bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) That doesn't seem like what they said. You make tail fins - if you don't buy, you won't. You don't get to make tail fins stabilizers for the entire life of the program without putting more skin in the game. Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 You'd be a poor lawyer. A. The reprofiled funds are available when the upgrades would be king on You'd be a poor wordsmith. Huh? B. Thr government didn't check if Irving or Seaspan could deliver as fast or faster than Davie. You're wrong. Yes they did, it was even aired in the press last November. And again - so says you. We're obviously not looking for used crap. The RCAF isn't looking for interim crap in the first place. Again - so says you. The government has better lawyers - hopefully better than those in the Harper government anyway (Oshkosh). Clearly not......as a lawyer with a degree from a community collage would have advised against naming both the F-35 and Super Hornet in election material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I don't think one would make sense, but I agree that a limited initial purchase (min 6, more likely a dozen) has several advantages on all sides. The question is when. With the serious outstanding problems, especially the software, when does it make sense to make a purchase commitment? Who cares.....it's about keeping the jobs in Canada. Put them in the Edmonton Mall and sell tickets to sit in one and play Top Gun videos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 That doesn't even make sense as Ana analogous situation. Its exactly the same.........Liberals cancelled a defense contract based solely on an election promise, costs Canada billions and paid more in the long run then if they had of just continued with the original deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Why don't the Liberals want to own this "file"...it is their bastard child: Actually it is the Pentagon's child. I believe the Pentagon gave Boeing and Lockheed Martin a billion dollars each for the concept demonstration phase, and then $19 billion to Lockheed Martin and $4 billion to Pratt & Whitney for the Systems Development and Demonstration phase. The $10 million and $150 million were token payments to be an observer of the first phase, and then participant in the second. There have been subsequent payments after all the cost escalations over the years (if I remember correctly Canada gave another $500 million in 2006), but I don't know what the total has been. Participating in these programs is a good thing, but that does not always mean that the program will deliver results or the participants will purchase the end result. Most previous programs have been just US national programs, this is the first one with lots of international participation. Britain is a major partner in the program, and Canada is a minor one. Even the previous US only programs had a large rate of being abandoned, in fact this program had 2 planes built by Boeing (X-32) which was then abandoned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Actually it is the Pentagon's child. Nice dodge...but despite so many references to the the U.S. Pentagon, USN, USAF, USMC, GAO, and God knows how many others, nobody forced Canada's Liberal government to join the JSF program. So own it.... The U.S. designs, develops, produces, and scraps far more aircraft than Canada can even dream of.....because we can. Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 You'd be a poor wordsmith. Huh? I made a mistake while typing on the phone. I fixed it. Yes they did, it was even aired in the press last November. That explains all the complaining from both shipyards. The RCAF isn't looking for interim crap in the first place. They don't need it - the last government bought the F-35...oh... not......as a lawyer with a degree from a community collage would have advised against naming both the F-35 and Super Hornet in election material. Government of Canada lawyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Its exactly the same.........Liberals cancelled a defense contract based solely on an election promise, costs Canada billions and paid more in the long run then if they had of just continued with the original deal. When they cancelled the EH-101, we didn't get anything When they cancelled the EH-101, there was already a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It doesn't work that way....Per our membership in the program, we're expected to stay on and purchase the F-35...why should Canadian industry get a crack at billions worth of contracts over those industries in nations that are remaining in the program? no - we keep coming back to this - why? There never was a requirement in joining the program to actually purchase the F-35. If you keep insisting so, then provide a cite to that end. We also cycled round-&-round over being able to bid on contracts without purchasing... you know that's a fact... that's what'a happened to date, and it was one of the U.S. procurement 'big-cheeses' who categorically stated Canada would still be eligible to bid on contracts into the future without purchasing the F-35... just needed to be a part of the program (as in pay the yearly fees). This was all referenced and cited - are you going to make me actually dig up posts from whatever F-35 related thread that's in? so now we get LockMart uttering threats - nice! Of course, that's par for the course given some of the tactics used to secure sales, right? Don't make me post that wikileaks info concerning the Norwegian sale... don't make me do it! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Sure...that's why Canada inexplicably rejected the longer range F/A-18L. no - effectively that was Northrup dropping it, the land-based option within the F-18 grouping, given the tactics of McDonnell Douglas - hence the lawsuits. Given those tactics, Northrup couldn't get any sales traction with other countries, leaving Canada in the position of being the sole potential purchaser. But it forever fits your narrative that has you continually throwing down these comments along the lines of, "stupid Canada, bought a carrier based plane"! Notwithstanding, of course, my repeated rallying around those comments of yours to remind you that there are over a dozen countries without carriers that have either purchased or 'kicked the tires' on the Super Hornet... coupled with the USN itself that has chosen to fly the Super Hornet from land bases in the past. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I'm sorry but I'm confused about why you think any of that would have the slightest importance compared to the Liberal party avoiding the embarrassment of buying the same plane they had been campaigning against for years. "campaigning against for years"? Really? How so and why so - do you context/details to support that? I mean, sure... when the AG comes out and all hell breaks loose around what Harper Conservatives did to conceal actual costs, well..... that was why Harper pulled the pin and set in motion the, "Conservatives delay, don't do anything plan", right? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 The Americans will play hardball with the rookie Canadian prime minister, and that includes putting the screws on F-18 Super Hornets too. on Super Hornets too? Oh my, your mini-Trump bravado is most appreciated here! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Sure or the Dutch.....Norwegians.....South Koreans.....etc OK on the general topic of military procurements, what do we have to do? Our politicians are expressing us really. Harper was ginger on this topic too. We Canadians are happy to leave defence to the lads down south. This is not a problem of just one political party. We seem to be more and more in the realm of wishful thinking on our military. We do not want to spend the money required. Edited June 11, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It doesn't work that way....Per our membership in the program, we're expected to stay on and purchase the F-35... again, it would most useful to see that formally documented... and recognized. Source/cite request: . With regards to the legal aspect, the federal Liberals excluded the F-35 by name during the election, in addition, via international treaties, the Americans and European makers will without a doubt file legal and trade challenges through their governments if the Liberals elect to sole source the Super Hornet.......which they also cited by name during the election.......a huge legal f**k up.....if they hadn't of mentioned either aircraft and ran a rigged competition they would have likely skated, but they elected to get "political". internetLawyers-R-Us . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Sure are, but Canada won't bust a move for any of those either. When it comes to tactical aircraft, rotary winged aircraft, transport aircraft, missiles, and bombs....who is Canada's "daddy" ? why do you feel it so important to perpetually highlight Canada does not have a developed aerospace industry to the point of manufacturing certain types/categories of military kit? Do you think you're providing revelations, new insights... or what? After the several hundredth time doing this, are you really bringing anything new here? Notwithstanding the United States is the world's leading military industrial complex (aka war-mongering nation), do you actually expect a country the size of Canada to match the U.S. on this... or many of the other things you keep coming here to MLW to "beat your drum over"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 According to the Narional Post, the Conservative interim measure changes that let them buy the Asterix makes this deal (if there is to be a deal) perfectly legal. Defence Minister Jason Kenney, you say! Who knew? Supply ship gap prompted changes in regulations governing sole-source military purchases The navy’s urgent need for a supply ship recently prompted the Harper government to quietly change regulations governing sole-source military purchases... A line was added to contracting regulations in June and gives the federal cabinet authority to award a deal to a single company if there are urgent “operational reasons” and it fulfills an interim requirement. how does this line-up against the previous thread internet-lawyering? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 At a cost of billions in work we won't get. we'll settle for an old, second rate aircraft. notwithstanding it's not old, it's still current, is still in active production... and has an immediate upgrade path to the 'Advanced Super Hornet' level, how does your labeling line up against settling for an, at this point, unproven and indeterminate costed F-35 option. Does the term 'vapour-ware' mean anything to you? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 OK on the general topic of military procurements, what do we have to do? Our politicians are expressing us really. Harper was ginger on this topic too. We Canadians are happy to leave defence to the lads down south. This is not a problem of just one political party. We seem to be more and more in the realm of wishful thinking on our military. We do not want to spend the money required. True, but Canadians are not completely walking the talk, wishing to keep the contracts and jobs associated with the American war monger military industrial complex. It has always been thus. Tell the Americans to go to hell...forever...now that would be impressive. Instead, there will be more of the same political circle jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 JSF partners are expected to invest in the program....and buy aircraft. notwithstanding this potential Super Hornet option... gap interim option... doesn't preclude purchasing F-35s in the future - once the plane has been properly 'test driven/shaken out' in the future, I'll keep asking for some formal cited reference that actually supports this, "buy aircraft" reference that keeps getting played here. Anyone, anyone... anyone? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 True, but Canadians are not completely walking the talk, wishing to keep the contracts and jobs associated with the American war monger military industrial complex. It has always been thus. Tell the Americans to go to hell...forever...now that would be impressive. Instead, there will be more of the same political circle jerk. and yet, back to the prior thread discussion, we had a LockMart rep speaking most favourably and positively to the capabilities of Canadian firms being able to secure some of those contracts on their own merits. Presumably securing some of those contracts in spite of the inherent U.S. protectionism (aka pork barrel politics) that has all manner of U.S. politicians working feverishly to secure work/contracts for their native states. The initial program sign-up has no requirement to, "to buy... to belong"; equally, as of now at least, there had been no requirement to, "to buy... to bid". . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Hey, I already told you guys to just buy one F-35 just to keep the game going.....trying to help you out here ! you're right... those other countries with their "onesy, twosey" approaches! Why... all that does is allow LockMart to say they've secured another sale with another country! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 If Canada be so brave and righteous, then just walk away from the JSF program. Grow some balls. And don't buy any American aircraft. That will teach those "Damn Americans...hate those bastards". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 The head of our air force, under oath, has stated there is still usable time left on our current Hornets, further still with a center barrel upgrade that the Liberals aren't moving on (reprofiled funds?) as highlighted above; notwithstanding the vagueness of your "usable time" - are you speaking of between now and 2020? - if so, don't hesitate to provide details that speak to the delivery of F-35s to Canada by then to replace the entire CF-18 fleet... F-35s with guaranteed capability and certain costing. - if not so, citation request! And please don't just say a reference has already been provided. I'd like you to provide a reference and quote from within it to support your exact statement made, as quoted above - thanks in advance. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 If Canada be so brave and righteous, then just walk away from the JSF program. Grow some balls. And don't buy any American aircraft. That will teach those "Damn Americans...hate those bastards". why have you so personalized this? There's real discussion going on here; (somewhat) respectful exchanges, and little (if any) critical attachment directly to the U.S. nation proper. Why does consideration in purchasing one American offering over another American offering so solicit this type of comment from you? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Nice dodge...but despite so many references to the the U.S. Pentagon, USN, USAF, USMC, GAO, and God knows how many others, nobody forced Canada's Liberal government to join the JSF program. So own it.... own "it"... own what? Exactly... what is it you're asking be "owned"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.