# Do we really need the F35?



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Do we really need this?

F-35 jets cost to soar to $29B: watchdog - Politics - CBC News

Wouldn't we be better served having Bombardier develop some long range drones for sovereignty patrols? It would be MUCH cheaper and more useful.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Who Knows! We don't have all the information before us. Oooopps that might be too political to suggest.

I think we should look at many options and perhaps unmanned drones should be the way of the future.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The current fleet of CF-18s are aging and are getting long in the tooth. It's pretty bad when DND goes the War Museum to scavenge for parts.

I'm sure some probably asked the same question regarding the Sea Kings as well.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> The current fleet of CF-18s are aging and are getting long in the tooth. It's pretty bad when DND goes the War Museum to scavenge for parts.
> 
> I'm sure some probably asked the same question regarding the Sea Kings as well.


Helicopters make sense as they have multiple roles, such as SAR

But in the 80's we acquired CF-18's when we were still in the cold war, now I just don't see the need for fighter aircraft when there are other more efficient options.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Oooopps that might be too political to suggest.


Yeah I am trying to be pragmatic about this as I am sure that Liberals were in power when we started going down the path with the F35.

I think this is a what is best for Canada, and I just don't see the need for these things.

What exactly is the role for them? What purpose do they serve?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Let's ignore the $29 Billion number. Experience with previous highly complex Military requisitions would indicate that $150 Billion should be considered the minimum amount that these will cost. 

Given the current inability of the Feds to balance the budget or even get our boys out of Afghanistan time to cut our losses and scrap this idea. 

As previously mentioned helicopters or transport planes would be a better investment.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Do we really need this?
> 
> F-35 jets cost to soar to $29B: watchdog - Politics - CBC News
> 
> Wouldn't we be better served having Bombardier develop some long range drones for sovereignty patrols? It would be MUCH cheaper and more useful.


While I agree there's gotta be something cheaper and not having production delays, I don't think the solution is drones. Don't get me wrong, I like the F-35, but if it's going to cost a ton and have delays, I don't think we want it. Someone had mentioned the F-18 SuperHornet, which is a newer version of the F-18 - the cost is supposed to be around $55 million each. $55 million and no delay is much better than $110 million or more and delays up your ying-yang. A bunch of F-18 Super Hornets and a bunch of drones may be a satisfactory solution.


The new Typhoon seems to have money and delay problems. I don't know much about the newer Mirage. There aren't too many choices.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> What exactly is the role for them? What purpose do they serve?


Sovereinty. I'd rather not have to depend on the US to protect our air space and patrol our country.

If we want to continue peace keeping missions, they may be required for escort missions or to patrol no-fly zones.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

LOL - even the US is buying F-18 Super Hornets to hold them over till the F-35 



> On 14 May 2010, it was reported that Boeing and the US Department of Defense reached an agreement for a multi-year contract for an additional 66 F/A-18E/Fs and 58 EA-18Gs over the next four years. The latest order for 124 aircraft will raise the total fleet count to 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs.[64] However the Navy is already 60 fighters below its validated requirement for fighter aircraft and this purchase will not close the gap.[65] The deal was finalized on 28 September 2010 for a multi-year contract said to save $600 million (over per year contracts) for 66 Super Hornets and 58 Growlers and to help deal with a four-year delay in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.[66]


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Sovereinty. I'd rather not have to depend on the US to protect our air space and patrol our country.
> 
> If we want to continue peace keeping missions, they may be required for escort missions or to patrol no-fly zones.


I agree that having to depend on the US to protect our air space and patrol our country is a bad thing.

But from a capability standpoint what can these things do that couldn't be done by an armed drone? I can think of anything other than dog fighting... and that doesn't seem to be enough of a reason for them. Everything else could be done by drones like the Globalhawk, which have more endurance and a range, can be armed with long range air to air standoff and air to ground standoff munitions. Plus drones are a LOT cheaper.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

No no no! They need to resurrect Avro I tell ya! Modernize the Arrow.... Call it the Super Arrow or something!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jeez just fill the backends of the old subway cars full'o rocket fuel and spark'em up. That should scare the bejesus out of them russians.


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

If not the F-35's, then we will at least need to have some sort of plan to replace the current jets. Otherwise we will end up in the same mess we were in with the Sea King helicopters...that were past their useful life when the decision was made to buy new ones, let alone the decision to cancel that contract.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Or why not the SU-35?

Leased to be made in Canada, we could even upgrade the electronics.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> Helicopters make sense as they have multiple roles, such as SAR
> 
> But in the 80's we acquired CF-18's when we were still in the cold war, now I just don't see the need for fighter aircraft when there are other more efficient options.


Canada's military has been planning on refurnishing their old equipment and it's about time—Canada doesn't spend a lot of money on equipment to begin with. They recognize that they are far behind technologically and have been preparing to make a move to better prepare our soliders with state of the art equipment.

Drones are fine for what they're made for, but are not as versatile as a jetfighter; you can't protect our airspace with a drone. It just isn't going to happen.

Myself, I'm surprised that Canada didn't bother with the Super Hornet, but judging from what I've heard/read from DND, they want to go high-tech including stealth frigates.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> ...Myself, I'm surprised that Canada didn't bother with the Super Hornet, but judging from what I've heard/read from DND, they want to go high-tech including stealth frigates.


Bad enough that our Navy consists entirely of a handful of friggin frigates, now you wanna make em invisible?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Bad enough that our Navy consists entirely of a handful of friggin frigates, now you wanna make em invisible?


Yup. If we forget where we park 'em, we're screwed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Yup. If we forget where we park 'em, we're screwed.


Ha!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Yup. If we forget where we park 'em, we're screwed.


That will never be a problem and why we always moor, birth, dock or anchor them and never park 'em anywhere.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Yup - good choice, the F-35! (this guy goes a bit overboard making the case for it... "it's this or flying coffins!") 

It'll be a purchase right in line with other recent military 'deals' Canada made... good grief....*

*Senators Love Their Stealth Jet; Never Mind a New Design Flaw*





> ...another design problem with the $150-million airplane — a weakened wing structure. The admission is sure to fan the political flames raging around the $380 billion_ [$29-billion+ for the Canadian purchase - CM]_ Joint Strike Fighter program, which aims to replace most of the existing Air Force, Navy and Marines fighters, but has been beset by delays, cost overruns, technical problems and questions over performance.
> 
> “The ‘defective’ aluminum beam was detected in November on Air Force and Marine Corps test aircraft after an unrelated bulkhead crack surfaced in the Marine Corps model,” Bloomberg reported. *The problem reduces the lifespan* of the F-35A and F-35B’s wing from 8,000 hours — roughly 25 years of operations — to just 1,200 hours, or around five years.
> 
> “This is not considered a serious issue,” F-35 spokesman Joseph DellaVedova said of the flimsy beam. Lockheed argues that the cracks could be considered a good thing, sorta, because the aluminum rib lasted 2,800 hours. But the Pentagon’s top testing official disagrees. Fixing the flaw will be a “difficult and complex process,”


(Wired)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

The old phrase, "they don't build them like they used to", comes to mind. It seems like the Americans can't build anything lately without it having problems, delays and cost over-runs.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*This just gets better and better... or rather, worse and worse...*

*Canada's first F-35s won't have built-in ability to communicate in Arctic*












> Canada's new multi-billion dollar stealth fighters are expected arrive without the built-in ability to communicate from the country's most northerly regions.
> 
> A series of briefings given to the country's top air force commander last year showed that the F-35's radio and satellite communications gear may not be as capable as that of the current CF-18s.
> 
> ...


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)

_Waitaminute - I'm confused. Our current CF-18s have the ability to communicate via satellite, but these brand-spanking-new F-35s don't... and won't for years, because they're still doing research? WTF?_


,


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha ha. Morons.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *This just gets better and better... or rather, worse and worse...*
> 
> *Canada's first F-35s won't have built-in ability to communicate in Arctic*
> 
> ...


Really Stealthy Aircraft, no one except the pilot will know where the aircraft is in the north


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Really Stealthy Aircraft, no one except the pilot will know where the aircraft is in the north


*AH, ok. I get it.* _"It's a feature, not a bug!"_


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

The f-35 is designed to fly in the middle east. Everything else is an afterthought.

Lockheed Martin doesn't give a rat's ass about Canada's needs.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

MannyP Design said:


> The current fleet of CF-18s are aging and are getting long in the tooth. ,,


True enough, they have not killed hardly anybody.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Kosh said:


> The old phrase, "they don't build them like they used to", comes to mind. It seems like the Americans can't build anything lately without it having problems, delays and cost over-runs.


The main thing is, how many people have they killed lately?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Who are we going to go to war with? Russia? We would be over run by happy hour. Medvedev has increased military spending to astronomical proportions in the last 3 years.

Get some helicopters to do some s&r, research and patrol. Maybe a couple fighters to do some fast fly overs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Personally, I'd like to see Canada prepare a fleet of Flying Wing bombers but that's just from an aesthetic perspective.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's amazing how conservatives and libertarians can come up with all kinds of ways to waste insane amounts of tax dollars.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Adrian: a couple fighters? Seriously? One, at any given time one or both would be stuck in the hanger, in for repairs. Two, fast flyovers to do what - wave to the people down below? Drop flowers and get well cards?

I think we need modern jet fighters in significant numbers to patrol our own airspace, especially in our Arctic waters now that the world is waking up to the energy and shipping opportunities opening up well north of the tree line. That said, we should have maintained our own industry to design, build and maintain the things. It's bad to be dependent on other countries for making your own defence gear. But since we let that go down the tubes a long time ago, the next best thing would be to have a program which ensures that what fighter jets we do procure can properly operate in our climate. It's just ludicrous that this is happening. It's shaping up to be another epic federal boondoggle.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> It's just ludicrous that this is happening. It's shaping up to be another epic federal boondoggle.


Yep... it's like watching a train-wreck in slow motion. But the motive force here is ideology, not inertia. Not that the devastation will be any less.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Max said:


> Adrian: a couple fighters? Seriously? One, at any given time one or both would be stuck in the hanger, in for repairs. Two, fast flyovers to do what - wave to the people down below? Drop flowers and get well cards?
> 
> I think we need modern jet fighters in significant numbers to patrol our own airspace, especially in our Arctic waters now that the world is waking up to the energy and shipping opportunities opening up well north of the tree line. That said, we should have maintained our own industry to design, build and maintain the things. It's bad to be dependent on other countries for making your own defence gear. But since we let that go down the tubes a long time ago, the next best thing would be to have a program which ensures that what fighter jets we do procure can properly operate in our climate. It's just ludicrous that this is happening. It's shaping up to be another epic federal boondoggle.


Agreed - we definitely need something. Whether that something is the F35, or another aircraft remains to be seen.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> Get some helicopters to do some s&r, research and patrol. Maybe a couple fighters to do some fast fly overs.


Helicopters are short range aircraft, not long range patrol aircraft. We need long range patrol aircraft. We also really need a full fledged airbase further north than CFB Cold Lake.

As well helicopters are not fast fighter aircraft. We need something that can handle peacekeeping as well which involves, patrolling no-fly zones, escorting jet bombers, something that can handle a dog-fight, something that can lauch air-to-air missiles and air-to-land missiles.

You may also want to remember that we do have new helicopters, the new Cormorants, that started in service in 2002, for search and rescue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We also have perfectly good twin engine fighters currently....

This a boondoggle by Harpo catering to corporate interests.....just what Eisenhower warned about in the US

Close libraries in Toronto but spend 375 million per plane.....

what a ****ed up place.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Mixing levels of government though, MacDoc. Toronto's recent problems are a municipal thing. Fighter jets for Canada is a federal thing.

Aren't our current jets long in the tooth by now?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Max said:


> That said, we should have maintained our own industry to design, build and maintain the things. It's bad to be dependent on other countries for making your own defence gear. But since we let that go down the tubes a long time ago, the next best thing would be to have a program which ensures that what fighter jets we do procure can properly operate in our climate. It's just ludicrous that this is happening. It's shaping up to be another epic federal boondoggle.


Agreed. It all went downhill after the Arrow. 
*edit: *Although our aircraft industry has recovered some, it seems to be mostly in consumer aircraft and creating stuff for US military aircraft.

Actually what Canada should have done is had it's own competition to have someone design a aircraft for our needs and produce it in Canada. I don't care if a Canadian, American, British, or French company won it, as long as the competition was open to Canadian companies, the jets are built in Canada, and the cost is 1/2 to 3/4 of the F-35.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> We also have perfectly good twin engine fighters currently....
> 
> This a boondoggle by Harpo catering to corporate interests.....just what Eisenhower warned about in the US


No we don't. The Hornets we have are 25-30 years old. As well, i'm sure the government doesn't replace any that have crashed. Time to look at something new, because by the time we get them, our Hornets will be 35-45 years old. 

We can give the hornets over to the Snowbirds. I'm sure they would appreciate something "newer".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kosh said:


> Actually what Canada should have done is had it's own competition to have someone design a aircraft for our needs and produce it in Canada. I don't care if a Canadian, American, British, or French company won it, as long as the competition was open to Canadian companies, the jets are built in Canada, and the cost is 1/2 to 3/4 of the F-35.


Excellent idea. This puts me in mind of the Keystone pipeline, for that matter; wouldn't Canada's interests be served by refining the stuff here and _then_ sending it down to the Americans? More jobs here and we could build up our own expertise in the energy sector. We should be hard-bargaining on these and other matters.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Initial F-35 jets could be unable to track troops, talk to older planes*



> The first dozen or so F-35s slated to arrive in Canada won't be equipped with software that allows the stealth fighters to communicate with ground forces, a feature designed to prevent incidents of friendly fire.
> 
> The initial operating system also won't be equipped with a program that helps the fighters communicate with older aircraft, such as the Air Force's Aurora surveillance planes.





> The software isn't expected to be added until an upgrade program is introduced in 2019 – three years after the Royal Canadian Air Force begins taking delivery the advanced multi-role fighter.
> 
> The absence of both items in the initial operating system is alluded to in heavily censored access-to-information documents, obtained by The Canadian Press and referenced in military publications in the United States.


(Globe & Mail)

*Let me see if I have this straight...*


no engines = can't fly out-of-the-box
no satellite communications for Arctic service
no software for air-to-ground forces communication
no communications with existing CF-18s

...am I missing anything? *Man, what a deal! *

XX)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> The Canadian government claims it will only have to pay $75 million per plane. Yet it is inconceivable that a cash-strapped U.S. Congress would tolerate a multi-billion dollar subsidy to Canada. The Pentagon has earmarked $151 million for each of its planes, while the US Government Accounting Office is projecting an actual cost of $156 million.


(The Tyee.ca)


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It's typical also that Jim Flaherty is now calling on all of Canada today that it's time to
tighten our belts and to pay down Canada's debt. Doeh?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*...and it just keeps getting worse, folks...
*


> The Pentagon official in charge of the F-35 project said major cracks and "hot spots" have been discovered in the stealth fighter's airframe, creating a fresh challenge to Canada's plan to acquire 65 F-35s for $9 billion.
> 
> At the same time, analysts south of the border expect more delays and cost issues to arise when the U.S. defense secretary unveils a massively downsized military budget sometime in the next couple of months.
> 
> In an interview with AOL Defense published Thursday, U.S. Vice-Admiral David Venlet said Pentagon officials were surprised by the extent of the problems discovered in the fighter's structure during recent testing.


(Vancouver Sun)

_Read the whole article - I particularly like the line calling the F-35 the "low-hanging fruit" in the Pentagon's cost-cutting exercise, part of the massive budget cuts that the U.S. government has to do following the demise of the "supercommittee". 

If the Conservatives go ahead with this purchase, we're going to have a very, very expensive white elephant on our backs..._


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well we need 65 of them to fly McKay around to his fishing holes after all.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Perhaps it's the Norwegians...



> While expressing concerns about the U.S. government's commitment to the F-35 program, a senior Norwegian official told a parliamentary committee Thursday his government is committed to purchasing the stealth fighters, and he encouraged Canada to follow suit.


Norway urges Canada to buy F-35s


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Perhaps it's the Norwegians...
> 
> 
> 
> Norway urges Canada to buy F-35s


Uh, oh, there goes MacDoc's objections. According to him, Norway does everything right as I recall.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> said his government has already ordered four F-35s for training purposes, the first of which will be delivered in 2018. Norway plans to buy about 52.
> 
> Read more: Norway urges Canada to buy F-35s


They're ordering 4. They "plan" to buy 52 more er, later... but haven't ordered them.

Perhaps that's what Canada should do since we're supposed to be tightening our belts, and not blowing gobs of billions and growing government bigger....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Perhaps that's what Canada should do since we're supposed to be tightening our belts, and not blowing gobs of billions and growing government bigger....


Great plan. Let our air force use 40-year-old plus aircraft on patrol when our northern borders are being called into question. Sure. Yup.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Great plan. Let our air force use 40-year-old plus aircraft on patrol when our northern borders are being called into question. Sure. Yup.


your sarcasm would have at least -some- credibility if these new jets were even useful for the purpose you pointed to. Apparently, not so much.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

SINC said:


> Great plan. Let our air force use 40-year-old plus aircraft on patrol when our northern borders are being called into question. Sure. Yup.


Ya, cause there is nothing else capable of patrolling our borders, for sale out there.

ie. euro fighter
su 37


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I think the main question is, Can an F35 land at a fishing camp?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Perhaps it's the Norwegians...
> 
> 
> 
> Norway urges Canada to buy F-35s


Actually you might want to edit your post to "Perhaps it's the NorwegiaN.... as in singular, not plural. There is a huge controversy in that country about the F-35 in that country (as there should be, and as the article points out) and it's not quite a done deal there either. But one thing I have to give credit to the Norwegian Government for is at least they're being *HONEST* in forecasting the cost to the people of the country. Both Canada & Norway are supposed to buy the same model of F-35....The Harper Government is saying 65 planes will cost $16 Billion, and Norway is saying 52 planes will cost $40 Billion.

But you should keep buying Harper's fudged math and be happy......



SINC said:


> Great plan. Let our air force use 40-year-old plus aircraft on patrol when our northern borders are being called into question. Sure. Yup.


Or we could buy Super Hornets for less than 1/3 of the cost and have a plane with twin engines that can actually fly in cold weather.



Lawrence said:


> I think the main question is, Can an F35 land at a fishing camp?


Only if that fishing camp is in the middle east. That's where the F-35 is designed to fly.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> A
> But you should keep buying Harper's fudged math and be happy......


Any special reason you'd direct that at me? I don't believe I've let my views known in this or any other thread? 

Reality is, that I'd support a purchase of F/A 18 Es and Ds for the interim and F35s if and when there's any money left provided all the issues have been resolved and costed out. I'm also in favour of nuclear submarines and better Arctic patrolling using the appropriate equipment. I am not in favour of Nato missions which drain resources already lacking or which are needed in more important areas.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> Reality is, that I'd support a purchase of F/A 18 Es and Ds for the interim and F35s if and when there's any money left provided all the issues have been resolved and costed out. I'm also in favour of nuclear submarines and better Arctic patrolling using the appropriate equipment. I am not in favour of Nato missions which drain resources already lacking or which are needed in more important areas.


Can't find a thing to disagree with here...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Any special reason you'd direct that at me? I don't believe I've let my views known in this or any other thread?
> 
> Reality is, that I'd support a purchase of F/A 18 Es and Ds for the interim and F35s if and when there's any money left provided all the issues have been resolved and costed out. I'm also in favour of nuclear submarines and better Arctic patrolling using the appropriate equipment. I am not in favour of Nato missions which drain resources already lacking or which are needed in more important areas.


I share your views. Sadly I believe King Harpo will happily follow wherever BO aka Bush III leadeth. 

One can only hope he does not share the contempt of the Constitution and Bill of Rights recently shown by the entire US Congress.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

kps said:


> Reality is, that I'd support a purchase of F/A 18 Es and Ds for the interim and F35s if and when there's any money left provided all the issues have been resolved and costed out.


I think you mean F/A 18 Es and Fs. Boeing made their last F/A 18 Hornet D in 2000. I don't think they manufacture the Hornet anymore. Instead they make the Super Hornet, which is bigger and better.

I see India had an interesting competition as well and compared 6 planes:
Indian MRCA competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could you imagine Canada flying MiG-35s?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The F-35 is looking more and more like one great, big turkey.*

*Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws*



> The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history is about to get a lot pricier.
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to replace nearly every tactical warplane in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, was already expected to cost $1 trillion dollars for development, production and maintenance over the next 50 years. Now that cost is expected to grow, owing to 13 different design flaws uncovered in the last two months by a hush-hush panel of five Pentagon experts. It could cost up to a billion dollars to fix the flaws on copies of the jet already in production, to say nothing of those yet to come.
> 
> In addition to costing more, the stealthy F-35 could take longer to complete testing. That could delay the stealthy jet’s combat debut to sometime after 2018 — seven years later than originally planned.


(WIRED)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_*In the dictionary, beside the word "joke" is the political biography of Defense Minister Faustino...*_

*F-35: Canada's Air Commander Contradicts Julian Fantino On Moving Jet Training Home*



> Canadian fighter pilots will be training on the F-35 jet in Florida for almost a decade and the military will have to study how to set up a similar program at home, says the country's top air commander.
> 
> The comments by Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps stand in contrast to the iron-clad assurances Julian Fantino, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's associate defence minister, gave the House of Commons last month when it was first revealed stealth fighter instruction would take place in the U.S.





> ...he dismissed NDP questions about the training program.
> 
> "The member should know that in order to get traction (on a story), he should have his facts straight," Fantino told New Democrat defence critic David Christopherson.
> 
> ...


(HuffingtonPostCanada)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the conservatives seem to realize, that all they have to do, is say it as if it were true, and people will believe them. Then shout and point the finger if anyone dares to question this.

Kind of a familiar theme with some I encounter.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> the conservatives seem to realize, that all they have to do, is say it as if it were true, and people will believe them. Then shout and point the finger if anyone dares to question this.
> 
> Kind of a familiar theme with some I encounter.


Yep they learned that from the old Fuddle Duddle himself. The liar may be red or blue, but the effect is equally as irritating.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you're right, though I think the er, "new" conservatives have taken it to a new level. The lies now are practically a daily occurrence, nothing to see here move along. Y'know.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Yeah we need it. It will help bolster the economy.


----------



## CplHoward (Dec 19, 2011)

Nope. What we need is new uniforms. I can't get any because there isn't any money left to purchase new ones.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

cfb petawawa, my dad was stationed there when I was kindergarten. Think the school was pinecrest or something that.


----------



## CplHoward (Dec 19, 2011)

Pinecrest is still here. I went to it too. Same with General Panet And Rivercrest(Now St. Francis Of Assisi) The only school that is gone is L'colnel Forbes. They demolished it a few years ago. 

As for the town, not much has changed. Just a lot more houses.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

CplHoward said:


> Nope. What we need is new uniforms. I can't get any because there isn't any money left to purchase new ones.


Really? Ouch.

Didn't realize things were that bad.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wonder how many uniforms could have been bought with the one billion dollar boondoggle photo op g20/g8 or the 50 million for gazebos.

Or the 12 billion on corp tax cuts that was supposed to create jobs, but never did. The liberals cut and ignore, the conservatives say they're gonna, but spend wads on everything else.


----------



## CplHoward (Dec 19, 2011)

Pretty much man. I pay taxes too.. (Around 1/4 of my total pay a month) so I complain just like anyone else. 

It was like as soon as we pulled out of Afgan the money went with it. Or so it seems. Probably reallocated or something. 

But I will admit that this is probably one of the best times there has been to be in the forces. 

I wonder how many doctors/nurses/etc that money from the g8/20 could have hired on?

Back to the topic.. Yes. The CF18 is aging. She's a good solid bird, but it is getting old. Do I think the F35 is a valid replacement? No. I don't personally see why we need brand new fighters when we have subs sitting in dry-dock waiting moneys for repairs and the sea kings being patched together with gun tape.

Each aircraft costs $90m ish (Ref:The F-35 jet cost controversy: now we're getting somewhere - Capital Read, John Geddes - Macleans.ca )

90 million dollars. Each. 

Im looking at the LAV3 (Its our primary fighting vehicle, each unit costs roughly $1.4mil to #1.5 million each.

So for each F35 we purchase. We could have bought 60 LAV3 fighting vehicles. And probably have enough change for a whole slew of new personal equipment. Boots, rucksacks, nice warm coats, etc...

I see the reasoning behind replacing the CF18, but personally I think they need to take a deeper look into what the CF really needs instead of listing to pilots whining and crying.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CplHoward said:


> Pretty much man. I pay taxes too.. (Around 1/4 of my total pay a month) so I complain just like anyone else.
> 
> It was like as soon as we pulled out of Afgan the money went with it. Or so it seems. Probably reallocated or something.
> 
> ...


h ha I think I heard my dad say the same thing. :lmao:


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

CplHoward said:


> I see the reasoning behind replacing the CF18, but personally I think they need to take a deeper look into what the CF really needs instead of listing to pilots whining and crying.


The CF-18 is definitely getting old, but there's no reason we can't replace it with the Super Hornet.

Half the price, 30 years newer tech, and they wouldn't have to redesign the unit patches.


----------



## CplHoward (Dec 19, 2011)

My opinion does not reflect the opinion of the CF, but is my own personal opinion.

Another interesting point to chew on. 

The only times where I get to be around aircraft or work with them is refuelling and SNIC operations. (Snow removal, Ice control, basically caring for the runways)

Now one thing I know is fuel. Canadian F-37 grade fuel is more then capable of being useable way up in the frozen north. It works. The f-35 carries about 18 thousand pounds of it in its internal fuel tanks, which gives it a very appreciable combat range of roughly 2200km. Exactly how they figure out the range, I don't know. I assume combat range would mean a full payload of weaponry, and cruising at top speed without afterburner and some fighting.

Another thing I know is, that wherever this aircraft takes off from, its gotta have enough fuel to get back home. So half that range. 1100km.

The closest Air force base we have capable of taking these fighters is Cold Lake Alberta. Thats pretty far north. Now if you happen to have google earth on your mac, you can use the wonderful ruler tool to measure out just how far this fighter can reach. And for those who don't, Ill fill you in. 

The f35 won't reach all of our northern territory. In face you can get to almost 3/4 of the way up the hudson bay, and maybe 2/5ths of the way to CFS Alert our northernmost base.

So if theres an 'enemy' aircraft coming in over the north pole, they are pretty much going to be most of the way in Canada before the f-35 can even reach it. 

Sure, you could put wing tanks on the f-35 for a bit more fuel to go, but the extra 2000pounds of fuel isn't going to go far in a combat scenario. 

The only alternative that I can see is to have the f-35's launch from some point even more north, which translates into a new airbase. Thats going to be an expensive option.

Even if you consider, maybe there is oh.. I don't know. non canadian whaling ships up there or something. What will the f-35 do? Fly past at high speed? Maybe something more viable is to have some attack helicopters in the fleet. (We have 0) Have them posted in alert if northern sovereignty is a huge priority. Id bet that maybe a Canadian Helicopter company would be more then happy to whip something up for less money then 90m an aircraft. 

Sorry if its a rant. When I go our on the road in uniform, the Canadian public do not see Mr. Howard, they see a representative of the military that serves them. I take pride in what I do because I enjoy working for the Canadian public, and it disappoints me when politicians make me look like more of a moron then what I do all by myself. XD


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Welcome Cpl Howard.

Good to see members of the military questioning idiotic expenditures here on ehMac. I have several neighbours who work either directly or indirectly for DND and they all have severe reservations about investing in piloted planes when drones are the future.

It looks like whatever deal NATo thought they had is quickly unravelling due to the expense.


----------



## CplHoward (Dec 19, 2011)

jimbotelecom said:


> Welcome Cpl Howard.
> 
> Good to see members of the military questioning idiotic expenditures here on ehMac. I have several neighbours who work either directly or indirectly for DND and they all have severe reservations about investing in piloted planes when drones are the future.
> 
> It looks like whatever deal NATo thought they had is quickly unravelling due to the expense.


I'm not sure about the drones myself, just because Ive never dealt with them and don't know a thing about them, other then the fact that they are pretty neat looking. 

The thing I'm getting at is that the f-35 might be a viable replacement for the aging cf-18, but it shouldn't be purchased under the guise of protecting canada's north and I think there are other, cheaper alternatives that will work better, like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Superhornet, etc..

My uneducated thought on it is, this is just a thinly disguised US economic stimulus package.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The news of the F-35's future continues to grow bleaker...

*Australia reviews F-35 purchase timetable*



> Australia is reviewing its timetable for buying 12 troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the defence minister said Monday after the United States announced a rethink of its purchase schedule for the futuristic warplanes.





> Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith said Monday that Canberra is only contractually obligated to take delivery of two of the warplanes. They will be based in the United States and be available from 2014 for training Australian pilots.
> 
> Smith said Australia is reconsidering its schedule of buying another 12 during the following three years.





> ...the cost of the program has jumped to $385 billion US from $233 billion. Some estimates suggest that it could top out at $1 trillion over 50 years.
> 
> Australia had planned to buy as many as 100 of the fighters for $17 billion.





> Australia last year took delivery of the last four of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets.


(CBC)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's so'kay they founds teh moneys under teh seniors mattresses.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CplHoward said:


> My opinion does not reflect the opinion of the CF, but is my own personal opinion.
> 
> Another interesting point to chew on.
> 
> ...


Believe me you are not coming across as a moron. Our politicians are of course another matter entirely.

BTW excellent post.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

CplHoward said:


> Sorry if its a rant.


Not at all rant-like. And even if it was, your informed opinion is very valuable to me.



> When I go our on the road in uniform, the Canadian public do not see Mr. Howard, they see a representative of the military that serves them. I take pride in what I do because I enjoy working for the Canadian public, and it disappoints me when politicians make me look like more of a moron then what I do all by myself. XD


Something I wish I could communicate to all of our soldiers is that I have the utmost respect for you and the sacrifices you are willing to make on behalf of our country. So please understand that when I say I don't support some specific mission, it's not *you* that I'm not supporting, it's the brain-dead decisions about how you're being deployed.

I think what makes this very hard is that, in order to do your job, you have to be convinced you're doing the right thing. So you've all been trained to have faith in your chain of command. Unfortunately, at the top of that chain is politics. So when you folks are put in harm's way, and you hear that many Canadians are not convinced you should be there, it may feel like your countrymen are not supporting you. But that's not what's going on.

It's entirely possible to support the troops without supporting the missions.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

John Clay said:


> The CF-18 is definitely getting old, but there's no reason we can't replace it with the Super Hornet.
> 
> Half the price, 30 years newer tech, and they wouldn't have to redesign the unit patches.





CplHoward said:


> Even if you consider, maybe there is oh.. I don't know. non canadian whaling ships up there or something. What will the f-35 do? Fly past at high speed? *Maybe something more viable is to have some attack helicopters in the fleet. (We have 0) Have them posted in alert if northern sovereignty is a huge priority. Id bet that maybe a Canadian Helicopter company would be more then happy to whip something up for less money then 90m an aircraft.*


I like both ideas.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Japan defence chief 'may cancel' F-35 deal*



> Japan's defence chief said Wednesday the country may cancel its $4.7 billion order for the US-built F-35 stealth jet if Washington fails to stick to the proposed price and deadlines.
> 
> Defence Minister Naoki Tanaka said a formal contract for the initial four units which Japan wants by March 2017, out of a total of 42 jets, was expected to be signed before this summer.





> With a price tag of around $113 million per jet, the F-35 is the most expensive weapons programme in Pentagon history and has been plagued by cost overruns and technical delays.


(Yahoo News)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *Japan defence chief 'may cancel' F-35 deal*
> 
> 
> 
> (Yahoo News)


So???? They will have Canada, as part of our SEATO agreement, to come to their defense should North Korea attack them. Still, as they say "It's only money". 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*The F35 continues to impress... well... sorta...*

So it seems the F35 finally passed some of the performance tests the program has been delaying. Well for very low values of "passed." It seems the F-35 only passes tests when the tests are rigged.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

From the article linked above:



> it’s not unknown for capability standards, also known as “Key Performance Parameters,” to shift during a weapon’s development. But the shifts usually reflect the evolving needs of the military or some change in the operational environment, such as a likely enemy tweaking its own defense plans. In this case, the JROC gave the F-35 a pass that was apparently designed so the over-weight, over-budget, long-delayed stealth fighter could avoid yet another embarrassing scandal.
> 
> Citing earlier efforts to boost the Joint Strike Fighter’s image, defense analyst Winslow Wheeler accused the Pentagon of “putting lipstick on the pig.”


*Continuing down the F-35 path appears to be a huge mistake...*


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Miracle of miracles - there may well be hope yet....*

*"Realistic" Fantino raises possibility of abandoning F-35 jet purchase*












> The point man on the F-35 stealth fighter purchase says the Conservative government has not ruled out abandoning the troubled project.
> 
> “We have not, as yet, discounted the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program,” Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino told a Commons committee Tuesday.





> “And we'll just have to think it through as time goes on.”
> 
> His comments represent a further departure from the strident defence the Harper government has offered for the costly, long-delayed program.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I didn't specify whether the money has gone out the door, or whether the government has announced IT WOULD spend the money. I'm not sure why you need to make this distinction sinc.
> 
> Perhaps the only explanation is that you find it incredulous that they would spend it.
> 
> ...


You have now Groove.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Fantino later commented that the government was "committed" to the program, so take his earlier quote with a grain of salt.

While it's nice to hope that the conservatives can act reasonably, they have certainly exhibited that they have no problem chucking reason out the window. Until they outright say we won't be buying the f-35 it's safe to assume we are.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Problems Delay Production, Training - Investors.com

An interesting comparison.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

It would be nice if they scrapped the purchase and had a competition, but it's unlikely. 

Fantino's comments were more likely to pressure Lockheed....

Sadly they will probably end up buying fewer aircraft and the eventual realized price


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You have now Groove.


yes. But only after totally lying their faces off to the Canadian people.

They said there was a contract that protected us from further cost increases. 

So my comments were based on their insistence of this contract.

Now it turns out, they were lying. There was, no contract.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






I know a few will be predictably distracted by this being Bob Rae speaking, but forward to the video montage of the conservative snow job, and resulting furious back pedalling...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster*



> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon’s future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.
> 
> At an estimated $1 trillion to develop, purchase and support through 2050, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 was already the most expensive conventional weapons program ever even before Tuesday’s bulletins.


(Wired)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obamaaaaaaa!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yet another mess he inherited.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Despite the Barf Limburger/Lion O'Reilly attempts to blame BO, this mess certainly started growing under the Shrub. BOs failure to squash it, is merely another indicator that he really is Bush III.

Having said all that; the Pentagon (Br)ass are the real culprits. They were very likely in cahoots with the corporate slugs over at Martin (I believe it's Martin but would have to check back to be sure).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Despite the Barf Limburger/Lion O'Reilly attempts to blame BO, this mess certainly started growing under the Shrub. BOs failure to squash it, is merely another indicator that he really is Bush III.
> 
> Having said all that; the Pentagon (Br)ass are the real culprits. They were very likely in cahoots with the corporate slugs over at Martin (I believe it's Martin but would have to check back to be sure).


It was just a joke on my part. I suppose some of his supporters hoped he would kill it, but I haven't heard anyone blame BO for the F-35.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

maybe he had an iron clad contract, like Harper said they had.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*F-35s don't meet military's requirements, documents show*



> The federal government didn't follow normal procurement procedures to buy the F-35 fighter jets and the plane fails to meet at least one critical feature the government stipulated must be met, documents viewed by CBC News suggest.





> One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane's sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment.
> 
> "According to the U.S. Department of Defence there are so many problems with this feature that they're actually designing a backup. In other words, the plane can't do it,"


(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*F-35 program to get overhaul following AG report*



> Canada will re-examine the F-35 jet fighter program following the release of an auditor general's report tomorrow that slams the Defence Department regarding its compliance with procurement policies.
> 
> CBC News has learned that Auditor General Michael Ferguson will focus his criticism on the air force and on procurement officials inside the Defence Department.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what, Harper and co doesn't support our military? They wanna kill aerospace jobs? whaaaaa?


Gee it's a wonder cons are suddenly silent about that "contract" we supposedly had.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> what, Harper and co doesn't support our military? They wanna kill aerospace jobs? whaaaaa?
> 
> 
> Gee it's a wonder cons are suddenly silent about that "contract" we supposedly had.


I asked you many months ago to produce evidence that there was a 'contract' in place. You insisted we were committed and I stated there was no contract and our commitment could be changed. I guess once again your wisdom on federal politics has another hole in accessing the deal?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

see the youtube I posted a page ago where Harper clearly said, there was a contract. Twice.

In public, right there for your viewing pleasure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Y'know it always seems strange to me that "Harper can do no wrong" from the lap puppies.

about 65% of the voters think the guy is a joke and are disgusted by his approach to elections and governance but there is ZERO acknowledgement of that reality and the flawed democracy that allows it to happen.

How about criticism and praise where it is due instead of this knee jerk support from the right wing ideologues who can't see Harper's overspending that went on and is now finally being curbed in way that suits his ideology.

Not a peep about loading up the Senate with lame duck appointees, prorogation, enormous cabinet size, spending on no -big military project etc etc.

Naw - from them - "it's Harper he can do no wrong"

Horsepucky.....big time XX) 

and they can't even blame the Liberals anymore.....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Apparently now, it's all mcguinty's fault. :lmao:


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> *Major Test for the Auditor General Tomorrow*
> 
> April 2nd, 2012
> 
> ...


The Sixth Estate » Major Test for the Auditor General Tomorrow

We live in interesting times.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A great comment on today's coverage of the F-35 boondoggle:*



> *ibn batuta*
> _8:22 AM on April 3, 2012_
> 
> We own the second largest piece of political real estate on earth with a mere 33 million people living in it and we want to buy an aircraft that will let us invade and bomb the dickens out of other countries. Let's give our heads a shake.
> ...


*(Comment on the Globe & Mail article: *Crash or burn? The Conservatives' F-35 dilemma *)*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> Mr. Harper addressed none of this. Instead he offered two sentences that contradict much of what his government has been saying these last two years.
> 
> “I remind the leader of the opposition that the government has not yet purchased this airplane,” *the Prime Minister declared. “It has not yet signed a contract.”*
> 
> This has always been something of a farce. Not just because* the Conservatives once said there was indeed a “contract” *that guaranteed 65 warplanes at a price of no more than $9 billion. But because of all the ways the Prime Minister and his ministers sought to justify this demonstrably flimsy premise.


(MacLean's)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It seems this "contract" and Harper's proud flaunting of it, is something conservatives suddenly have amnesia about.

Harper *lied*.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Harper *lied*.


Harper's lips moved. He's a successful politician; all he can do is lie.

The question is, are his motives congruent with the interests of Canada; and I'd say the answer is an unequivocal "NO".


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> If the military is so out of control that it no longer has to answer to competent responsible government, then the entire leadership of the military needs to be sacked now, before things get even worse. If the Cabinet minister responsible for the military is so deceitful and craven that he would lie about his own responsibility and try to fob off the entire thing on his department, then he should respond.
> Either way, the fact that someone evidently attempted to sneak $10-$15 billion past Parliament by hiding the true figures and submitting false ones to Parliament means that somebody needs to be fired. Preferably a lot of people. If the Prime Minister refuses to do so, what he is saying is that he really doesn’t mind if Cabinet ministers and their governments lose literally billions of dollars through shady accounting. That doesn’t exactly square with the “ruthless budget cutting” we’ve been hearing about lately.
> It’s worth thinking back to last year. The reason the government was held in contempt of Parliament was because they were refusing to provide costing details on the F-35 jet fighter. Now, the Auditor General would have us believe that they couldn’t supply the true details to Parliament because the military wasn’t supplying the details to them. Yeah, right.


Auditor-General Picks Door No. 2

The rest of the article is just as blunt.




> Nearly 80 per cent of Canadians who are aware of the Conservative government’s plan to spend at least $9-billion to buy F-35 stealth fighter jets believe the project should be scrapped, a public opinion poll taken the day after last week’s federal budget found.
> 
> The Forum Research survey found only one in five Canadians of voting age supported the F-35 acquisition, which Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has estimated will cost nearly $18-billion including lifespan maintenance for what was to have been a fleet of 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornets.


Canadians want F-35 purchase scrapped: Forum Research poll


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Harper's lips moved. *He's a successful politician; all he can do is lie.*
> 
> The question is, are his motives congruent with the interests of Canada; and I'd say the answer is an unequivocal "NO".


Yep that is pretty much the definition of a politician. As far as I know "Honest Politician" is still the most widely recognized oxymoron in the English language.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> he question is, are his motives congruent with the interests of Canada....


For the most part, YES.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Does Canada needs some jets? Probably.
Does Canada need THIS jet? Nope.

Tell you what, though, it's a diverse country with different views -- how about we split the difference?

Let's buy some cheaper but more effective jets, and use the money we saved to get a working submarine or two. WIN WIN.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Peter MacKay either didn’t know what his department was up to, or he was complicit in keeping the whole truth from his fellow parliamentarians and from Canadians.


MacKay responsible for F-35 mess


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Harper's lips moved. He's a successful politician; all he can do is lie.
> 
> The question is, are his motives congruent with the interests of Canada; and I'd say the answer is an unequivocal "NO".


clearly. His motives have obviously been in the best interests of Alberta, and I think people are just starting to catch on to this. Their song and dance of blaming premiers will only work for so long before people tire of it.

And you can only keep the ideologues bottled for so long. It eventually starts busting at the seams (already happening), which inevitably happens with any party in a majority government.

It wouldn't have been as bad had Harper been kept to a minority.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> I asked you many months ago to produce evidence that there was a 'contract' in place. You insisted we were committed and I stated there was no contract and our commitment could be changed. I guess once again your wisdom on federal politics has another hole in accessing the deal?


This  article demonstrates that the word contract was being used by the Government to describe the deal.

For example;



> Peter MacKay, December 13, 2010. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual contract. What the Canadian government has committed to is a $9 billion *contract *for the acquisition of 65 fifth generation aircraft.


Semantics in 3 . 2. 1. ..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> A government that promotes itself as a responsible steward of the economy has bungled the biggest and most important contract on its watch. A Prime Minister who practically branded criticism of the F-35 acquisition as treasonous must now deeply regret, and will have to eat, his words.


ouch...
Tories’ economic reputation shot to pieces by fighter jets - The Globe and Mail


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> clearly. His motives have obviously been in the best interests of Alberta, and I think people are just starting to catch on to this. Their song and dance of blaming premiers will only work for so long before people tire of it.
> 
> And you can only keep the ideologues bottled for so long. It eventually starts busting at the seams (already happening), which inevitably happens with any party in a majority government.
> 
> It wouldn't have been as bad had Harper been kept to a minority.


Nope his interests parallel those of his Billionaire buddies. At the moment those buddies happen to be Alberta Oil types but I suspect the highest bidder will always prevail.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Nope his interests parallel those of his Billionaire buddies. At the moment those buddies happen to be Alberta Oil types but I suspect the highest bidder will always prevail.


Probably true, but let's remember the 'firewall around Alberta' thing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mulcair said in the House yesterday that the Harper government is either lying or incompetent.

I have to take exception to this characterization. Mulcair is wrong.

It's been shown beyond a doubt that the Harper government is both lying AND incompetent.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Michael Harris writing at iPolitics in the aftermath of the Auditor General's report on the F-35 fiasco:


> Since the finding that the Harper government was in contempt of parliament, it has all been downhill. The committee system is now like a perpetual meeting of the Skull and Bones society. When asked a question, no member of the government front bench seems to understand either of the official languages. When ministers are found in conflict of interest, the prime minister blows it off as unimportant. And now, after six years of stonewalling over the same issue that led to the contempt of parliament finding, the facts show that the government continued to mislead parliament on the F-35 file. Of course, it was somebody else's fault. This government has not only politicized public servants, it has turned them into cannon fodder.




Holy parliamentary democracy, Batman! 
What about ministerial responsibility?

The rest of it is good too.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Clearly the Harper Cons are showing that they are the scumbags the majority of Canadians felt they were at election time.

Never forget!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Our Glorious ReformaTory has finally brought clarity and transparency to Parliament. 

Nothing he proposes holds water and he believes he can do no wrong, well as long as it can't be seen then it must be clearly transparent.

All that will be left behind for Canada is muck and mire.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Our Glorious ReformaTory has finally brought clarity and transparency to Parliament.
> 
> Nothing he proposes holds water and he believes he can do no wrong, well as long as it can't be seen then it must be clearly transparent.
> 
> All that will be left behind for Canada is muck and mire.


Sounds like something Robert Service might write ............. "muck and mire". 

There are strange things done in the midnight sun 
By the men who moil for gold; 
The Arctic trails have their secret tales 
That would make your blood run cold; 
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, 
But the queerest they ever did see 
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge 
I cremated the NDP.

(with apologies to Robert W. Service)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh it just gets worse for the harper liars.
Cabinet would have known true F-35 costs: Auditor-General - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> The auditor general’s comments after committee Thursday morning bled into question period a short time later. Michael Ferguson told reporters that in March 2011, National Defence left off $10 billion from the pricetag it provided to the Parliamentary Budget Office. DND told the PBO that the full cost of the program would be around $14 billion, almost $11 billion short of the cost known by members of the government.
> 
> New Democrat MP Joe Comartin was the first up for the opposition. (Thomas Mulcair was in another part of the city preparing for a speech to the Economic Club of Canada — and, perhaps, rolling up his sleeves.) Comartin asked if the cabinet knew the true cost of the F-35?
> 
> ...


QP: Repeat after the PM: 
‘No planes have been purchased’

Accountability,accountability.accountability? Just answer the damn question.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Good point O'man good point. It should be the first questioned asked by every reporter interviewing the PM and the question every citizen should ask the PM, Cabinet Minister or Conservative MP that a citizen encounters.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

honest, open, and accountable.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Of course, all this shameful lying by Harper and his ministers, puts into perspective their insistence they knew nothing about the voter suppression schemes.

Sure thing. Because they said so eh?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> honest, open, and accountable.


That is what the Conservative Party of Canada stood for when they first won a minority government. What happened now that they are The Harper Government of Canada???


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm done dancing around the elephant in the room.

Steven Harper lied to Canada. 

The end.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

What's interesting are the number of right-leaning journalists and news outlets that are (publicly, at least) enraged over this. The National Post has been pretty vicious of late...


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

They should be outraged. But then where were the tough questions for Harper during the election when it really mattered?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> So that's it then: They knew and they lied. To Parliament. To all of us.
> 
> If Auditor General Michael Ferguson's word is to be believed — and there is no reason to think that it isn't — then the federal cabinet and by extension the prime minister, and not just the anonymous gnomes in the Department of National Defence, are directly on the hook for the F-35 boondoggle, in the most egregious sense.
> 
> ...



A-G shreds Harper's fig leaf of deniability on F-35 debacle


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*Canadians Misled*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Yep. It's tar and feather time. 

The truly worrisome thing is we still have 3 years of these buffoons lying and cheating.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's bad enough that Harper himself, needs to resign.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

To be completely fair, as I am sure the apologists will point out; King Harpo stopped believing that lying to parliament and Canadians was bad, the day he was crowned.

His actions are now quite consistent with his revised personal code of ethics.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Something that would never dawn on the trigger happy cons...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Something that would never dawn on the trigger happy cons...


That would go against Social Darwinism, gt. What are you, some sort of creationist (i.e., create a better world for one and all) ???


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

^^^^the horror, the horror!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^the horror, the horror!


"Oh the humanity ............."

Hindenburg disaster - YouTube


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Canadians not misled on F-35 costs, Tory MP says - Politics - CBC News

Well, I think that this clarifies everything, and we should now put this issue to rest and get on with the real problems that Canada faces ........... like how to pay for these jets.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Paying for the jets has already been figured out. We'll make old people work longer, and deprive people of social assistance.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> Paying for the jets has already been figured out. We'll make old people work longer, and deprive people of social assistance.


Oh ............... then problem solved. Time to move on to the next problem. So good to again have an efficient and effective majority government. :clap::clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Every once't in a while Rex Murphy hits the nail squarely on the head.

"If Stephen Harper were in Opposition now and it was Liberals who brought about this mess he would be heaving thunderbolts and breathing righteous fire about 'arrogant and incompetent Liberals.' and he would be right."

"But, you know, Liberals and Conservatives are more like twins in this stuff than either of them can bear to acknowledge."

:clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Every once't in a while Rex Murphy hits the nail squarely on the head.
> 
> "If Stephen Harper were in Opposition now and it was Liberals who brought about this mess he would be heaving thunderbolts and breathing righteous fire about 'arrogant and incompetent Liberals.' and he would be right."
> 
> ...


Good old, Rex. Yes, he hit the proverbial nail "squarely on the head". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rex is absolutely right.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I think Rex had more to say in the first 2 thirds of his monologue than what was quoted.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Shocking that Rex, one of HARPER's chief apologists in the CBC, is so critical of CON abuses in this commentary. Maybe there is hope. 

Thanks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Shocking that Rex, one of HARPER's chief apologists in the CBC, is so critical of CON abuses in this commentary. Maybe there is hope.
> 
> Thanks.


Rex as one of PM Harper's "chief apologists in the CBC"?????? Hope he never sees this posting, since it will cause him a heart attack. He has blasted all five parties here in Canada at one time, and has certainly NOT been a big fan of PM Harper.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Wow. Have you listened to him on cross country checkup? He is clearly on the other side of his audience on many political topics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Wow. Have you listened to him on cross country checkup? He is clearly on the other side of his audience on many political topics.


On the other side of his audience only when you assume you are in the mainstream.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoV93EqmnjE

He's just "an optimistic guy"

Man, how pathetic...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Y'know.... the story of the cost / cost overruns alone is scary enough... but then I was struck by something else in this report. What the heck does the USA intend to do with *2,443 F-35 warplanes*? With that kind of firepower, they could have 12.5 warplanes (each capable of pretty significant devastation) in each of the 195 countries on earth. 

_While that sinks in, go on over to The Atlantic and read_ *The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

but we can't afford good healthcare for our citizens.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I'll agree with Rex on this one. MacKay is looking pretty pathetic. Just another pretty face after all ...

And I hardly think Rex Murphy could be be construed as any sort of an apologist for the Conservative government.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> the policy of accounting for all the lifetime costs of an asset, without exception, is not some crazy invention of the Auditor-General’s, or some musty Treasury Board guideline. It is the publicly stated policy of the Department of National Defence — the department of which, if memory serves, MacKay is the minister. The policy the minister sees fit to ridicule is, according to conventional constitutional doctrine, his policy.





> The government knowingly misrepresented the true costs of the F-35 in its public statements. It knew how it was supposed to account for these, under Treasury Board rules, under the Auditor-General’s recommendation, and by its own publicly stated agreement with both. And it knew how it was doing so in its own internal documents, going back to 2010. It simply chose to tell a different story to Parliament and the public.
> 
> This isn’t some campaign slip of the lip, or the usual political weasel words, of a kind we have sadly learned to mistrust. This isn’t even a case of ministers misleading Parliament, which used to be a resigning offence. This is a government document, on a straightforward question of fact: the kind we expect we can believe. And not on some minor matter, but on an issue of the highest controversy, just before an election — an election that was in part triggered by the government’s refusal to provide documentation for these figures.
> 
> ...


Andrew Coyne: Auditor-General’s F-35 accounting complaints are déjà vu for Peter MacKay


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter MacKay is being rescued from all the flak he has been taking re the F-35s. Here he is being lifted out of Ottawa outside of Parliament by the same Search and Rescue helicopter that airlifted him out of a fishing resort in rural NL.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Anyone here that voted Conservative last time having buyers remorse?


:lmao: Great line. Mind if I use it?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Other than maybe Sinc and Screature, I am not sure anyone voted "for" any particular party in the last three or four elections. 

More likely they were voting against those parties they liked even less.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Other than maybe Sinc and Screature, I am not sure anyone voted "for" any particular party in the last three or four elections.
> 
> More likely they were voting against those parties they liked even less.


You're probably right, but this is all the more reason to regret having cast a vote for the Conservatives. I wonder how long Canadians will continue to accept our ridiculous and antiquated voting system and the broken governments it yields before accepting the disruption and risk of implementing a more modern system like the Australians use.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You're probably right, but this is all the more reason to regret having cast a vote for the Conservatives. I wonder how long Canadians will continue to accept our ridiculous and antiquated voting system and the broken governments it yields before accepting the disruption and risk of implementing a more modern system like the Australians use.


I don't regret voting Conservative despite some policies I don't like. I don't find FPTP either ridiculous or antiquated and prefer it to the "modern" system of Australia.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Harpo wants us to have a American cashocracy with lots of weapons.


America with cash? When did that happen?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I voted conservative and I'm not having 'buyer's remorse', (because I think the Liberals and the NDP would have bankrupted the country), but I am looking sideways at them and saying "Really?".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I voted conservative and I'm not having 'buyer's remorse', (because I think the Liberals and the NDP would have bankrupted the country), but I am looking sideways at them and saying "Really?".


In terms of bankrupting the country, compared to the liberal's record after 3 terms, I'd say the conservatives have proven themselves to be the biggest spenders by far. Though to be fair, I don't think many of the people I knew who voted for the conservatives believed they would do that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Each successive government spends more than the last, ergo the Conservatives are the biggest spenders in history. It's a meaningless claim.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

CBC’s At Issue panel has a good discussion on F-35.

CBC.ca Player


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> ergo the Conservatives are the biggest spenders in history. It's a meaningless claim.


Not in the least meaningless and once more a knee jerk defense of Herr Harper and his profligacy.

HE made the choices to spend more - no one else.

Martin on the other hand.



> After the Liberals formed the government, Martin was chosen as Minister of Finance by Prime Minister Chrétien, and appointed by Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn. At the time, Canada had one of the highest annual deficits of the G7 countries. Standard & Poor's had lowered its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt from AAA to AA-plus in 1992 and in 1994, Moody's lowered its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt from Aaa to Aa1, partly due to Canada's growing public debt.[4] In his debut as finance minister, *Martin made huge budget cuts that almost ground economic growth to a halt, scaling down government to 1951 levels.* I


So you are way wrong about every gov spends more.

Now Harper after his spending spree gets to dismantle his pet peeves like CBC and Science and Environment in pursuit of a brain dead right wing agenda that 60% of Canadians don't want or like.
One thing they don't like is expensive war toys to toady to the US military/industrial oligarchy....or subsidies to fat cat fossil fuel companies.

Bringing in more projects like the naval construction bids makes lots of sense as do initiatives like rapid transit and national high speed which is woefully behind schedule.

Neither a boatload of over priced ill suited F35s nor conservative appointed senators with rich pensions makes any sense at all.

Of course most Canadian's understood that - our flawed democracy allowed it - nothing else.
Harper may indeed yet out politic Chretien..and that's saying something about sleaze
......and not to the benefit of the public weal.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ya, i just don't see how anyone can mesh the idea of buying the f-35 with being fiscally responsible.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

i-rui said:


> ya, i just don't see how anyone can mesh the idea of buying the f-35 with being fiscally responsible.


Well, they're being fiscally responsible to their military-industiral masters, just like anyone with a clue knew they would be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Not in the least meaningless and once more a knee jerk defense of Herr Harper and his profligacy.
> 
> HE made the choices to spend more - no one else.
> 
> ...


Federal government spending in 1951 totaled $3.69 billion:

Alternative format - CSV document

It was $161 billion in 1994.

Nice try.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Federal government spending in 1951 totaled $3.69 billion:
> 
> Alternative format - CSV document
> 
> ...


And a loaf of bread was 12 cents in 1951.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

And the population of Canada was ~14,000,000 in 1951.

And in 1951 a CL-13 Sabre (aka F-86 Saber) fighter jet costed ~$220,000. And what do you know, they were made in Canada.

Canadair Sabre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Well the aviation design and construction industry was systematically whittled down and killed here in Canada by a certain conservative government back in the 50's-60's..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> And a loaf of bread was 12 cents in 1951.


Ever heard of the Bank of Canada inflation calculator? Handy tool. 

Inflation Calculator - Bank of Canada

I figured most people could ballpark something like this, but $3.69 billion becomes $33.63 billion with inflation only calculated. Less than 10 times higher. Spending under Martin was close to 50 times higher. Multiply the number by 2.5 to adjust for population and we're still at about a third of Martin's spending.

MacDoc's bogus numbers were taken directly from Wikipedia without checking.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Conservative MPs have rejected a public debate about which bureaucrats and military officers will appear in front of parliamentarians to discuss the F-35 controversy, including allegations that some of them misled cabinet ministers and Canadians.



Conservatives block debate over who will testify in F-35 investigation



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Cabinet had to know about procurement rules government departments broke in the decision to buy F-35 stealth fighter jets and likely were 'complicit' in the shortcuts and failings, says a prominent military expert who the New Democrats want to call as a witness at a Commons inquiry into the F-35 controversy that began Thursday.



Harper, MacKay must have known $25-billion costs of F-35 fighter jets, and procurement rules, it’s ‘inconceivable,’ says expert


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

All you need to know before the F-35 debate hits parliament

Good summary of the issue.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> PARLIAMENT HILL—Nearly two-thirds of Canadians who are aware of the government’s $25-billion plan to replace Canada’s fighter jets with the more sophisticated state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jets don’t trust Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government to do what’s best for Canada with respect to the project, a new Forum Research poll suggests.
> 
> The Forum Research poll conducted this week also found that—after a month of government denials that it withheld at least $10-billion worth of costs when the National Defence Department presented estimates to Parliament last year—two-thirds of Canadians said they believe the government did mislead Parliament.



Two-thirds of Canadians don’t trust feds on F-35s


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Reading the announcement this morning that Westjet will be buying a bunch of Bombardier Q400s, I had the thought that perhaps we should sell the air force to Westjet, or at least have them manage it. How many turbo props (built in Canada even!) could we get for $15-25B? Just equip the passengers with binoculars?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page said Thursday that he believes the government withheld key information about the full costs of the F-35 stealth fighter last year in an effort to present a lower price tag to Canadians.
> 
> The comment was made to reporters after Page told parliamentarians that the Defence Department did not provide him with important estimates associated with operating the F-35 despite being ordered to do so by a House of Commons committee.



Fire MacKay.

Government withheld key F-35 data to shield full cost from Canadians: watchdog


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> perhaps we should sell the air force to Westjet,


:clap:

and the oil industry to the Norwegians.


----------



## rampancy_fatalin. (Dec 17, 2004)

Kosh said:


> And the population of Canada was ~14,000,000 in 1951.
> 
> And in 1951 a CL-13 Sabre (aka F-86 Saber) fighter jet costed ~$220,000. And what do you know, they were made in Canada.
> 
> ...


On that note, wasn't one of the promises with Canada signing on as an F-35 Tier II partner that Canadian jobs would be generated through the involvement of Canadian tech and aerospace firms?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

rampancy_fatalin. said:


> On that note, wasn't one of the promises with Canada signing on as an F-35 Tier II partner that Canadian jobs would be generated through the involvement of Canadian tech and aerospace firms?


as much as the Harper government wants to frame it this way, there is no "promise" or guarantee that canadian companies will get those contracts. they have to bid on them like every other company in a country that initially signed on to the Memorandum of Understanding of the JSF Program.

Some countries wrote in guarantees of industrial contracts for their nation (such as Israel), but Canada hasn't followed that route.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rampancy_fatalin. said:


> On that note, wasn't one of the promises with Canada signing on as an F-35 Tier II partner that Canadian jobs would be generated through the involvement of Canadian tech and aerospace firms?


On a somewhat related matter re jobs and the Canadian tech movement, many of the technicians and engineers at MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates are leaving Canada.

"Industry Minister Christian Paradis says Canada is committed to a project that would see the construction of new satellites, but the company contracted to design the Radarsat Constellation says it's losing engineers and scientists because the government isn't spending the money required to actually build them."

Fate of Canadian satellite project unclear - Politics - CBC News


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Avro Arrow: Tories Were Pitched Plan To Resurrect Famous Aircraft Instead Of Buying F-35s*





> A Canadian company is seeking to go back in time to help fly Canada's air force into the future.
> 
> Documents obtained by the Global News program “The West Block” indicate an update to the storied CF-105 Avro Arrow was put forward as an alternative to the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets.
> 
> And among the project's champions is one of Canada's top soldiers, retired Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.


(HuffingtonPost)

*Will legendary Avro Arrow make Lazarus-like return?*



> The revive-the-Avro campaign is the latest bizarre twist in a military purchase that’s gone awry on the Harper government’s watch.
> 
> The Conservatives, embarrassed by the rising costs of the U.S.-designed F-35 Lightning jets that the Royal Canadian Air Force sorely wants to purchase, are currently rethinking options for a next generation fighter.
> 
> Mr. MacKenzie and a group of design, engineering and logistics experts are pressing Ottawa to consider the long-discarded CF-105 plane.





> Marc Bourdeau, a former Canadian public servant spearheading the CF-105 proposal, rejects the notion this is a pipe dream.
> 
> “This is not an exercise in nostalgia. This is an exercise in defence and industrial policy for Canada.”
> 
> ...


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

As much as I'm saddened by the story of the Avro Arrow's destruction and would feel proud to see it rise again, I can't see bringing out a 1950's fighter design and using it, even if it was ahead of it's time, back then. There would be too much that would need updating in the design. 

Canada would be better making a deal with Boeing to build Superhornets in Canada or a deal with the European NATO countries to build the Eurofighter Typhoon in Canada. I certainly can't see why we can't manufacture fighter jets in Canada.

As well, if we use one of these 2 designs, we can find and share parts. Ie. If we're doing patrols in a no-fly zone in the middle east, and need parts, they don't have to come all the way from Canada, they can be found locally.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Nothing to hide? Why all the obfuscation and lack of transparency?
House of Commons trying to stop release of e-mails on F-35 purchase - The Globe and Mail


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I finally got around to watching the latest fifth estate episode which i PVR'd last friday. It's on the F-35, and i highly recommend anyone interested in the subject to give it a view :

Watch Full Episode - Runaway Fighter - the fifth estate


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

i-rui said:


> I finally got around to watching the latest fifth estate episode which i PVR'd last friday. It's on the F-35, and i highly recommend anyone interested in the subject to give it a view :
> 
> Watch Full Episode - Runaway Fighter - the fifth estate


...not so fast there...prejudging the interests of fellow Ehmacians.

I watched and I came away convinced of the Harper's Strong Stable Majority Conservative Governments™ folly on this issue. 

It will be truly interesting if this plane "never get off the ground" because of overruns on cost and delays in design & production. I should love to see HSSMCG™ fall all over their tongues if the F35 failed to be produced.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You toss around the ™ like it is meaningless and it is, when you use it in that manner, at your whim.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

F-35s scrapped by Conservatives as audit puts true cost past $30B | Full Comment | National Post

It's dead. Killed before a really damning report on how much more it's going to cost.

Holy colossal bungle batman.

Waiting to hear the spinmasters work it that it's someone else's fault. Hide the photo of McKay in the jet quick though.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> F-35s scrapped by Conservatives as audit puts true cost past $30B | Full Comment | National Post
> 
> It's dead. Killed before a really damning report on how much more it's going to cost.
> 
> ...


Just when I think the current crop of lunatics is totally hopeless, this happens.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Best news I've heard in a while from Ottawa. Can't wait to hear the thrashing and moaning from south of the border on this one. Maybe now someone can take a serious look at jets that suit our *defence* needs, per climate / territory / mission, rather than putting as top priority our ability to support U.S. imperialist wars halfway 'round the world.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Er. Um. Uh-oh.... _ 

*F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist*



> The Conservative government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.
> 
> The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.


(CBC)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> _Er. Um. Uh-oh.... _
> 
> *F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist*
> 
> ...


Just when you think there might be a smidgeon of hope?

It's Gone!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_They saw the writing on the wall - the U.S. program is about to go nipples-skyward, it seems..._

*Canada's contentious F-35 figures in danger of falling off U.S. fiscal cliff*



> With Washington poised to slash defence spending, either voluntarily or by the force of a congressional deadline, there is the real possibility the U.S. could dramatically reduce the number of F-35s it intends to buy from the current 2,243.
> 
> For American budget hawks "this is a target shining like a bonfire in the dark," said Paul Malliet, a former air force colonel who worked on Canada's acquisition of the current CF-18 fleet.
> "It has gotten so expensive, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that this program isn't recognizable in six months."


(CTVnews)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It's funny when all of the Conservative boys (Peter MacKay, Laurie Hawn, Julian Fantino, and Bernard Valcourt) couldn't figure out the costs of new jets how to buy a choice of one. They had the whole situation into a mess. Then they handed the failed plan to a woman to figure it out.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Well Harper's Strong Stable Majority Conservative Government™ must have been watching conservatives in those Excited States. 

During the Republican Primary season and especially the Romney campaign. After Romney was first up after the Primaries his campaign team indicated they would turn the Etch A Sketch™ upside down and shake it to start afresh for the General Election campaign.

Seems Rona, Petey et al thought the Etch A Sketch™ gambit may not be such good idea. Well who could blame them, considering the General Election for President of them Excited States was Romney's to *lose,* which Romney with a grand flourish.

Well what did Rona, Petey et al come up with to reverse everything said by the HSSMC Government™ well sir the "Reset Button™." It is all everyone's fault...well everyone except HSSMCG™ or the Harper's Minority Government™ version 1.0 and 2.0. 

We shall all have to forget Harper's Minority Government™ V 2.0 that itself kicked out of government for being in contempt of Parliament for not bringing forth the facts on such things as the costs for the acquisition of the only aircraft ever good enough for Canada the F35.

Poor tired old Conservative Government, in control these last 7 years, out of ideas and out strategies. Tic, tic, tic, 2015 looms ever closer.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Poor tired old Conservative Government, in control these last 7 years, out of ideas and out strategies.


They've never been short of ideas; The Great Canadian Theocracy... the Great Canadian Corporatocracy... the 'Sell Canadian Resources and Corporations to the highest bidder" idea, the Great Canadian Union-Busting, the Great Canadian Secret Free Trade Deals, the Great Canadian Denial of Science, the Great Canadian Military Support for Whoever the Conservatives Like Right Now Deal, etc. They're just not sure how to pull these brilliant initiatives off, even _with_ a majority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> They've never been short of ideas; The Great Canadian Theocracy... the Great Canadian Corporatocracy... the 'Sell Canadian Resources and Corporations to the highest bidder" idea, the Great Canadian Union-Busting, the Great Canadian Secret Free Trade Deals, the Great Canadian Denial of Science, the Great Canadian Military Support for Whoever the Conservatives Like Right Now Deal, etc. They're just not sure how to pull these brilliant initiatives off, even _with_ a majority.


That's a sad logical fallacy. It's pretty embarrassing for you to make up a phony agenda for them, then claim they are simply incapable of achieving it.

A parallel example--"bryanc wants to burn all of the books he disagrees with, but the fact that he hasn't done so proves he's too stupid to know how to light a match."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> They've never been short of ideas; The Great Canadian Theocracy... the Great Canadian Corporatocracy... the 'Sell Canadian Resources and Corporations to the highest bidder" idea, the Great Canadian Union-Busting, the Great Canadian Secret Free Trade Deals, the Great Canadian Denial of Science, the Great Canadian Military Support for Whoever the Conservatives Like Right Now Deal, etc. They're just not sure how to pull these brilliant initiatives off, even _with_ a majority.


 We are talking about the same issues. Respectfully, I believe the ideas and ideology of the HSSMCG™ are all based on the 80's conservative ideology and all distill down to Free Trade, Privatization and Deregulation. 

As you point out HSSMCG™ engages in data suppression, they have learned an important lesson since the 80's. Ideas do not stand up very well to empirical data. 

Data from census forms, data from scientific investigation and data from any credible independent sources. Cut the funding or cut the project but most importantly suppress the data.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

™ ? Patent too? Or is it all in your mind?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> _Er. Um. Uh-oh.... _
> 
> *F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist*
> 
> ...


In other words, nothing has changed. There never was a contract, no money was committed, this is a future project that they are still gathering information on. Quite literally, there's nothing to see here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If these planes could be guaranteed to be built with Union Labour™ some people would become ardent supporters.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

heavyall said:


> In other words, nothing has changed. There never was a contract, no money was committed, this is a future project that they are still gathering information on. Quite literally, there's nothing to see here.


Well all the money jetting Conservatives around for photo-ops all the money spent on crowing about what they committed to. 

Lets see there were cost for Kevin Page's report, the Auditor General's report. KPMG (and their report) apparently work is free..well at least in some minds or maybe they forgot. That's just to find out what HMGv2.0 refused to provide the Parliament and the people of Canada. Then there were costs for an election because of the refusal to provide the numbers on the F35. 

Now Elections Canada is probing voter suppression as a result of the election cased by the HMGv2.0 refusal to provide the information. 

Not mention all the time wasted not making a decision. The CF 18's will have to be refurbished (added costs) to extend their lifecycle until the replacement plane that HSSMCG™ is committed to with no decision made and no formal process (public tender) for a replacement.

So the reset button has been hit and apparently works on some. All is forgotten.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would say that, all things considered, the Conservatives are looking pretty good after seven years in power.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I would say that, all things considered, the Conservatives are looking pretty good after seven years in power.


I had no idea they now sell rose coloured glasses with 3D and Dolby ][ Surround Sound!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> I had no idea they now sell rose coloured glasses with 3D and Dolby ][ Surround Sound!


By now, most parties would have imploded. The level of scandal is less than I would have expected at this point.

If you read _The Tyee,_ you would think the world had come to an end.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> I would say that, all things considered, the Conservatives are looking pretty good after seven years in power.


For sure. Far from perfect, yet still one of the best governments this country had seen. Best in at least 40 years.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

heavyall said:


> Best in at least 40 years.


Wow. It is a tribute to the diversity of this country that it's citizens can hold such diametrically opposed views and still manage to carry on a civilized discussion. I would characterize Harper's government as the worst we've had to endure since Mulroney. And I'd even take Mulroney over Harper now; but in historical context Mulroney was a radical right winger.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I had no idea they now sell rose coloured glasses with 3D and Dolby ][ Surround Sound!


^ :lmao: :clap:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

heavyall said:


> In other words, nothing has changed. There never was a contract, no money was committed, this is a future project that they are still gathering information on. Quite literally, there's nothing to see here.


How do we know? A case of "...nothing to see here." Is it a case of *not as yet * but what is this Conservative Government hiding? Is it like the embezzler who never takes a day off and stays late so no one gets a look at the books?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Is it like the embezzler who never takes a day off and stays late so no one gets a look at the books?


Well, this could certainly not be a union-employed embezzler!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

This post isn't about the need, the politics, or anything else. Simply the cost...

Disclaimer: the link is from Sun News (which, BTW, I rarely read, got the link from an unrelated search). If that offends you, don't click on it.



> You are being lied to about the cost of fighter jets, except the lying isn’t being done by the government.
> 
> If you’ve paid attention to the news at all lately, you’ve heard about the “rising costs” of replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets with the new F-35.
> 
> ...


Emphasis mine.

I don't have a problem with the accounting method. If that is what is required, fine: do it. That said, how about other gov't expenditures using the same method? A little apples to apples comparison, non?

Just for the fun of it, let's do that with a single, specific government expense, the much vanted MotherCorp: CBC. Current budget? $990 million. For the sake of basic math, I'm going to assume that number doesn't go up (highly unlikely). Over 40 years, the period used by KPMG for the F-35 analysis?

$39.6 billion. 

Against 45.8 billion for the F-35's. Within 15% of the cost to operate CBC for the same period, again, assuming the unlikely scenario that there is no increase in CBC's funding.

Sometimes a tiny bit of perspective is all that is needed...


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Sheer craziness. Why doesn't the govt buy the Chinese knockoff version of the F35? It's called the J31. And it's already working. On time and on budget. 

Use our heads a bit and we can refine jet fuel for the sucker out of the tar sand bitumen around Fort Mac.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Sheer craziness. Why doesn't the govt buy the Chinese knockoff version of the F35? It's called the J31. And it's already working. On time and on budget.
> 
> Use our heads a bit and we can refine jet fuel for the sucker out of the tar sand bitumen around Fort Mac.



The J31 is not in production. Only a prototype has been flown.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Macfury said:


> The J31 is not in production. Only a prototype has been flown.


All the more reason. And timely too. Our new found friends.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> All the more reason. And timely too. Our new found friends.


When did you say the J31 was going into production again?


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Macfury said:


> When did you say the J31 was going into production again?


Perhaps once we sign on. Think of the spinoffs. A no brainer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> A no brainer.


Agreed.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> This post isn't about the need, the politics, or anything else. Simply the cost...
> 
> Disclaimer: the link is from Sun News (which, BTW, I rarely read, got the link from an unrelated search). If that offends you, don't click on it.
> 
> ...


Really? Someone believes that anyone know what will happen 40 years into the future. Believe in OuiJa Boards how's about tarot cards, these have the same chance as KPMG seeing the future. 

The more interesting number is 9 Billion. What is 9 Billion dollars going to buy since the reset button has been pressed? How many planes? How "well equipped" will the planes purchased for 9 Billion dollars. 

Originally 65 F35 fully equipped less weapons, but the price included training and simulators for 9 Billion. The 9 Billion dollar being touted presently buys what since the reset button has been pressed.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Perhaps once we sign on. Think of the spinoffs. A no brainer.


That would be exactly the same process though. Express enough interest in the project that production goes ahead. Impossible to know the final cost until well into the production run, and the final full cost would still include around $1 billion per year in maintenance costs. Probably MORE if they're anything like most other things build in China.

That's the important point that the people who are so opposed to this process are missing: the vast majority of the future costs being tossed out are in maintenance. The longer the term, the higher the total. These are costs we will incur even if we buy nothing because we have to maintain the planes we do have. 

The actual costs of the new jets themselves is minuscule in comparison. The worst-case scenario as projected by the KPMG audit is still UNDER the original $9 Billion estimate that the Conservatives have been saying all along. Not only is the difference in the prices of the other options minimal too, for the most part the other choices cost more per plane:

F-35: $88 million
F-18 Super Hornet: $88 million
Saab Gripen: $100 million+
Eurofighter Typhoon: $100 million+
Dassault Rafale: $100 million+


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Yawn...The Artic just needs a quick sweep,
Canada could do that by a satellite, Why do they need a jet.

Better to just increase the arctic planes that they have than fighter jets,
Really, Aren't cargo planes more important in the north than jets?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Really? Someone believes that anyone know what will happen 40 years into the future. Believe in OuiJa Boards how's about tarot cards, these have the same chance as KPMG seeing the future.


Hey, just using the same math for CBC as for the F-35's. Accurate or not, same playing field. I referred specifically to the $46 billion headlines that the whiners have been on about all week.



BigDL said:


> The more interesting number is 9 Billion. What is 9 Billion dollars going to buy since the reset button has been pressed? How many planes? How "well equipped" will the planes purchased for 9 Billion dollars.
> 
> Originally 65 F35 fully equipped less weapons, but the price included training and simulators for 9 Billion. The 9 Billion dollar being touted presently buys what since the reset button has been pressed.


I've no idea. I haven't followed this story in some time (upwards of a year).


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

heavyall said:


> The actual costs of the new jets themselves is minuscule in comparison. The worst-case scenario as projected by the KPMG audit is still UNDER the original $9 Billion estimate that the Conservatives have been saying all along. Not only is the difference in the prices of the other options minimal too, for the most part the other choices cost more per plane:
> 
> F-35: $88 million
> F-18 Super Hornet: $88 million
> ...


We are not paying $88 million per plane! You are very wrong there.

It's more in the neigbourhood of $138-$156million per unit (with engines)!

The Americans are not even paying that little and they need over 2000 of these planes (TBD now I guess).

The is NO flyaway cost for the F-35 yet as there are cost overruns and costs valuations contingent on numbers sold...


The Super Hornet is $67 million per plane (flyaway cost!)

The Super Hornet shares many parts and spares with planes we have, so costs go down even further for support and maintenance.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 ? at half the price*



> Boeing isn't pulling its punches. The Super Hornet, it says, is a proven fighter while the F-35 is just a concept — and an expensive one at that.
> 
> "We call it competing with a paper airplane," says Ricardo Traven, Boeing's chief test pilot for the Super Hornet. A Canadian who flew fighters for 15 years in the Canadian air force, Traven dismisses the F-35 as a "shiny brochure of promises," and contrasts it with "the real thing," which looms behind him in a top-secret hangar at Boeing's vast production line in St. Louis, Missouri.





> It has two engines to the F-35's one — and, unlike the F-35, it's ready now. Some 500 Super Hornets are already in service with the U.S. Navy. Dozens have already been sold to the Australian air force, which, like Canada, was once committed to the F-35 but gave up waiting for it to prove itself.





> The Super Hornet currently sells for about $55 million US apiece; the Pentagon expects the F-35 to cost twice as much — about $110 million.





> As it stands, the official estimate for a fleet of 65 F-35s is that they will cost $9 billion to buy and almost $37 billion to operate over the next 42 years. So, a total of just under $46 billion. If Boeing's figures hold up, the Super Hornets would cost about half that.
> 
> The math is easy, but the result is eye-popping nonetheless. It's a saving of up to $23 billion.





> On the Super Hornet, "sacrifices were not made for the purpose of stealth," he explains. After numerous winter landings on frozen Canadian runways, he says, "You want an airplane with large control surfaces, large flaps … these things give the airplane a lot of manoeuverability."





> These factors, Traven insists, make the Super Hornet more "survivable," even if it's less stealthy. Similarly, he touts the virtues of having twin engines. Sure, the F-35's single engine may be very reliable, he says — but what if a bird gets sucked in?
> 
> "It's the goose that didn't get the memo," he says, which could destroy a single-engined aircraft. With two engines, the pilot can still fly. Equally, Traven says, the Super Hornet's landing gear is more rugged and more suited to snowy or slushy northern runways.
> 
> "Twin engines, dual redundant hydraulics … I mean, I can go on and on," Traven enthuses. "Those are the things I don't want to give up in flying to remote places or even in combat, because those are the things that'll bring you home."


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would suggest buying some Super Hornets and a few F-35s, when available, as stealth models.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

They can now use the savings to balance the books on this ship.

"Military supply ships $1.5B over budget, watchdog says

Report tallies military's new supply ships at $4.13 billion, not $2.6 billion"

Military supply ships $1.5B over budget, watchdog says - Politics - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They need to sign fixed-price contracts on the ships.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I always thought the Super Hornet from Boeing was a worthwhile, practical and reasonable option, and it fits Canada's requirement.

If they ever get the F-35 mass produced and sell it to anybody other than the US, then we can look at it then.

At least if we buy the Super Hornets, our air force will have something to fly in the next couple of years.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> They can now use the savings to balance the books on this ship.
> 
> "Military supply ships $1.5B over budget, watchdog says
> 
> ...


Tssk Tssk Dr.G. They haven't spent a dime. You can't hang this one on Our Glorious Leader. He hasn't wasted any money because he won't spend any money on ships building.

He and his buddy Petter just make announcements and Action Plan Advertising but nothing spent for ships. Now the money wasted on Action Plan advertising is a whole n'other matter.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Tssk Tssk Dr.G. They haven't spent a dime. You can't hang this one on Our Glorious Leader. He hasn't wasted any money because he won't spend any money on ships building.
> 
> He and his buddy Petter just make announcements and Action Plan Advertising but nothing spent for ships. Now the money wasted on Action Plan advertising is a whole n'other matter.


Good to hear, BigDL. Now they have money for a super grand gazebo somewhere in our fine country. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

They should retro-fit these ships to become aircraft carriers capable of launching and landing F-35s. That would cost a pretty penny, but think of the photo-op at the launch of that ship????


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I would suggest buying some Super Hornets and a few F-35s, when available, as stealth models.


Won't work

Pilots would need to qualify on both planes and get hours in both.

We have a hard enough time gets pilots hours in one model of plane.

It would be a logistical nightmare for parts, support, mission operations, etc. etc.

It's do-able but not without losing any cost advantage


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

smashedbanana said:


> Won't work
> 
> Pilots would need to qualify on both planes and get hours in both.
> 
> ...



That makes sense.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Planes on a budget eh?
Maybe Obama could gift us a fleet of free F-16 fighter jets like he recently did for our Allies in Egypt? In light of the political situation, I just hope they were fitted with a secret satellite controlled kill switches.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Northrop is offering the F-35's radar (APG-81-AESA) for use in the Super Hornet now.

It's a proven, award-winning piece of gear. So hopefully they can customize the Super Hornet and get us a real plane that works with the best of both worlds.

As for stealth,

I'm not sure people understand that stealth can be an over-rated technology. It's only as good as your enemies lack of detection and it requires the plane to travel at sub-sonic speeds with no external ordanace or fueltanks. Canada traditionally has not flown the type of missions that require stealth. Such a mission would be a group of special forces on the ground, behind enemy lines painting a target with a laser indicator, followed by a stealth plane flying in with no offessive load, just a smartbomb in an internal rack. We saw F-117s deliver these type of missions in Gulf War 1. 

These are surgical attacks. Canada has been more involved in sanctioned, peace keeping type missions. Enforcing no-fly zones, etc. etc. Bomb runs on areas not specific people.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots*



> The Conservative government should exclude the F-35 from its search for replacements for Canada's CF-18 jets after a leaked Pentagon report found more flaws with the stealth fighter, opposition critics say.
> 
> An evaluation criticizes the visibility in the cockpit of the multi-role fighter, and contains blunt comments from test pilots that suggest the shortcomings could get planes shot down in combat. The design prevents pilots from looking behind them.





> Pilots have also cited concerns about the sophisticated helmet that's supposed to display data, saying there are flickering and non-existent readings.
> 
> Vocal critics, such as aviation expert Winslow Wheeler, say the F-35 is not ready for combat training, let alone combat.





> NDP procurement critic Matthew Kellway said Lockheed Martin has a brochure while the other competitors have real planes.
> 
> "I think the challenge for the government now is: How do you run a legitimate competition that pits a paper fighter against real, operational fighter jets that can be flown and tested?" he said.


(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35*



> Lockheed Martin, the giant U.S. defence contractor, is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet — but it's simultaneously raising the price by a hefty $20 million US a plane.
> 
> Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O'Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million





> Another Washington defence analyst, former Pentagon official Pierre Sprey, says the real cost will be far higher than advertised.
> 
> "This airplane — despite what the air force says, or Lockheed Martin or Canadian generals — this aircraft will come close to costing a quarter of a billion dollars apiece," says Sprey.
> 
> ...





> Lockheed Martin is also sending a Canadian combat veteran into the battle: Billie Flynn.





> Flynn is something of a star among stars — a veteran test pilot who can fly anything. He's married to Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. He served 23 years in the air force, flew combat missions in Kosovo, and has piloted 70 different aircraft — everything from Canada's CF-18 to the Eurofighter Typhoon.



*This is the part that gets me ROTFL:*



> "Stealth is not an accessory," he says. "It is an absolute basic that you have to have … to go to war in this day and age. If you don't have it, you won't be allowed to play."





> "When we talk about surveillance over the Arctic, stealth comes directly into play … you will not be able to fly at 25,000 feet, as I did in Kosovo, and live in some sort of sanctuary. They can reach out and touch you."


*Who, Billie? The Russians?*

(CBC)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The thought occurs to me that had Canada not been allowed to play in Afghanistan and Libya, perhaps even this spendthrift bunch of yes-men could have avoided deficit budgets.

Forget stealth go for something we know really works.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Saw those $2 million Darth Vader helmets on CBC last night ................. cool ............. if only they worked ................ and if only they did not cost that much .............. and if only there were not children who go to school hungry each day .................... and if only there were not elderly senior citizens who also go to bed hungry each day ................... and if only ................................


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Saw those $2 million Darth Vader helmets on CBC last night ................. cool ............. if only they worked ................ and if only they did not cost that much .............. and if only there were not children who go to school hungry each day .................... and if only there were not elderly senior citizens who also go to bed hungry each day ................... and if only ................................


there is no more precise measure of ones priorities than how they spend other people's money


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc said:


> there is no more precise measure of ones priorities than how they spend other people's money


Well, some of that money is my hard earned tax dollars going for a helmet, when I would rather see it go to feed children and senior citizens. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, some of that money is my hard earned tax dollars going for a helmet, when I would rather see it go to feed children and senior citizens. Paix, mon ami.


For a second I thought you were suggesting that we feed senior citizens to the children. That breaks even _my_ heart.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> For a second I thought you were suggesting that we feed senior citizens to the children. That breaks even _my_ heart.


Actually, that is not a bad idea .............. it would allow for cost over runs of these helmets (since they don't seem to work most of the time) .................. or allow for the purchase of more and more and more jets. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Soylent grey?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Soylent grey?


:clap::lmao::clap::lmao:


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Doing it the other way would reduce population growth, and be very tender as well.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*F-35 Report Looking At Rivals Now Complete, Government Says*










_The ball is now firmly in the Harper government's court when it comes to deciding whether to stick with the oft-maligned F-35 fighter jet program.

After almost 18 months of exhaustive research and analysis, a key report that will determine whether there will be an open competition to replace the air force's aging CF-18s has been completed, the public works minister said Friday.

The analysis looks at fighter jets already on the market, how suited they would be for Canada's defence needs, their cost and potential benefits.

The review was part of a package of research the Conservative government ordered as a way to douse the political fire started in 2012 following a scathing report by the auditor general, which accused National Defence and Public Works of low-balling the enormous cost of the stealth fighter program and not doing their homework.

Diane Finley did not release the findings of the market analysis, conducted by four outside defence experts.

"Over the next several weeks we will be carefully reviewing a number of reports relating to the evaluation of options, industrial benefits, costs and other factors related to the decision to replace our CF-18 fleet," Finley told a Vancouver business audience._

* * *

_The panel looked at information from five rival aircraft makers: Lockheed Martin, the F-35's manufacturer; Boeing's Super Hornet; EADS Eurofighter, also known as the Typhoon; Dassault's French-built Rafale; and the Saab-manufactured Gripen from Sweden._

*And just a few reader's comments to the story:*



> *Kevin W. (KNW)*
> 
> Not only does the F-35 have a gas tank the size of a pea and an operational range of shouting distance, they're " irrelevant" without the F-22 which cannot be sold outside the US. If we end up buying them, any politician who thinks the F-35 is a good purchase needs to have their salaries garnished to pay for 'em.





> *Leo F. (LeoF)*
> 
> Since I and most tax-paying Canadians will be paying for the F-35 for the rest of our lives ($44 billion over 40 years) without my explicit agreement, we are owed some explanations:
> 
> ...





> *Warren Yuill (Warren_Yuill)*
> 
> Only the f-35 brings 9-10 billion worth of contracts for Canadian aerospace companies.
> Because we are level 3 partners in the f-35 development program.
> ...


(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Which plane do you want them to buy, CubaMark?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

From CM's link:



> Leo F. (LeoF)
> 
> Since I and most tax-paying Canadians will be paying for the F-35 for the rest of our lives ($44 billion over 40 years) without my explicit agreement, we are owed some explanations:


I've noted this before but it bears repeating.

That $44 billion over the next 40 years is almost exactly what the CBC will reap from Canadian taxpayers over the same time frame at current rates of support.

Ol' Leo wants explanations.

Me, too...


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

FeXL said:


> From CM's link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If we buy these planes we are committed. End of story. $44 Billion or more.

As for the CBC - 40 years is a long time of different governments, different budgets, different priorities. It's not the same thing at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

smashedbanana said:


> If we buy these planes we are committed. End of story. $44 Billion or more.
> 
> As for the CBC - 40 years is a long time of different governments, different budgets, different priorities. It's not the same thing at all.


Of course it's the same. It's a payment for a product over a length of time. Both the airplanes and the CBC span different governments. If you preserve the CBC in any form it will have a basic fixed costs that can't be eliminated, just as with the airplanes.

I'd say the only difference is that with the F-35s at least you have some airplanes. With the CBC,all you get are some episodes of _Little Mosque on the Prairie_.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Of course it's the same. It's a payment for a product over a length of time. Both the airplanes and the CBC span different governments. If you preserve the CBC in any form it will have a basic fixed costs that can't be eliminated, just as with the airplanes.
> 
> I'd say the only difference is that with the F-35s at least you have some airplanes. With the CBC,all you get are some episodes of _Little Mosque on the Prairie_.


No it's not. Not at all.

The bulk of the costs for the planes will be in the initial contract ($29 Billion). The remainder is support costs. There is zero chance that once these planes are purchased that any future government of any ideology grounding these planes and lay off the airforce.

No one is earmarking $29 Billion for CBC today, irrevocably. 

They may get the money, but it's not guaranteed. It has to survive 29 subsequent budgets to get to what the CF-35 will start at.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

smashedbanana said:


> They may get the money, but it's not guaranteed. It has to survive 29 subsequent budgets to get to what the CF-35 will start at.


Absolutely. Neither is the purchase of the F-35 guaranteed. However, we're talking about projected costs.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Absolutely. Neither is the purchase of the F-35 guaranteed. However, we're talking about projected costs.


What?

Once pen hits paper $29 Billion will be spent. That's it.

Unless your argument is that a future government will be willing to leave Canada defenseless then I don't follow.

No one is tabling a bill to sign over $29 Billion to the CBC.

Once the procurement is done then it's done. Support costs do not have to get any approval. It's all under the umbrella of the defense budget.

The CBC will have to survive 40 budgets in that same time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

smashedbanana said:


> The CBC will have to survive 40 budgets in that same time.


The CBC has already survived 62 budgets since the arrival of television. That it would survive another 40 is not a stretch.

Also, the money used to pay for the planes would not wind up entirely in the current year's account.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, if the government of the day is going to continue to support U.S. military adventures around the world, I'd rather we had nothing 

But the realistic answer is - I dunno. But the critiques of the F-35 have raised a lot of cautionary flags - summarized _ad nauseum_ in this thread - as to it's operational relevance to the Canadian context. Things like ridiculously small fuel tanks... a single engine.... unproven avionics.... etc.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

My own thoughts are that since Harper really wants these planes he probably should not get them. 

The planes are perfect for supporting the next round of US invasions, but not at all suited to Canadian needs. There are options better suited to Canada's needs and that is the route Harper should go. 

Time to clearly establish Canada's status as an independent nation. If the USA wants to continue its fiscal self-destruction with never ending military invasions let them do so without our help.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Well, if the government of the day is going to continue to support U.S. military adventures around the world, I'd rather we had nothing
> 
> But the realistic answer is - I dunno. But the critiques of the F-35 have raised a lot of cautionary flags - summarized _ad nauseum_ in this thread - as to it's operational relevance to the Canadian context. Things like ridiculously small fuel tanks... a single engine.... unproven avionics.... etc.


Since you can't be sure how they will eventually be used, I guess your choice is nothing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Do *you* believe, given what is known of the F-35's operational capabilities (beyond offensive / stealth issues), that it is the appropriate aircraft for what should be it's core purpose - national defence / protecting the homeland?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Do *you* believe, given what is known of the F-35's operational capabilities (beyond offensive / stealth issues), that it is the appropriate aircraft for what should be it's core purpose - national defence / protecting the homeland?


No. I think as initially priced and conceived it was a contender, but no longer is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Do *you* believe, given what is known of the F-35's operational capabilities (beyond offensive / stealth issues), that it is the appropriate aircraft for what should be it's core purpose - national defence / protecting the homeland?





Macfury said:


> No. I think as initially priced and conceived it was a contender, but no longer is.


Nope, not now for even a minute.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canadian Military Use Of F-35s Too Dangerous Over Arctic, Groups Say*

_Two groups opposed to the possible purchase of the F-35 say the single-engine jet fighter would be too dangerous for the Canadian military to use over remote stretches of the country, particularly the Arctic.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute released a new report Monday that argues whatever jet replaces the country's CF-18s should have two engines.

The study, by defence expert Michael Byers, follows a report months ago that questioned the enormous cost of the Lockheed Martin stealth fighter.

Public Works Minister Diane Finley told the House of Commons on Monday there's been no decision on whether the government will stick with the controversial F-35 or proceed with a full competition.

A market analysis, which looked at alternatives and was compiled by a panel of independent experts, is still being assessed._

* * * *​
_Byers argued Monday that cabinet needs to consider the safety aspect of operating a single-engine fighter and he compares the F-35 to the CF-104 Starfighter, which also had a single engine.

The Starfighter was used by the air force for 26 years — from the 1960s to the 1980s — and was involved in crashes so often it was nicknamed "The Widow Maker" by pilots.

Byers said about a quarter of the jet’s 110 crashes were attributed to bird strikes, which resulted in engine failure. A total of 39 pilots died flying the CF-104s.

"We learned that lesson in 1980" when the Trudeau government chose the twin-engine CF-18, Byers said. "It seems now that the government may be forgetting that lesson. And I would not want the F-35 to be Canada's next widow maker."

The debate over whether a single — or duel — engine fighter was appropriate given the country's vast geography has raged in fits and starts since the Harper government elected to pursue the F-35 in the summer of 2010._

(HuffPo)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Canadian Military Use Of F-35s Too Dangerous Over Arctic, Groups Say*
> 
> _Two groups opposed to the possible purchase of the F-35 say the single-engine jet fighter would be too dangerous for the Canadian military to use over remote stretches of the country, particularly the Arctic.
> 
> ...


Rather scary to contemplate Trudeau (Sr) proving smarter than Harpo. 

Still Harpo does faithfully toe the corporate line. No reason to expect him to allow either intelligence or common sense to stand between him and the puppet masters. His loyalty is beyond reproach, but sadly that loyalty is not directed to Canada's military, vets or citizens.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Here comes the curmudgeon, again...



CubaMark said:


> The Starfighter was used by the air force for 26 years — from the 1960s to the 1980s — and was involved in crashes so often it was nicknamed "The Widow Maker" by pilots.
> 
> Byers said about a quarter of the jet’s 110 crashes were attributed to bird strikes, which resulted in engine failure. A total of 39 pilots died flying the CF-104s.
> 
> "We learned that lesson in 1980" when the Trudeau government chose the twin-engine CF-18, Byers said. "It seems now that the government may be forgetting that lesson. And I would not want the F-35 to be Canada's next widow maker."


Disclaimer: FWIW, I, too, would prefer an aircraft with dual engines for a numbers of reasons which I won't get into here

That said, I jes' luvs it when some idiot "journalist" starts playing fast & loose with facts to make a story "spectacular", just to sell copy.

However...



> Although this high accident rate was more a contribution of the low-level role than any problem with the aircraft.



Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Fighter (1958)



> In many cases, however, accidents were deemed the fault of other things besides the aircraft itself, either through pilot error or outside forces damaging integral Starfighter components.


Today's single-engine jets are not ‘widow makers’



> In defence of the CF-104, they were designed to intercept high-altitude bombers. When ICBM’s took over the 104s were tasked as low-level fighter-bombers. The small, thin wing needed to catch intruders quickly was a serious liability when flying low and slow. That led to its “Widow Maker” reputation. *The single engine used in most of the era’s fighters had little to do with it.*


M'bold.

And, how many of those 39 Canadian pilots died as a direct result of engine failure? The story makes it sound like all of them but it is clear to anyone who takes a second glance that it wasn't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The left has no respect for cause and effect, FeXL.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

It just gets bloody tiresome.

It's the same _modus operandi_, day after day after day. Some idiot, whether a hypocritical globetrotter bleating about global warming or someone unquestionably pushing solar panelled roadways as the next sliced bread or another selling snake oil as a cure for cancer, piles on the quotes out of context, the blatant lies, the outright ignorance to form some sort of house of cards argument that a 9 year old could topple from 30 yards with a peashooter. 

Along comes the nearest progressive to quote the BS as some sort of fact and all it takes is 3 minutes with a search engine and a little common dog-f*ck to turn everything they quoted into mince meat. And, for pointing out the bindingly obvious or even asking a salient question you get called curmudgeon or denier or some other decidedly unflattering term because they know you've nailed their hide to the wall.

Otherwise, why wouldn't they counter your argument with a fact filled refutation of their own?

Then, rather than actually learning something from the experience & researching what next they blather on about, they go blithely on to promulgate whatever urban legend slaps them in the forehead next.

Question everything, people, even me!

And, no, CM, this isn't about you in particular but the whole spectrum in general. What is it about much of the left never letting facts get in the way of a good story?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> It just gets bloody tiresome ..... What is it about much of the left never letting facts get in the way of a good story?


It does get tiresome from our perspective as well... when we see much of the right never letting scientific fact get in the way of their policy agendas.

Rather than focus on this most recent article, a review of this thread from the beginning will provide more than sufficient *fact* to lead any reasonable person to conclude that the F-35 is *not* the fighter that Canada needs. 

What the F-35 is: a warplane that is intended and will be used to support U.S. overseas wars of questionable merit (if the recent past is anything to go by). 

The F-35 is *not* and aircraft built to the needs of Canadian domestic defence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Many of us agree that the F-35 is not the choice we would make. However, presenting false or poorly researched information is not the way we would go about persuading others to agree with us.



CubaMark said:


> It does get tiresome from our perspective as well... when we see much of the right never letting scientific fact get in the way of their policy agendas.
> 
> Rather than focus on this most recent article, a review of this thread from the beginning will provide more than sufficient *fact* to lead any reasonable person to conclude that the F-35 is *not* the fighter that Canada needs.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I find bloody tiresome, the defence, of the indefensible. 

Opinion and strongly holding an opinion is fine in and of its self. 

To disparage groups of people simply because they reiterate facts that form the basis of a reasoned argument is unconscionable but to disparage groups of people as your only rebuttal is just plain pitiful.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What is often missing is the reasoned argument. Statements are not facts simply because they are presented in point form.



BigDL said:


> To disparage groups of people simply because they reiterate facts that form the basis of a reasoned argument is unconscionable but to disparage groups of people as your only rebuttal is just plain pitiful.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> It does get tiresome from our perspective as well... when we see much of the right never letting scientific fact get in the way of their policy agendas.


Yet you're perfectly comfortable ignoring scientific fact regarding the article linked to & quoted. Do two wrongs make a right? How about practicing what you preach?

And, as a right leaning individual, have I defended the F-35 as the appropriate aircraft for Canada's Air Force anywhere on this thread? I have defended the cost of the F-35 purchase as comparable to 40 years of spending on the CBC. That is all.



CubaMark said:


> Rather than focus on this most recent article, a review of this thread from the beginning will provide more than sufficient *fact* to lead any reasonable person to conclude that the F-35 is *not* the fighter that Canada needs.
> 
> What the F-35 is: a warplane that is intended and will be used to support U.S. overseas wars of questionable merit (if the recent past is anything to go by).
> 
> The F-35 is *not* and aircraft built to the needs of Canadian domestic defence.


I addressed your most recent post & quoted article because it was full of errors regarding the single engine of the CF-104. That is all.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BigDL said:


> To disparage groups of people simply because they reiterate facts that form the basis of a reasoned argument is unconscionable but to disparage groups of people as your only rebuttal is just plain pitiful.


The article that CM linked to was long on BS & very, very short on fact. Hardly a reasoned argument & certainly worth calling out both CM & the author of the article. With facts as my rebuttal, I might add.

As far as disparaging a "whole group", I seem to recall many times being categorized as a denier on these boards, yet nary a peep from you then. Why the double standard?

Pitiful, indeed...

Do you know why most of the progressives have left this board, BigDL? Because they got tired of having their butts handed to them through facts in an even argument.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*$100B defence spending plan laid out for industry*



> The Conservative government is proposing more than $100 billion in defence spending on a series of projects that would see the Department of National Defence get new fighter jets, rescue planes, helicopters, drones, ships, satellites, uniforms and even rifles.
> 
> The Defence Acquisition Guide is a list of more than 200 separate procurement projects the military hopes to undertake in the next 20 years. The guide is not a rock-solid program, but a road map of sorts for the Canadian defence industrial sector.
> 
> ...





> At stake are the political ramifications of a decision that is widely expected to result in a $45-billion government plan to sole source the purchase of F-35 joint strike fighters.
> 
> The government could put the question of which fighter will replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet jets to a competition.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Its too bad they can't spend money on looking after our vets first. That noted, their stubborn stance on the F-35 is unbelievably stupid. It is not the plane for Canada's uses.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Its too bad they can't spend money on looking after our vets first. That noted, their stubborn stance on the F-35 is unbelievably stupid. It is not the plane for Canada's uses.


It's only stupid if your first loyalty is to Canada. In this case, there is an MIC/US connection that seems to over-ride their loyalty to Canada, and more specifically seems to over-ride their obligations to the suckers footing the bill.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CM's link suggests LESS support for the F-35, not more.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> .


Yes!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> Its too bad they can't spend money on looking after our vets first. That noted, their stubborn stance on the F-35 is unbelievably stupid. It is not the plane for Canada's uses.


Agreed! We are 3/4 surrounded by water .... We should build up the Navy first on all 3 coastlines.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> Its too bad they can't spend money on looking after our vets first. That noted, their stubborn stance on the F-35 is unbelievably stupid. It is not the plane for Canada's uses.


A valid point, Sinc, especially about looking after our vets first once they return from active duty. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Rps said:


> Agreed! We are 3/4 surrounded by water .... We should build up the Navy first on all 3 coastlines.



They're going to do that - they're going to purchase a whole new fleet of rigid-hull inflatable boats... oh yes, and some inflatable life vests for them as well...   
Canada Expands Frigate Upgrade Plans | Defense News | defensenews.com


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Harper wants them. Canada needs to boot these louts in the butt in 2015. http://o.canada.com/news/national/stephen-harper-intervenes-in-purchase-of-new-missiles-source


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It does not say that at all.



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Harper wants them. Canada needs to boot these louts in the butt in 2015. Stephen Harper intervenes in purchase of new missiles: Source | canada.com


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Harper Government To Buy At Least 4 F-35s By 2017: Pentagon Briefing*

_The Harper government has signalled to Washington that it wants to buy at least four F-35 stealth fighters.

A leaked U.S. Department of Defence slide presentation shows Canada has asked to swap places with the U.S. Air Force and place the order in the current fiscal year, which means a possible delivery date of either 2016 or 2017.

* * *​
The briefing by U.S. Lt.-Gen. Chris Bogdan — head of the F-35 program at the Pentagon — also said Canada would have to provide a letter of intent by mid-November and that the U.S. project office would have to notify Congress.
_​
(HuffPo)


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

So we should hear about this in the next week or two. Another reason for getting rid of these clowns.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The F-35 was the best plan the Liberals ever thought of!



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> So we should hear about this in the next week or two. Another reason for getting rid of these clowns.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

While we need jets, I am not so sure this is the one we need, that said, it might be cheaper in the long run if we built our own.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Rps said:


> While we need jets, I am not so sure this is the one we need, that said, it might be cheaper in the long run if we built our own.


Building for scratch always costs more because of the development cost you carry. That's why securing export orders becomes so important, in which you pass those costs along as markup.

You can read about the HAL Tejas from India or the Mitsubishi F-2 from Japan. Both countries continue to buy foreign products as their efforts did not produce a cheaper nor better product.

----------

I dislike the F35 and the procurement process has been terrible and non-transparent when it really did not need to be. McKay mishandled everything. Harper should just be forthright with their plans to purchase this thing. Stop playing with timetables to make this happen in secret or after the election. After all they promised us that kind of accountability, didn't they?

----------



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Harper wants them. Canada needs to boot these louts in the butt in 2015. Stephen Harper intervenes in purchase of new missiles: Source | canada.com


Skippy your article about the missiles is horrible. It's so wrong. The new Sea Sparrow (ESSM) is vastly superior to what any other company is producing or is about to produce. Harper was right to intervene in that case.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Harper and the shiny new airplane - http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/11/09/harpers-dishonestly-on-display-in-latest-pentagon-papers-on-f-35/


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Making Chretien's F-35 dreams come true!



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Harper and the shiny new airplane - Harper’s dishonesty on display in latest Pentagon papers on F-35


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Chinese Spies Stole F-35 Fighter Design, Edward Snowden Reveals*

_U.S. National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden said Chinese spies stole a huge volume of data related to Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Australian Associated Press reported, and military experts say Beijing likely used the information to help develop its latest generation of fighters. Snowden shared signals data documenting the Chinese theft with German magazine Der Spiegel, and the Australian government is aware of the “serious damage” from the breach, the Sydney Morning Herald said.

The Chinese allegedly stole 50 terabytes of data, including information about the fighter's detailed engine schematics, "aft deck heating contour maps," methods for cooling exhaust gases and the method the jet uses to track targets, the Morning Herald said.

China apparently used information stolen from American intelligence through espionage to influence "fifth-generation" fighters, military experts told the Morning Herald. The Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31 threaten the superiority the West has in the skies. _

(IBTimes)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since you were convinced the F-35 isn't much of a plane, CM, how could this help make Chinese planes superior?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Anyone that still believes Canada should have any part of this should take the time to review the history of the Bradley.

If it seems irrelevant, consider that the Pentagon thinks the F35 can do the job of the A10 Warthog.

Movie here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYpRhoZqBY

Info available for the effort to look.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*New US fighter jet on course to becoming ‘one of history’s biggest white elephants’*

The UK considered buying 150 F-35s from the US, but not one plane is combat ready as costs soar

A plane so technologically advanced that it would give Britain and the US air superiority in any future conflict and billed as the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet, could be one of “the biggest white elephants in history”, according to a former defence minister.

And while costs of the F-35 spiral and delays run into years, another commentator has warned that “our skies and seas are vulnerable”.

The aircraft, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, was designed to replace the Harrier jump-jet, which went out of service in 2011. The UK once envisaged ordering 150 F-35s, to be ready by 2012. Three years on, the F-35 is still far from ready to fly in combat and the cost of a single jet has risen from £33m to £87m. The UK has ordered only eight to date.

Complete story here:

New US fighter jet on course to becoming one of history's biggest white elephants - Home News - UK - The Independent


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Anyone that still believes Canada should have any part of this should take the time to review the history of the Bradley.
> 
> If it seems irrelevant, consider that the Pentagon thinks the F35 can do the job of the A10 Warthog.


It really is amazing how the US military has been so quick to disparage the A10, the workhorse of their close air support fleet, just to cast better light on the F-35.

I wouldn't be surprise if 15 years from now, with the F-35 in broad service, if critics are lambasting the uselessness of this aircraft in the conflicts of the day.....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The US military hasn't, broadly speaking. The Air Force has. The Army has continued to endorse the capabilities of the A10 & would like to see them remain. I don't know that the Navy or Marines have said anything.



CubaMark said:


> It really is amazing how the US military has been so quick to disparage the A10...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

For anyone interested in reading another review of the F-35 train wreck, well, here you go...

*Navy Builds Ship For F-35, Ship Needs Months Of Upgrades To Handle F-35*










The Navy’s USS America, the first of her class, was controversially optimized to handle the F-35, leaving out the multi-purpose well deck traditionally found on ‘Gator Navy’ flattops. Now, just months after her commissioning, she already needs 40 weeks of upgrades just to handle the very aircraft she was designed for.​
(Read all about it.... Jalopnik)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Har:



> The F-35B's hot exhaust has the capability to not just scorch these ships existing decks, they can melt right through them like a cutting torch, the purpose built USS America included.


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

The bad news gets even worse... the F35 couldn't out dogfight an F16D (a 2 seater to boot)

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kami said:


> The bad news gets even worse... the F35 couldn't out dogfight an F16D (a 2 seater to boot)
> 
> https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


We need to send these F-35s back to WWII so they can break the back of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Kami said:


> The bad news gets even worse... the F35 couldn't out dogfight an F16D (a 2 seater to boot)
> 
> https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


Man, that is a pretty damning assessment... a fighter from the 1970s can consistently take it out, with little fear of counterattack. Yeah - great plane...... :yikes:


----------



## machspeed5 (Mar 4, 2008)

I thought I read somewhere that the F16 was manufactured in the 90s. But still, its a disappointing demo test for the military. Just goes to show you, the civilians aren't the only ones getting ripped off in today's world.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

More:

Report: In test dogfight, F-35 gets waxed by F-16 | Ars Technica

US latest F-35 stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by F-16 from 1970s | Daily Mail Online


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Considering that Lockheed Martin who oversees the F-35 fighter project seems to be quite qualified for screwing things up, I guess it will be quite a while now before we see another good Sikorsky helicopter with their recent buyout!!!
Lockheed to buy helicopter maker Sikorsky for $9bn - BBC News


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Hmmm…??? What now Canada…???
Pentagon May "Rethink" the F-35 Stealth Fighter. Doomsday for Lockheed Martin? -- The Motley Fool


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Well, there you have it. As I read this, Harper is essentially admitting that if he is re-elected, the F-35 purchase is a go.

Not cool.*

*Liberals 'living in a dream world' on F-35 cancellation, Stephen Harper says*










The stalled program to replace Canada's aging fleet of fighter jets has come to life on the campaign trail, with Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau promising to scrap the F-35 plan, and his opponents accusing him of pre-empting the procurement process and threatening the country's aerospace industry.

Sparring erupted on the weekend when Trudeau promised to exclude the F-35 from the bidding process. Instead, he said, a Liberal government would opt for a cheaper alternative that would free up more funds for navy ships.

Today, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the Trudeau plan would "crater" Canada's aerospace industry, while Trudeau hit back, saying Harper's "dream" aircraft would be a "nightmare" for the Canadian taxpayer.

During a campaign event in St. Jacobs, Ont., Harper called it "incomprehensible" that Trudeau would move to harm an industry that is vital to Canada's economy.

"The Liberal Party is living in a dream world if they think we can pull out of the development project of the F-35 and not lose business," Harper said. "I don't know what planet they're living on.

"Whether it's his statements on the aerospace industry, his statements on the deficit, you name it. It shows his disconnect and a profound lack of understanding about the Canadian economy."

The Conservatives announced an agreement in principle in 2010 to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s, a single-engine "stealth" fighter. But the purchase plan was put on hold two years later amid growing controversies around costs and other problems. An auditor general's report accused the government of fudging cost projections without sufficient research. 

* * *​
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair called Trudeau's move to exclude an option in the midst of a procurement process "one of the most surprising things" he has heard the Liberal leader say so far in the campaign.

He said the move showed a "total lack of experience."

"How can he decide the result in advance of the process? You can't do that. The basic rule of public administration is you define what you need, then you go to a public tender process and the lowest conforming bidder gets the contract," he said.

Mulcair said both his opponents have it wrong. While the Liberals are ruling out an option without having all the facts, Harper has practised "decision-based fact making" by pursuing the F-35 at all costs.

The NDP, in contrast, would embark on an open procurement process to get the right fighter jets in the air quickly, 

* * *​
Dave Perry, senior security and defence analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the Conservative government's record has been "mixed" when it comes to military procurement, with the fighter jet file being the biggest problem in the last four years. He said it's difficult to determine the effect on the domestic aerospace industry if Canada ultimately proceeds with the F-35 or chooses another fighter.

"The aerospace industry in Canada has dozens of different tasks and hundreds of companies, not all of which has won a contract for F-35," he said. "So we wouldn't lose billions in contracts, we would forgo the potential to win them if we went a different way."

* * *​
...Harper's assertion that abandoning the F-35 would wreck Canada's aerospace industry ignores that other manufacturing firms, including F-18 maker Boeing, also offer domestic supply chain opportunities.​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's a good roundup of F-35 issues CM. Thanks for the thoughtful post.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

> Dave Perry, senior security and defence analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the Conservative government's record has been "mixed" when it comes to military procurement, with the fighter jet file being the biggest problem in the last four years.


This guy has obviously not read about the Sea King replacement, the CH-148 Cyclone. Absolutely the worst military procurement process in Canadian defense history.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

smashedbanana said:


> This guy has obviously not read about the Sea King replacement, the CH-148 Cyclone. Absolutely the worst military procurement process in Canadian defense history.



Does the *Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow* screwup count???


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Baloney Meter: Would scrapping F-35 plan 'crater' Canada's aerospace industry? - Politics - CBC News


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Maybe the Brits can sell us some used planes. Worked well with our subs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Baloney Meter: Would scrapping the CBC 'crater' the CBC? - Politics - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's pretty laughable to see the CBC trying to pull off a baloney meter--they should have applied it to their handling of the Gomeshi affair.



Vandave said:


> Baloney Meter: Would scrapping the CBC 'crater' the CBC? - Politics - CBC News


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Baloney Meter: Would scrapping the CBC 'crater' the CBC? - Politics - CBC News





Macfury said:


> It's pretty laughable to see the CBC trying to pull off a baloney meter--they should have applied it to their handling of the Gomeshi affair.


Never mind Conservatives takes monies for sponsorships from known Organized Tax Cheats. The The Isle of Sham anyone.

Never mind Conservatives spent nearly 10 years talking about the "Decade of Darkness" and hitting re-set buttons but never reversed the situation for the military.

Here is a baloney meter, the Canadian Press's Baloney Meter from the Huffington Post

So very hard for conservatives these day: misfire; after mistake; after misplay; after mismanagement; etc.; etc.; etc.

That STINK OF DESPERATION just keeps growing stronger reaching further and further . 

Whistle by the graveyard lads as you down the blue kool-aid. The arse is nearly out of 'er.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CPC is leading in both seats and popular vote in the latest Nanos poll!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> CPC is leading in both seats and popular vote in the latest Nanos poll!


Yep, can you imagine how deflated all these folks will be when the election is over and the Conservatives still hold office? Even Jimbo, aka Skippy seems to have lost hope.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> CPC is leading in both seats and popular vote in the latest Nanos poll!


Seats in minority territory, no where to grow and Canadians want change.

Exactly what flavour is the blue kool-aid?

According to the same Nanos survey:


CTV said:


> The proportion of accessible voters for the Liberals rose to 50 per cent Monday evening, compared to 48.9 per cent the night before. The NDP's proportion of accessible voters rose only slightly to 45.1 per cent, up from 44.9 the night previous. The Conservatives also saw their proportion of accessible voters rise to 40.2 per cent, an increase of 0.3 per cent over the last poll.


Top 3 parties remain deadlocked | Election 2015


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's not a deadlock--that's a win for the CPC!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I guess you missed the important part. The three top Parties are within the margin of error.

The small print (for your ready reference) at bottom of the graphic: "Nano Research, 3-day rolling average of 1,067 random telephone interviews (land +cell), +3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."


You neglected to advise us all, of the flavour, of the blue cool-aid that conservatives have been quaffing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dream big, BigDL!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Guys - we already have a Canadian Political Thread for this stuff, eh?

Back to the topic at hand:*

*Pentagon Official, Casts More Doubt On Harper's Dire F-35 Industry Warning*

More questions have been raised about how much the Canadian aerospace industry would suffer if a future government drops out of the oft-maligned F-35 stealth fighter program.

The Pentagon's top acquisition official says the Canadian supply base is an essential part of the program and will remain as such, even if the country does not buy the aircraft.

Earlier this week, Justin Trudeau pledged that a Liberal government would withdraw from the program, buy a cheaper fighter jet chosen by competition and plow the savings into rebuilding the navy.

His stand prompted a dire warning from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who although not fully committed to proceeding with the F-35, predicted that leaving the program would damage the aerospace sector, particularly in Montreal.

There is currently no signed government contract with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, but it's speculated that Canadian companies supplying parts for the F-35 could lose business.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence for acquisition, told reporters in Fort Worth, Tex., on Tuesday that he can't see why the existing $637 million in contracts wouldn't remain with Canadian firms.​
(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yet Another Costly F-35 Glitch That Won't Be Fixed Any Time Soon | The Fiscal Times



> The Defense Department’s multi-billion dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter effort has hit a new snag, and it’s one that could take anywhere from a year to 18 months to fix, according to the program’s chief.
> 
> Earlier this month Defense News reported the Pentagon had learned the fifth-generation airplane’s ejection seat could cause fatal whiplash for pilots weighing under 136, despite the fact that the seat was designed to handle any pilot weighing between 103 and 245 pounds.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And the beat goes on . . .

Only One of Six Air Force F-35s Could Take Off During Testing - Fortune


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> And the beat goes on . . .
> 
> Only One of Six Air Force F-35s Could Take Off During Testing - Fortune


It requires frequent in-flight software restarts.

"may need help" to avoid threats and detect targets.

HOW many Billion$ in development?

XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's a good thing that Justin Trudeau canceled that puppy upon taking office...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's a good thing that Justin Trudeau canceled that puppy upon taking office...


True. Luckily, we had someone who would take that "puppy" off of our hands ...... at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> True. Luckily, we had someone who would take that "puppy" off of our hands ...... at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer.



:clap::lmao::lmao::heybaby:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Incredible!

A Day in the Life of An F-35 Test Pilot


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I have no comment on the purchase at this time. Just an FYI.

Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s, sources say



> The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and *are working on the right narrative* to support it.”


M'bold.

Again with the politi-speak! Jeezuz, just present the facts, man. I don't need a sales pitch...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*It’s a Good Thing the F-35’s $400K Helmet Is Stupid Cool*

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/cours...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/cours...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link


Seemed interesting until the page-block kicked in. If it comes down to choosing between adblocker and reading a webpage, the webpage loses every time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Seemed interesting until the page-block kicked in. If it comes down to choosing between adblocker and reading a webpage, the webpage loses every time.


I simply clicked on the X in the upper right corner and it closed the window allowing me to easily read the page and watch the video too. Not sure why you could not do the same.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Nope no x there to click at least in FireFox.

I was able to do a quick scan by grabbing the scroll bar, but I had to toss my cookies three times to get all the way through it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, I'm using Firefox too and it works just fine.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One more reason not to buy these things.


Air Force grounds 15 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of ‘peeling and crumbling’ insulation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ntent=link&utm_medium=website&utm_source=fark


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The F-35 Just Catches on Fire Sometimes

https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-ca...metimes-eecce430792b?ICID=ref_fark#.g6u0yfrv7


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I seem to recall reading that the B-29s also had engine fire issues. It related to a bad exhaust manifold design on the front bank of cylinders. Also I believe they had fuel supply hoses that could detach under certain conditions. 

Are engines designed to destroy expensive planes, the military equivalent to printers expiring 3 months after the warranty? If that is so why has the military not caught on to this scam even after 70 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The F-35 will be parked on enemy runways disguised as an enemy plane. It will then blow up spontaneously destroying the enemy fleet.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Macfury said:


> The F-35 will be parked on enemy runways disguised as an enemy plane. It will then blow up spontaneously destroying the enemy fleet.



Probably not as they won't be able to land on such runways without blowing out their tires and crashing. 

Then their cover will be blown as their performance reviews and mishaps will have proceeded them.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

SINC said:


> The F-35 Just Catches on Fire Sometimes
> 
> https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-ca...metimes-eecce430792b?ICID=ref_fark#.g6u0yfrv7



08 JUNE, 2015 BY: JAMES DREW
An accident investigation board has pegged the cost of last year’s “catastrophic engine failure” of an A-model Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at $50 million.

The incident at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on June 23, 2014, temporarily grounded the fleet – setting back the development programme’s flight test campaign by several months and thwarting the Marine Corps’ planned debut of the F-35B at the Farnborough International Airshow.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-accident-investigation-board-posts-findings-413229/

Just pocket change…


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

SINC said:


> The F-35 Just Catches on Fire Sometimes
> 
> https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-ca...metimes-eecce430792b?ICID=ref_fark#.g6u0yfrv7


This is the more up to date article about a second F35 fire and the cause of the first

https://warisboring.com/another-f-3...e-starting-its-engine-fe300018bc5c#.wreeflcn7



Quote
_Specifically, one of the engine’s rotating fan blades failed after repeatedly rubbing against a rubber-like polyimide seal inside the rotor assembly. The rubbing is normal, except the blade rubbed too hard, generating lots of heat and leading the blade to break off and slash through fuel lines and the fuel tank, starting the blaze._


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Seems the US air force has clued in that the F-35 can't do all the things it promised.... the A-10 was on the chopping block as part of the effort to pay for the new superjet... _

*The Air Force Now Plans To Keep The A-10 Warthog Flying Indefinitely*










The A-10 Thunderbolt AKA “Warthog” is a flying farm tractor. Slow, brutish, but reliable as the tide and endearingly indestructible and incredibly effective. Strategists have feared that the jet will be axed in favor of funding the F-35, but the U.S. Air Force recently confirmed that it plans to keep the A-10 flying “indefinitely.”

While the Air Force is theoretically supposed to be diverting the A-10’s operating expenses to feed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the people in charge are now planning to keep the plane running.

“They have re-geared up, we’ve turned on the depot line, we’re building it back up in capacity and supply chain,” Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski told AviationWeek in a interview. “Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely.”

While the beancounters and product planners are trying to push the A-10 off the board, Materiel Command is going to keep on keeping the planes in peak condition, which will give the A-10 it’s best chance of proving its worth over and over again.

And it seems to be working– the A-10 posted a five percent increase in its availability rate from 2014 to 2015, and the Air Force seems to keep postponing its demise.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to be a do-it-all combat aircraft that can engage other planes in the sky, make long-range bombing runs and come in low and slow to support ground troops. It hasn’t gotten off to a great start, to put it lightly, and so far its effectiveness in any of those roles has yet to be truly tested in combat. That last move especially is the A-10’s specialty, and a big part of the reason the plane is so beloved by servicemen and women.​
(Jalopnik)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Smartest news I've heard from the US military in a long time.

Now, if we could just get a contract to build some of these in Winnipeg for our own use...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lockheed Gets a $6.1 Billion Contract for F-35s. It's Not Happy* (Bloomberg)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

F-35 has 276 deficiencies and counting, unfit for combat operations – Pentagon report



> The F-35 stealth fighter jet suffers from hundreds of problems and won’t be fully combat-capable before 2020, says a scathing report from the Pentagon’s top evaluator. New issues keep cropping up, and fixing them all may cost over $1 billion.
> 
> Dr. Michael Gilmore’s damning assessment is part of the massive annual report for fiscal year 2016, and his 62-page dossier devoted to the F-35 paints a grim picture of America’s much touted,futuristic Joint Strike Fighter. The program, which began in 2001, was supposed to deliver a fifth-generation jet serving the needs of the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps, achieving savings through a modular design. Instead, it is 70 percent over initial cost estimates and years behind schedule.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...seeking-at-least-10-cut-in-f-35-fighter-costs

At least Trump is not shy about speaking up.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_I've got a bad feeling about this...._

*F-35 jets waiting in wings as Liberals' "interim" Super Hornet purchase in limbo*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Surely they could not be that stupid.

Oh, wait, it's the Trudeau Liberals . . .


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Man, when the Americans commit to spending their way into the grave, they really go all-out. The military-industrial complex just keeps ticking along, eh?_

*US to Spend $406 Billion on F-35 Jet Program*










The cost of the F-35 jet program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program ever, is estimated to climb to US$406.5 billion, despite President Donald Trump’s assurances to fix the “out of control” expenditures.

According to figures submitted to Congress on Monday, the total costs for Lockheed Martin Corp.’s next-generation fighter may rise about US$27 billion from the recent estimated US$379 billion, a nearly 7 percent increase. 

The Pentagon’s F-35 program office said in a statement that the increase is reflected in current “then-year” dollars that cover research, development, procurement and military construction, according to Bloomberg. 

However, the separate cost for long-term operations and maintenance of the F-35 is estimated at US$1.1 trillion, an increase of more than US$35 billion. 

In a previous interview with the Associated Press, Trump said he was directly responsible for helping save US$700 million on a February order of 90 F-35s.

"Now you know that's a saving of billions and billions of dollars, many billions of dollars over the course of — it's between 2,500 and 3,000 planes will be the final order," Trump said, projecting additional savings as more planes are delivered.

(Telesur)​


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

It sounds like their President isn't the only one suffering with ongoing brain farts.

Now I wonder if anyone should mention to them about their; economy, debt, unemployment, healthcare and… oh never mind… :-(


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canada moves toward buying Australian fighter jets, upping ante in trade dispute with Boeing*










Canada has taken the first formal step toward buying used Australian FA-18 fighter jets, upping the ante in a trade dispute with U.S. defence giant Boeing.

Public Services and Procurement Canada quietly posted notice on its website over the holiday weekend that it has sent a formal letter expressing interest in the surplus warplanes.

The purchase, if it goes ahead, would mean there would be no need for the Liberal government to enter into a deal with the U.S. government to buy 18 advanced Super Hornet jets.

That plan has been in a holding pattern since Boeing filed a trade complaint last spring against Montreal-based Bombardier, an action which recently resulted in the U.S. Department of Commerce proposing duties of as much as 300 per cent on the import of passenger jets.

* * *​
The statement from public works does not indicate how many fighters the Royal Canadian Air Force might get, or what the potential time frame for delivery might be.

"Canada expects to receive a response by the end of this year that will provide details regarding the availability and cost of the aircraft and associated parts that Canada is considering," said the statement.

"Separate discussions with Boeing related to the interim purchase of Super Hornet aircraft remain suspended."
(CBC)​


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Stupid.

While I'm no fan of the F35, purchasing someone else's used fighters puts us back into the very same position we're currently in.



CubaMark said:


> Canada moves toward buying Australian fighter jets, upping ante in trade dispute with Boeing


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Stupid.
> 
> While I'm no fan of the F35, purchasing someone else's used fighters puts us back into the very same position we're currently in.


Advantage: USA 1 - Canada 0


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

So - two issues relating to Canada's threat to buy Australian F-18 warplanes:

1/ The US government can kabosh the deal, given that the design is "owned" by the USA.

2/ "Australia's defence materiel group produced a scathing report in 2012 noting that the country's FA-18s were rapidly running out of airframe life and required bigger and bigger slices of the maintenance budget. "The incidence of discovery of airframe corrosion in the Hornet fleet is increasing, and the annual cost of corrosion‐related repairs has increased significantly," said the report, which Layton said was considered "too critical" by the defence establishment." (CBC)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Stupid.
> 
> While I'm no fan of the F35, purchasing someone else's used fighters puts us back into the very same position we're currently in.


Did we learn nothing from the submarine fiasco?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Did we learn nothing from the submarine fiasco?


A gov't learn from past mistakes? <snort>

That's like expecting the public to learn from past gov'ts...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Did we learn nothing from the submarine fiasco?


Seriously, eh? Those ex-British rusted tin cans that leaked like a sieve whenever they got within sniffing distance of salt water? I remember living in Halifax, and seeing one of 'em docked below the Dartmouth side of the MacDonald bridge. Every day. For years. No idea whatever happened to it... And for those who might not remember, one Canadian submariner was killed, two others injured, before the damn thing even left UK waters...


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> So - two issues relating to Canada's threat to buy Australian F-18 warplanes:
> 
> 1/ The US government can kabosh the deal, given that the design is "owned" by the USA.


The US can't block the sale. Included in arms deals is a transfer of technology clause. Designed to stop a country from reselling to another country that the US has issue with receiving secret level equipment and/or is not a nation they want to do business with. Doesn't really apply to us due to the age of the equipment and our position as an ally.



> 2/ "Australia's defence materiel group produced a scathing report in 2012 noting that the country's FA-18s were rapidly running out of airframe life and required bigger and bigger slices of the maintenance budget. "The incidence of discovery of airframe corrosion in the Hornet fleet is increasing, and the annual cost of corrosion‐related repairs has increased significantly," said the report, which Layton said was considered "too critical" by the defence establishment." (CBC)


That report has been superseded by a newer 2015 study that found the jets in substantially better shape than previously reported.

At best we would buy these planes for parts, spares and to alternate flying hours. Our problem here is not just the jets. We also don't have pilots. So yes the jets are old but if we add to our fleet we can put less hours on the wings by rotating the planes.

I guess as a stop gap until we eventually cave and buy F-35s in 2025 or sooner. Or Boeing changes their mind about not caring about the Superhornet sale.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

> So yes the jets are old but if we add to our fleet we can put less hours on the wings by rotating the planes.



Alternatively they could just let the pilots keep up with their training by providing them with some land based flight simulators…

and they get much better fuel consumption as another benefit…


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

This guy's gotta down off that fence & form an opinion.

"This is the U.S.'s Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the next generation of American fighter jets. It has been in development since 1992..."



> And it is one of the most colossal pieces of **** ever created.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The F-35 Is Not Peace Through Strength, But Weakness Through Bureaucratic Misconception



> he F-35 was supposed to be America’s most advanced fighter jet ever. But it has become the most expensive defense procurement program ever, through bureaucratic misconception and mismanagement. Estimated to cost taxpayers $1 trillion for this one weapon system alone over its lifetime.
> 
> The potential was enormous for America’s national defense. *It was the chance to use the latest technology to build a weapon that would win every battle the defense bureaucrats could imagine, before it even started.*


Bold mine.

No such thing as a one trick pony...


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

FeXL said:


> The F-35 Is Not Peace Through Strength, But Weakness Through Bureaucratic Misconception
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed.

Further to that all the eggs are in one basket. What happens when an exploit or failure happens on the F35 platform. Every branch of the military has to sideline them? And every other user (basically every western nation) too?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The Liberals are spending another $70M on a jet they don't want to want



> In case you missed it, the federal government has chosen to dedicate another $70 million to developing a jet fighter plane it doesn’t want to want.
> 
> Compared with the billions being thrown around on anything to do with the coronavirus, $70 million rates as chickenfeed. But it brings the tab for the F-35 stealth fighter jet to $541 million to date. This for a plane Stephen Harper’s Conservatives made plain was their choice for the military’s flying forces, to replace what are regularly referred to as “Canada’s aging CF-18s,” but which *Liberals, when in opposition, denounced as a disaster waiting to happen, vowing to immediately cancel the contract should they ever come to power.*


Bold mine.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

1/ The F-35 was then, and remains today, the absolute wrong aircraft for the Canadian Air Force. That it remains a desirable choice for some simply tells us that interoperability with the US/NATO forces (essential to further the empire's expansion abroad) is more important to those folks than having an aircraft that serves Canada's domestic defence requirements of long-range, northern climate capable interceptors. But a lot of this can be traced back to the era of the Avro Arrow, and Canada's subjugation to the U.S. military industrial complex that saw our domestic manufacturing capabilities undermined and eventually dismantled under later Free Trade agreements.

2/ The Conservatives and the Liberals alike have badly mismanaged the replacement programme. Lots of blame to go around. 

3/ The argument used by the government:

... paying for development means Canada qualifies for “preferential pricing” and a prime spot in the construction schedule should the jet eventually win out over rivals from Boeing and Saab. (Airbus, another potential bidder, dropped last August after deciding the cost of meeting Norad security requirements was too high.)

In addition to discounts and quick delivery — much like you’d get from Costco in return for proof of loyalty — Ottawa points out that pumping money into the F-35 means jobs for Canadians. Defence department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier told The Canadian Press that Canada’s cut of the development pie adds up to $1.8 billion so far.​
Is to a degree, valid. Not to those of us who see the F-35 as a complete boondoggle, of course. But it's an argument that can certainly be made that the investment is worth the associated benefits. And if the Conservatives come back into power and decide to sole-source Lockheed, then they're in better shape when making that purchase (anyone know if they've made any commitment on fighter jet replacements in their platform?).

4/ Canada needs to grow a pair when it comes to defence spending. Smaller countries than ours have managed to properly equip the military while not impoverishing the country. Our relationship with the USA is the fly in the ointment. We could have a coastal defence -air and sea- to be proud of, rather than these death-trap used submarines, interminable shipbuilding campaigns, and ludicrous aircraft (of all kinds) replacement projects. Step #1 is refusing to waste our resources at the behest of US military operations that are only to the detriment of Canada's national interests.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There's a good thought exercise. Once you complete Step 1, how do YOU propose to manage Canada's defence spending effectively?



CubaMark said:


> 4/ Canada needs to grow a pair when it comes to defence spending. Smaller countries than ours have managed to properly equip the military while not impoverishing the country. Our relationship with the USA is the fly in the ointment. We could have a coastal defence -air and sea- to be proud of, rather than these death-trap used submarines, interminable shipbuilding campaigns, and ludicrous aircraft (of all kinds) replacement projects. Step #1 is refusing to waste our resources at the behest of US military operations that are only to the detriment of Canada's national interests.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

> But a lot of this can be traced back to the era of the Avro Arrow, and _*Canada's subjugation to the U.S. military industrial complex*_ that saw our domestic manufacturing capabilities undermined and eventually dismantled under later Free Trade agreements.



That's one of the the biggest F*Ups that really screwed things up for Canada, PLUS the fact of losing one of the Best-Designed planes ever, that we will never recover from.




- Patrick
======


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Boeing Shows Super Hornets Bristling With 14 Missiles In Formal Sales Pitch To Canada
*

Boeing has formally submitted its Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to the Royal Canadian Air Force's competition to select its next fighter jet. The company also released concept art of the configuration it is pitching to the Canadians, which shows aircraft equipped with conformal fuel tanks, carrying a podded infrared search and track sensor, and armed with an impressive 12 AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles and a pair of shorter-range AIM-9X Sidewinders. Lockheed Martin is also competing with its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Saab has submitted its Gripen E.

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is hoping to receive 88 new fighter jets to replace its existing CF-18A/B+ Hornets under what is officially known as the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP). Canada's Public Services and Procurement department announced that it had received all three formal proposals on July 31, 2020. The final contract could be worth between 15 and 19 Billion Canadian dollars

* * *

Boeing, which for a time looked like it might get shut out of the Canadian fighter jet competition over a tangential trade dispute, could actually have a leg up in the competition because of its long history working with the RCAF and its CF-18A/B+ fleet. The company's offer is "leveraging existing infrastructure to drive down the long-term sustainment cost of the aircraft," Barnes, the Director of Canada Fighter Sales, added in his statement. This is true in that there is an extensive commonality between the legacy Hornet and Super Hornet that goes far beyond hardware. Training and sustainment, in particular, enjoys substantial continuity between the two types.

Still, the Super Hornet offer is likely to face significant competition for the final contract, especially from Lockheed Martin's F-35. 

* * *

The concept art that Lockheed Martin released along with its proposal notably shows F-35A variants with an optional drag chute installed on top of the rear fuselage. Lockheed Martin developed this feature first for Norway's F-35As, which is intended to help with landings on runways covered in snow or ice. The RCAF similarly operates from bases in areas where these weather conditions, as well as extremely low ambient temperatures, are common. 

* * *

Saab's Gripen E is certainly more of a dark horse contender. The Swedish aviation company has been promoting significant potential industrial cooperation as a key component of Gripen offers to Canada and other prospective buyers, as well.

* * *

Gripen was designed to operate highly efficiently from austere conditions by small teams in cold climates, something that Canada could find attractive. 

Canadian authorities hope to pick the winner of the FFCP competition in 2022. The goal is to have the first new fighter jet touch down in the country in 2025. 

(TheDrive)​


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Wow. Just.... wow.






Canada's plan to buy new fighter jets silent on $19.1 billion in sustainment costs


Earlier this year, the Royal Air Force reduced from 138 to 48 the number of F-35 fighter jets it will buy. There have been subsequent statements that additional F-35s could be ordered in 2025, but for now the order has been reduced by almost two-thirds. Why? On June 23, UK Defence Secretary Ben...




rabble.ca


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> Wow. Just.... wow.


+1... *WOW*!!!



> Those sustainment costs can be as high as $38,000 an hour.
> 
> Stars and Stripes further notes the U.S. plans to buy 2,500 F-35s with an estimated life cycle cost exceeding $1.7 trillion, of which $1.3 trillion of those costs are related to operating and sustaining the aircraft.
> 
> The GAO says that is a $150 billion increase over 2012 estimates.


Maybe, they should just equip the Snowbird-type Jets with shotguns and better and grenade-type devices. At least they can be kept flying reasonably much cheaper and are very maneuverable.


- Patrick
=======


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

_Upon this snowy mantle cold and clean,
Grenades are dropping from above and shotgun shells are also seen..._


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Upon this snowy mantle cold and clean,
> Grenades are dropping from above and shotgun shells are also seen...


I guess the lyrics could easily change as they sometimes seem to do with Time... and they still fit the music...


- Patrick
=======


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Canada has had a long history of buying and using hand-me-downs in its Defence Dept., but in today’s world you need to show that you can protect or at least monitor your dominion. I’m not an expert on war planes, but many of our allies are getting these…a common pool of parts if you will.

To me the greatest threat to our country is the North. As the ice melts and the shrinking permafrost, it opens up for exploitation. We need to build a deep water port in the North as it will be a viable option to the Panama Canal and we could reap millions….that is why the U.S., Russia, China, and Denmark are challenging our sovereignty in the North….further we don’t live there…so it’s harder to protect. While I thought some of what he said was foolish, Trump’s offer to by Greenland is not a dumb as it first sounded…Greenland is gaining mineable and exploitable new dry land due to the receding ice. So, while I would prefer a plane that can adequately patrol the North, we still need effective patrolling planes elsewhere…and our tired faded planes are little more than patched up flying junk. The trouble with defence is everyone thinks it’s a good idea but no one wants to pay for it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps, as we've covered earlier in this thread, the single-engine F-35 doesn't fit Canada's specific national defense needs (including single-engine liability in a country with a large arctic territory). The sole argument for going with the F-35 is interoperability with the US and certain other allies who cooperate in the NATO sphere. That's not an argument for national defense - it's an argument for keeping us involved in unnecessary conflicts that serve the interests of the USA, which are not always _our_ interests.

We need enhanced coastal ocean-going capabilities and northern Canada patrol ability with a hardier aircraft than the F-35 appears to be. It's mega high-tech, and thus proving to be very fragile, not to mention - as the article above does - exorbitantly expensive.

I don't disagree with our need to operate more northern bases. A warming climate and the opening of arctic passages for cargo and tourism vessels means we need to have a presence there - particularly in search and rescue capabilities.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

The real irony of the F35 is it was supposed to be a cost savings measure of producing a platform for all branches. Not only is it the most expensive development-wise, but also fly-away cost and operation.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Rps, as we've covered earlier in this thread, the single-engine F-35 doesn't fit Canada's specific national defense needs (including single-engine liability in a country with a large arctic territory). The sole argument for going with the F-35 is interoperability with the US and certain other allies who cooperate in the NATO sphere. That's not an argument for national defense - it's an argument for keeping us involved in unnecessary conflicts that serve the interests of the USA, which are not always _our_ interests.
> 
> We need enhanced coastal ocean-going capabilities and northern Canada patrol ability with a hardier aircraft than the F-35 appears to be. It's mega high-tech, and thus proving to be very fragile, not to mention - as the article above does - exorbitantly expensive.
> 
> I don't disagree with our need to operate more northern bases. A warming climate and the opening of arctic passages for cargo and tourism vessels means we need to have a presence there - particularly in search and rescue capabilities.


I recall reading about how these new expensive jets don’t fulfill the requirements needed to protect Canada’s north. Has any government, Harper, to now Trudeau made any moves to select one that fits these requirements?


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Well, it happened. Our government is starting the purchase process for the F-35. Will be the most expensive defense purchase ever in the long run without a doubt. The plane that is currently costing 60% more per flying hour than the F-22 to run, the plane that loses it's stealth coating at high speeds, the plane that it has an issue with pilots breathing (seriously) under certain conditions - when their vision is not impaired by the helmet.

Not an April fool's joke, but maybe should be...


----------

