Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 How many years and how many billions does it have to exceed it's original claims before you wake up? It can't pull more than 3 G's, can't accelerate, isn't stealthy, burns so hot with that single engine they have to "replank" the decks so it doesn't burn holes. Engines blowing uo because the turbine blades rub, and also heat shift. The HUD doesn;t work, nor does the ejection seat. Need i go on? No, you need not go on........you and your uninformed sources clearly have more factual data than not only Lockheed, but the entire JSF's membership's air forces.......strange that all of these armed forces don't heed your warnings encompassing the F-35...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 No, you need not go on........you and your uninformed sources clearly have more factual data than not only Lockheed, but the entire JSF's membership's air forces.......strange that all of these armed forces don't heed your warnings encompassing the F-35...... A number of them have, including teh US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Indeed...the U.S. Navy is falling in love with the F-35C. Canada will definitely be buying the F-35A. Hell, the extra billion dollars to replace attrition is a lot better than wasting it on a gun registry or one single year of CBC sexual harassment ! http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35c-navy-carrier-nimitz-sea-trials-trap/19019879/ As I've said before, if the RCAF is to remain in the fighter business (and not fan out a portion of our sovereignty to you guys), the F-35 will be purchased.......simply put, there is no viable alternative present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Still, we're spending less as a percentage of GDP than during even the Trudeau years. That's embarassing, and it should be fixed once budget balance is achieved. GDP is a false measure......Estonia spends a larger percent than ourselves, do you think they have a more useful military? Likewise, Canada spent are larger percent during the 70s, yet the Canadian Forces were largely obsolete and combat ineffective.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 As I've said before, if the RCAF is to remain in the fighter business (and not fan out a portion of our sovereignty to you guys), the F-35 will be purchased.......simply put, there is no viable alternative present. Simply put, that's BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I think the key point in all this is that we haven't signed/committed to anything yet. So this is really all another faux-scandal that never really went anywhere other than the usual subjects blowing a lot of smoke. I'll be prepared to get upset if and when we sign on the dotted line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 A number of them have, including teh US. What have these number of nations opted for instead of the F-35? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Simply put, that's BS. Name a current or near production aircraft that would be viable out to the 2050s....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I think the key point in all this is that we haven't signed/committed to anything yet. So this is really all another faux-scandal that never really went anywhere other than the usual subjects blowing a lot of smoke. I'll be prepared to get upset if and when we sign on the dotted line. Why would you be "upset" once the Government of Canada purchases the F-35? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Name a current or near production aircraft that would be viable out to the 2050s....... I guess if you're happy to eat LockMart's pablum then there is nothing. We don't need the things it hopes to do but seems to be still failing to do (performance, stealth) after even after huge budget overruns and almost a decade of flailing. How about the Superhornet for starters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I guess if you're happy to eat LockMart's pablum then there is nothing. We don't need the things it hopes to do but seems to be still failing to do (performance, stealth) after even after huge budget overruns and almost a decade of flailing. How about the Superhornet for starters? Why do Armies no longer wear bright color uniforms in the field? Super Hornet will stop production in just over two years, and will be retired in the late 2020s and early 2030s by its current users for a reason.....You'd suggest the RCAF operate the Super Hornet out into the 2050s? Would you also suggest the current RCAF could meet its operational requirements today with a F-86 Sabre? If not, why and why do you feel in the decades ahead, the Super Hornet could? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Why do Armies no longer wear bright color uniforms in the field? Super Hornet will stop production in just over two years, and will be retired in the late 2020s and early 2030s by its current users for a reason.....You'd suggest the RCAF operate the Super Hornet out into the 2050s? Would you also suggest the current RCAF could meet its operational requirements today with a F-86 Sabre? If not, why and why do you feel in the decades ahead, the Super Hornet could? Bottom line, single source procurement not a good idea, especially with such an expensive program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Bottom line, single source procurement not a good idea, especially with such an expensive program. Ahh but its not a single source procurement, Lockheed's X-35 very much so beat Boeing's X-32 in one of (if not the largest ever) competition of combat aircraft held on behalf of all the JSF partners, of which, Canada took part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Ahh but its not a single source procurement, Lockheed's X-35 very much so beat Boeing's X-32 in one of (if not the largest ever) competition of combat aircraft held on behalf of all the JSF partners, of which, Canada took part. There is not and there has not been any competition. Harper and Co. are hiding under the table and I must say I do feel a bit sorry for the public works minister who had this extremely controversial file dumped in her lap after it was taken from defense. I'm sure she gets headaches over it. She seems to be leaning toward actually doing a competition. Let's hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 There is not and there has not been any competition. Harper and Co. are hiding under the table and I must say I do feel a bit sorry for the public works minister who had this extremely controversial file dumped in her lap after it was taken from defense. I'm sure she gets headaches over it. She seems to be leaning toward actually doing a competition. Let's hope so. No competition? And I fail to see why you feel Public Works is leaning towards a singular Canadian competition.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 The reality is they promised to spend more than they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 No competition? And I fail to see why you feel Public Works is leaning towards a singular Canadian competition.... They had to put on a charade after that scathing AG report. We'll see how it rolls out in June. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 They had to put on a charade after that scathing AG report. We'll see how it rolls out in June. I should be clear, I'm not talking about the current scathing AG report. Harper seems to be collecting them eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 They had to put on a charade after that scathing AG report. We'll see how it rolls out in June. My second link was released yesterday..........from the entire report, and what is most telling of the still classified findings: Canada's next fighter is expected to be in operation for at least 40 years. As a result, the evaluation of options analysis included a threat assessment covering two time horizons: 2020 to 2030 and beyond 2030. Current Threat Technologies (2020-2030) The 2020-2030 time horizon captures the operating environment for the estimated introduction of a replacement fighter against current threat technologies. These could include advanced next-generation fighter aircraft, bombers with supersonic cruise missiles, advanced anti-aircraft and surface-to-air missiles, as well as early warning radar systems. Emerging Threat Technologies (Beyond 2030) The beyond 2030 time horizon is characterized by the proliferation of existing as well as emerging technologies. The sophistication and proliferation of the threats identified in the 2020-2030 timeframe is expected to increase in the beyond 2030 timeframe. Aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter can only hope to remain relevant within the 2020-2030 timeframe, this of course is made evident by the planned out of service dates of such aircraft ( 2020s-2030s) by the majority of the current operators........Of the aircraft evaluated, only the F-35 will remain viable post ~2030.......Canada plans to operate the Hornet replacement until the 2050s, as such, the winner is????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 The reality is they promised to spend more than they are. Spend more on what? The Hornet replacements? Shipbuilding? TAPV and the LAV III SLEP? FWSAR? etc........all programs that are in various stages of progression.......Hardly the gutting as you suggest, nor the faux GDP meme that fails to account for the actual "finished product" in terms of overall capability of the Canadian Forces.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) The total. They took money from the budget and froze the budget for a couple of years. They should put most of that money back when they can. Edited December 12, 2014 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) The total. They took money from the budget and froze the budget for a couple of years. They should put most of that money back when they can. Froze the budget after combat operations ceased in the dirt box, resulting in a decreased operating tempo........None the less, DND returns money nearly every year to general revenue, but ironic you choose today to jeer the Tories for "gutting the military" ..... Edited December 12, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Wow, now I'm impressed....and that's not sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I just really think we aren't spending enough money on the military or the airforce. Australia is really where we should be headed, though we should do it over the next 10 years. We need increased capabilities in terms of afloat logistics and various areas of the airforce. I'd simply like to see more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 This is why I have no respect for the media: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/conservative-government-looks-at-purchasing-another-c-17-transport-aircraft-for-the-rcaf Questioning why the costs are so high (those are lifecycle costs) when they criticized the government for not reporting lifecycle costs in the past (F-35). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.