of the plane to India for them. So basically the French did all the work of developing the plane to give it away because it isn't as good as the rest of the air planes. Really though the question then becomes what do we need it for, what are our requirements.

This is the problem though. We never as a country were able to debate the pros and cons of each plane.

Edited May 6, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

I thought you were a proud military guy. Because you don't like what he had to say in his House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... because you can't counter what he said, because what he said negates your/Harper Conservatives trumped up "interoperability sham", you resort to this pathetic level? Is that your mettle? Is that what you're made of?

I’ve zero problem calling out a shill for domestic French interests…….If I were French, I’d expect it and would be quite surprised to see a French officer support another foreign (see American) cause du jour.....

[Guest Derek L]

no dodge - coming straight at you. Counter the NATO Commander's statement... is there a problem?

5.56x45mm NATO? Reason?

[punked]

I thought you were a proud military guy. Because you don't like what he had to say in his House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... because you can't counter what he said, because what he said negates your/Harper Conservatives trumped up "interoperability sham", you resort to this pathetic level? Is that your mettle? Is that what you're made of?

I am going to agree with Derek here Waldo. Only because no matter who is speaking in the Military they are all cheering on their own countries military industrial complex. Which is why we really can't trust any of them.

[Guest Derek L]

I tend to agree the Rafale would not be the jet for us however if we got the same deal India did it might be something for our country to think about. I mean they are getting the aircraft at cost and the French are moving manufacturing of the plane to India for them. So basically the French did all the work of developing the plane to give it away because it isn't as good as the rest of the air planes. Really though the question then becomes what do we need it for, what are our requirements.

This is the problem though. We never as a country were able to debate the pros and cons of each plane.

That's the rub, there's nothing to debate about......When you have the time, check out the PBS doc I linked a few pages back (It's a good part of an 1 1/2 hr) on the reasons why the JSF program came to fruition in the 90s and the winner takes all competition held by the United States and the partner nations between Boeing/McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin

[punked]

That's the rub, there's nothing to debate about......When you have the time, check out the PBS doc I linked a few pages back (It's a good part of an 1 1/2 hr) on the reasons why the JSF program came to fruition in the 90s and the winner takes all competition held by the United States and the partner nations between Boeing/McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin

I watched that thing years ago Derek. It doesn't really tell me why this is the plane for us vs any other plane.

I mean it isn't like I don't know anything about this stuff. I do like to learn of the new toys and what not. Although I am not as informed as those who have served and whose job these things are. Which is part of the reason I am sure you value my opinion less then others. However just because I am not as informed is no excuse for this government to try and keep in the dark about this purchase.

Edited May 7, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

I watched that thing years ago Derek. It doesn't really tell me why this is the plane for us vs any other plane.

Perhaps watch it again, the military requirements between the partner nations (Canada included) are one in the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am going to agree with Derek here Waldo. Only because no matter who is speaking in the Military they are all cheering on their own countries military industrial complex. Which is why we really can't trust any of them.

LOL! Apparently you can't/won't even trust your own!

[punked]

Perhaps watch it again, the military requirements between the partner nations (Canada included) are one in the same.

Why though? Why does Canada need something say vertical take off? Which was one of the requirements and the one that really sunk Boeing's X-32. Why do we need that?

[punked]

LOL! Apparently you can't/won't even trust your own!

You know it brother. Considering the track record (not of the military always) but of the bureaucrats selling on us on what we need, I think I am right not to trust any of them. Their is always some new bogey man we need to beat.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Which is part of the reason I am sure you value my opinion less then others. However just because I am not as informed is no excuse for this government to try and keep in the dark about this purchase.

No, the main reason to value your stance less in this case has more to do with the absence of any equivalent budgetary hissy fits when procuring broke-dick submarines and other big ticket shopping sprees.

[Guest Derek L]

I watched that thing years ago Derek. It doesn't really tell me why this is the plane for us vs any other plane.

I mean it isn't like I don't know anything about this stuff. I do like to learn of the new toys and what not. Although I am not as informed as those who have served and whose job these things are. Which is part of the reason I am sure you value my opinion less then others. However just because I am not as informed is no excuse for this government to try and keep in the dark about this purchase.

In some ways you’re correct and I agree that DND is a very poor communicator with the general public over what it is they do, and what it is they require. That is a fair assessment I’ll concede.

As for the disputed numbers, well they were hardly “classified” last year prior to the election as demonstrated by the PBO’s report released last March……Was the F-35 an election issues last year?

[Guest Derek L]

Why though? Why does Canada need something say vertical take off? Which was one of the requirements and the one that really sunk Boeing's X-32. Why do we need that?

We don't, the "B" is a different aircraft from what we're purchasing.

[punked]

No, the main reason to value your stance less in this case has more to do with the absence of any equivalent budgetary hissy fits when procuring broke-dick submarines and other big ticket shopping sprees.

Nope I hate those subs. I was pretty pissed when the Liberals bought them saying we were better off with out them. We still would be better off with out them I think. However that is behind us why am I going to fight that battle and lose sight of what is in front of us.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope I hate those subs. I was pretty pissed when the Liberals bought them saying we were better off with out them. We still would be better off with out them I think. However that is behind us why am I going to fight that battle and lose sight of what is in front of us.

Because present and future DND budgets allocate funding for those subs, that's why. Obviously this argument is politically motivated regardless of the merits of the aircraft at any cost. It's still Canada, right?

[punked]

We don't, the "B" is a different aircraft from what we're purchasing.

But that is the thing isn't it? This plane won the procurement on a set of requirements we didn't need. There are already planes out there that do what we need them to do aren't there? What can this plane do that other's can't?

[punked]

Because present and future DND budgets allocate funding for those subs, that's why. Obviously this argument is politically motivated regardless of the merits of the aircraft at any cost. It's still Canada, right?

That is what makes our country the best in the world. We will fight until the end of time but the country still gets things done no matter the debate.

[Guest Derek L]

No, the main reason to value your stance less in this case has more to do with the absence of any equivalent budgetary hissy fits when procuring broke-dick submarines and other big ticket shopping sprees.

In fairness, as the Upholders in RN service, they were the cats ass when contrasted with the old O-boats……I have a friend that well on exchange with the RN had the opportunity to play hide and seek with then HMS Unicorn (now HMCS Windsor)……….Their problems stemmed not from the builders or really how they were stored by the RN post retirement, but by Canadian operating procedures (Chicoutimi/Upholder fire) and the bastardization Canadiaization of their fire control/subsystems.

[bush_cheney2004]

…….Their problems stemmed not from the builders or really how they were stored by the RN post retirement, but by Canadian operating procedures (Chicoutimi/Upholder fire) and the bastardization Canadiaization of their fire control/subsystems.

Agreed...very capable diesel boats in the hands of well funded and trained operators. But that's why there should have been equivalent screaming and bitching from the noble and righteous protectors of Canada's "competitive procurement process". Instead, there is the obvious political mating of monkeys and footballs.

Edited May 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

But that is the thing isn't it? This plane won the procurement on a set of requirements we didn't need. There are already planes out there that do what we need them to do aren't there? What can this plane do that other's can't?

The three different versions of the aircraft, well sharing much, are three different aircraft………As for need, the stealth and level of sensor fusion found within the F-35 are what’s needed, to say nothing of the entire new, modern way of logistic support……..To add, they’re improvements over the legacy aircraft they’re intended to replace in terms of range, weapon’s payload, G loading etc....They’re both replacements and improvements