F-35 Purchase

[punked]

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 protector's of Canada's "competitive procurement process". Instead, there is the obvious political mating of monkeys and footballs.

Look at that all three of us agreeing this was a bad idea. Go us.

[punked]

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

Why is the stealth needed?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

If you say so....for instance, Canada's DART eventually showed up to provide relief to tsunami victims in 2005 after lengthy delays because of absent heavy airlift. Mr. Harper fixed that straight away.

[Guest Derek L]

Why is the stealth needed?

Current and future air defence systems that are many magnitudes cheaper than aircraft……and the possibility that sometime in the future a Canadian Government may deem it necessary to bomb someone with said air defence networks………..

[Guest Derek L]

If you say so....for instance, Canada's DART eventually showed up to provide relief to tsunami victims in 2005 after lengthy delays because of absent heavy airlift. Mr. Harper fixed that straight away.

Another sole source......Imagine if we had those coupled with the CAR during Rwanda……..

[punked]

Current and future air defence systems that are many magnitudes cheaper than aircraft……and the possibility that sometime in the future a Canadian Government may deem it necessary to bomb someone with said air defence networks………..

Who?

[Guest Derek L]

Who?

My Crystal ball is broken…..When we purchased our Hornets back in the early 80s, I doubt anyone within the air force would have thought it likely, if they were to one day see action, it would be over Iraq, the FRY and Libya (To say nothing of guarding our sky’s from a hijacked airliner) and not dropping bombs over the Fulda Gap………

[eyeball]

I also would point out Japan is paying 240 million for each plane. That seems like 3 times the 75 you keep quoting.

Isn't everything more expensive in Japan? Likewise if you lived in Windsor you'd obviously want to buy your F-35 in Detroit. I'd shudder to think what it might cost to pick one up in Whistler or Tofino.

[eyeball]

So you’d be in favour of an NDP Government purchasing the F-35?

Bring them on, it'll be a lot easier convincing them we don't need these damn planes anywhere near as badly as we do other things.

[eyeball]

Who?

How would be a better question. IMHO it should be against the law for anyone in Ottawa to order that bombs be dropped on people or targets beyond our borders without a referendum that yields a super-majority of...70% of voters in all provinces and territories.

[waldo]

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...

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.

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

clearly... you haven't been able to counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statements. So you resort to your standard go-to - blusterbus! Wait, what's this... from NATO's own website - oh my! Why, MLW member 'Derek L'... it looks like the NATO Commander has written this lil' ditty as well, hey?

Interoperability refers to the ability of different military organisations to conduct joint operations. These organisations can be of different nationalities, different armed services (ground, naval and air forces), or both.

Interoperability allows forces, units and/or systems to operate together. It requires them to share common doctrine and procedures, each others’ infrastructure and bases, and to be able to communicate with each other. It reduces duplication, enables pooling of resources, and produces synergies among the 28 Allies.

Interoperability does not necessarily require common military equipment. What is important is that the equipment can share common facilities and is able to connect and communicate with other equipment.

NATO militaries have achieved interoperability through decades of joint planning, training and exercises.

[Guest Derek L]

clearly... you haven't been able to counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statements. So you resort to your standard go-to - blusterbus! Wait, what's this... from NATO's own website - oh my! Why, MLW member 'Derek L'... it looks like the NATO Commander has written this lil' ditty as well, hey?

And further down the page:

The emergence of new threats and measures taken by NATO to adapt its capabilities

accordingly have led to changes in operational requirements for armed forces. These changes

have significantly enhanced the importance of interoperability with respect to material, doctrine, tactics, training, communication, and many other areas in which interoperability is a major factor for military forces and the systems that support them. The objective of standardization is to achieve the required critical level of interoperability with regard to all these aspects.

Standardization makes a vital contribution to the combined operational effectiveness of the military forces of the Alliance and promotes opportunities for the better use of economic resources. Extensive efforts are made to improve cooperation and to eliminate duplication in the research, development, production, procurement and logistic support of defence systems, primarily through the promulgation of NATO Standardization Agreements, known as STANAGs. Implementation of STANAGs helps nations to achieve the required levels of interoperability and to better accomplish their common strategic, operational and tactical tasks, to understand and execute command procedures, and to employ techniques, material and equipment more

effi ciently.

Would one consider having multiple aircraft types duplication?

So what of the 5.56x45mm NATO round? What’s up with that?

[waldo]

So what of the 5.56x45mm NATO round? What’s up with that?

who cares! You can continue to distract, to obfuscate, to bluster and fluster... about a... cartridge!!! The NATO Commander... the guy in charge of NATO's ACT... the guy in charge of NATO Transformation, that guy says you're wrong in continuing to flog this "F-35 interoperability" meme. As for aircraft duplication, why do you continue to refuse to provide a list of all the fighter jets within the portfolio of NATO member countries... c'mon, show us just how well that imaginary single fighter jet policy of yours extends. Provide the list - sure you can!

Let's recap: you haven't been able to... you can't... counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statements. You refuse to provide a list of all the NATO member country fighter jets.

[Guest Derek L]

who cares! You can continue to distract, to obfuscate, to bluster and fluster... about a... cartridge!!! The NATO Commander... the guy in charge of NATO's ACT... the guy in charge of NATO Transformation, that guy says you're wrong in continuing to flog this "F-35 interoperability" meme. As for aircraft duplication, why do you continue to refuse to provide a list of all the fighter jets within the portfolio of NATO member countries... c'mon, show us just how well that imaginary single fighter jet policy of yours extends. Provide the list - sure you can!

Let's recap: you haven't been able to... you can't... counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statements. You refuse to provide a list of all the NATO member country fighter jets.

I'm wrong? The above stated link provided by you, and “expanded upon by myself, states that:

The emergence of new threats and measures taken by NATO to adapt its capabilities

accordingly have led to changes in operational requirements for armed forces. These changes

have significantly enhanced the importance of interoperability with respect to material, doctrine, tactics, training, communication, and many other areas in which interoperability is a major factor for military forces and the systems that support them. The objective of standardization is to achieve the required critical level of interoperability with regard to all these aspects.

Standardization makes a vital contribution to the combined operational effectiveness of the military forces of the Alliance and promotes opportunities for the better use of economic resources. Extensive efforts are made to improve cooperation and to eliminate duplication in the research, development, production, procurement and logistic support of defence systems, primarily through the promulgation of NATO Standardization Agreements, known as STANAGs. Implementation of STANAGs helps nations to achieve the required levels of interoperability and to better accomplish their common strategic, operational and tactical tasks, to understand and execute command procedures, and to employ techniques, material and equipment more efficiently.

Clearly selecting an aircraft that will be operated by six other NATO partners, to say nothing of other close allies in Australia, Japan, Israel, Singapore and South Korea, would further enhance the "extensive efforts" made to improve cooperation and to eliminate duplication in the research, development, production, procurement and logistic support of defence systems versus an aircraft (Rafale) operated by a sole partner (France)...

As I stated earlier, due to the F-35 yet being in regular squadron service, it clear there won’t be a formal NATO agreement on it’s interoperability as of yet………..But it is clear that one can expound on the stated NATO policy (linked by you), coupled with pass practices (Such as the NATO standard round 5.56x45mm) that the deployment of the F-35 will help further NATO’s stated standardization policy (linked by you).

Perhaps you should go back to tilting at wind turbines hey?

[punked]

I'm wrong? The above stated link provided by you, and “expanded upon by myself, states that:

Clearly selecting an aircraft that will be operated by six other NATO partners, to say nothing of other close allies in Australia, Japan, Israel, Singapore and South Korea, would further enhance the "extensive efforts" made to improve cooperation and to eliminate duplication in the research, development, production, procurement and logistic support of defence systems versus an aircraft (Rafale) operated by a sole partner (France)...

As I stated earlier, due to the F-35 yet being in regular squadron service, it clear there won’t be a formal NATO agreement on it’s interoperability as of yet………..But it is clear that one can expound on the stated NATO policy (linked by you), coupled with pass practices (Such as the NATO standard round 5.56x45mm) that the deployment of the F-35 will help further NATO’s stated standardization policy (linked by you).

Perhaps you should go back to tilting at wind turbines hey?

And the Euro fighter is only used by what? 6 NATO partners as well? So your point is again?

[Guest Derek L]

And the Euro fighter is only used by what? 6 NATO partners as well? So your point is again?

It’s in service with four NATO members, (Germany/UK/Italy/Spain), of which, two are JSF partners (UK/Italy) and Spain a likely buyer for their navy……

Edited May 7, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

It’s in service with four NATO members, (Germany/UK/Italy/Spain), of which, two are JSF partners (UK/Italy) and Spain a likely buyer for their navy……

And Greece? No wait they put the fighter on hold like Australia did to the f35.

[Guest Derek L]

And Greece? No wait they put the fighter on hold like Australia did to the f35.

The Greeks and Australians are quite obviously in different economic classes…….I doubt the Greeks will be purchasing anything for their military anytime soon…..As for the Australians, theirs is a case of deferring several big ticket items (The F-35, new Subs and Artillery) several years to help with the current purchases/programs of numerous other big ticket defence purchases (New Destroyers and Amphibious Assault ships, helicopters for the navy and army, transport aircraft and the Super Hornets) and has such, this is a reflection of the current coalition Labour government attempting to balance the books well not cutting requirements for their military………..

As I’ve suggested in another/this thread, the Australian method of military strategy and procurement is one Canada should mimic, as the Australians have demonstrated, a “middle power” nation can balance differing budgetary priorities all the well allowing their citizens a similar standard of living, and they’ve been able to do more with less then us……

[punked]

The Greeks and Australians are quite obviously in different economic classes…….I doubt the Greeks will be purchasing anything for their military anytime soon…..As for the Australians, theirs is a case of deferring several big ticket items (The F-35, new Subs and Artillery) several years to help with the current purchases/programs of numerous other big ticket defence purchases (New Destroyers and Amphibious Assault ships, helicopters for the navy and army, transport aircraft and the Super Hornets) and has such, this is a reflection of the current coalition Labour government attempting to balance the books well not cutting requirements for their military………..

As I’ve suggested in another/this thread, the Australian method of military strategy and procurement is one Canada should mimic, as the Australians have demonstrated, a “middle power” nation can balance differing budgetary priorities all the well allowing their citizens a similar standard of living, and they’ve been able to do more with less then us……

Nope the Australians are pushing the purchase to balance their budget just like the Greeks. Sorry, they said as much in their announcement. It is the same reason why every country is pushing and cutting their purchases and will continue to.

[Guest Derek L]

Nope the Australians are pushing the purchase to balance their budget just like the Greeks. Sorry, they said as much in their announcement. It is the same reason why every country is pushing and cutting their purchases and will continue to.

Did you read my above post?

The Greeks and Australians are quite obviously in different economic classes…….I doubt the Greeks will be purchasing anything for their military anytime soon…..As for the Australians, theirs is a case of deferring several big ticket items (The F-35, new Subs and Artillery) several years to help with the current purchases/programs of numerous other big ticket defence purchases (New Destroyers and Amphibious Assault ships, helicopters for the navy and army, transport aircraft and the Super Hornets) and has such, this is a reflection of the current coalition Labour government attempting to balance the books well not cutting requirements for their military………..

[punked]

Did you read my above post?

Yah I get it when the Greeks push their buy it is different when the Australians do. I am just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

I would like to know what the Saudis are getting their Eurofighters for. It is a good plane. I guess they are getting 72 fighters for about 100 million each and guess what? These ones come with an engine.

Edited May 7, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

Yah I get it when the Greeks push their buy it is different when the Australians do. I am just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

I would like to know what the Saudis are getting their Eurofighters for. It is a good plane.

There’s a flaw in your knowledge…….The Greeks aren’t buying anything…..full stop. The Australians are building three expensive Destroyers, and two larger Amphibious Assault Craft (size of a WW II aircraft carrier) and replacing near their entire fleet of helicopters for their military and 6.6 billion for 24 Super Hornets to replace their F-111s……Also, in their budget announcement, they are pushing back the Collins Class Submarine replacement, of which will have an estimated cost about 2-3 times the price as their F-35s…..As you opined yesterday to myself and BC on what level you feel we view your opinion, it’s not so much your opinion (everyone is entitled to one), but the lack of knowledge on (defence) issues that helps form said opinion, is what becomes the irritant.

[punked]

There’s a flaw in your knowledge…….The Greeks aren’t buying anything…..full stop. The Australians are building three expensive Destroyers, and two larger Amphibious Assault Craft (size of a WW II aircraft carrier) and replacing near their entire fleet of helicopters for their military and 6.6 billion for 24 Super Hornets to replace their F-111s……Also, in their budget announcement, they are pushing back the Collins Class Submarine replacement, of which will have an estimated cost about 2-3 times the price as their F-35s…..As you opined yesterday to myself and BC on what level you feel we view your opinion, it’s not so much your opinion (everyone is entitled to one), but the lack of knowledge on (defence) issues that helps form said opinion, is what becomes the irritant.

That is the problem isn't it? I am a well read intelligent average Canada and my interest lies in social policy. Why can't our government communicate this information instead of acting like they are hiding something.

At this time I will jump in and point out Australia's national debt is double that of our country and they have 10 million people less then we do. I don't think we can afford to run our country their way. That is the problem with buying things because you want them instead of because you can afford them. It hurts a country.

Edited May 7, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

Yah I get it when the Greeks push their buy it is different when the Australians do. I am just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

I would like to know what the Saudis are getting their Eurofighters for. It is a good plane. I guess they are getting 72 fighters for about 100 million each and guess what? These ones come with an engine.

To your edit:

Google Saudi & British fraud charges, and well you’re at it, Austrian embezzlement relating to the Eurofighter program……….The Eurofighter, that’s been in development since the 80s, during the recent Libyan mission, has demonstrated that it still doesn’t work as advertised and the RAF required 30 plus year old Tornado’s to carry the bulk of their commitment and to designate targets for the Eurofighter……..

And the French navy, found with their deployment of the Rafale to Libya, that the workload of the pilot was to such a degree that it will require adding a second crewmember to the aircraft for consistent levels of performance for interdiction and close air support missions…….problems with both aircraft, and the Super Hornet (F), that won’t occur with the greater amount of sensor fusion that is found in modern 5th generation (F-22 & F-35) aircraft.

[punked]

To your edit:

Google Saudi & British fraud charges, and well you’re at it, Austrian embezzlement relating to the Eurofighter program……….The Eurofighter, that’s been in development since the 80s, during the recent Libyan mission, has demonstrated that it still doesn’t work as advertised and the RAF required 30 plus year old Tornado’s to carry the bulk of their commitment and to designate targets for the Eurofighter……..

And the French navy, found with their deployment of the Rafale to Libya, that the workload of the pilot was to such a degree that it will require adding a second crewmember to the aircraft for consistent levels of performance for interdiction and close air support missions…….problems with both aircraft, and the Super Hornet (F), that won’t occur with the greater amount of sensor fusion that is found in modern 5th generation (F-22 & F-35) aircraft.

Did you watch 60 minutes last night? Seems the F-22 has some real oxygen problems and it has gotten so bad the pilots are now speaking out to the media about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57427432/is-the-air-forces-f-22-fighter-jet-making-pilots-sick/

Edited May 7, 2012 by punked