F-35 issues

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by nfitz

If you read your own posts, it's pretty easy to find. Here's an example from further down:

There - you've just insulted those who don't believe that the Star is left-leaning.
... However you've implied anyone who disagrees with your (wrong) assessment is not of right mind.

"No one in the right mind would..." is a figure of speech, I didn't think that would come out as an insult.

Given they tend to support the Liberals more often than not, that would make them centrist. Their brutal attacks on so many NDP politicians seems to show they aren't particularly left, attacking left and right.

Can you provide evidence that Toronto Star bashes NDP politicians? I provided a recent article about them openly endorsing the NDP.

You've been very dismissive and disrespectful of those who challenge your fantasies of flight.

How have I been dismissive? What have I dismissed? Thus far, all of you have dismissed everything I've said, evident by the lack of responses.

Best thing we could do is simply eliminate fighter planes from our Air Force. Dreadful waste of money. Expensive toys - that's all - no one in the right mind would challenge this.

Then we could no longer uphold our duties to NATO. Further what do you suggest we use to defend our airspace?

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by cr9527

How have I been dismissive? What have I dismissed? Thus far, all of you have dismissed everything I've said, evident by the lack of responses.

Still trying to play the victim, I see... So, here you are now with leftist-baiting nonsense. Kind of like Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino excoriating everyone opposed to the "holy" (his exact word) efforts made by the government to buy the F-35:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...f-35-purchase/

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/can...139048944.html

It is pretty desperate for a cabinet minister to resort to implying that those of us against the F-35 purchase are somehow under the spell of folks like Fidel Castro or female Chinese journalists and are also at high risk of going to hell.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

Still trying to play the victim, I see... So, here you are now with leftist-baiting nonsense. Kind of like Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino excoriating everyone opposed to the "holy" (his exact word) efforts made by the government to buy the F-35:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...f-35-purchase/

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/can...139048944.html

It is pretty desperate for a cabinet minister to resort to implying that those of us against the F-35 purchase are somehow under the spell of folks like Fidel Castro or female Chinese journalists and are also at high risk of going to hell.

I'm sorry? have I ever based my arguments on this Fantino? This is classic strawman and ad-hominem.

Why don't you start the argument not by directing your attacks on me (or anyone), and instead on the mountain of evidence I(or anyone) bring to the table?

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...dorses-the-ndp

huh?

Surprised me too. However, I clearly said they tend to support the Liberals. Last election was pretty odd. Liberals were pretty unsupportable. Heck, I donated to the local candidate, and then voted against them as the election deteriorated.

The Star endorsed the Liberals in the provincial election, as is their pattern

Globe endorsed the Tories ... are they right-leaning?

Originally Posted by cr9527

Can you provide evidence that Toronto Star bashes NDP politicians? I provided a recent article about them openly endorsing the NDP.

Really? After the way they went after Miller and Giambrone, you need me to go find links? They were downright vicious.

Originally Posted by cr9527

Then we could no longer uphold our duties to NATO. Further what do you suggest we use to defend our airspace?

To hell with NATO. The whole purpose of NATO was to defend Western Europe against the Soviets. It's over ... Russia isn't going to invade Germany. They can barely deal with their own people. Defend our airspace against what? It's completely not necessary ... and a waste of money. If it was so important, do you really think a handful of active fighters at 2 airbases makes any difference?

[stampeder]

Desperate times indeed:

Reps. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced the formation of a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus with 49 members from both parties. Its purpose: to protect funding for the F-35 stealth fighter. The plane, as the most expensive weapons program in history, is one of the biggest potential targets in the defense budget. The members of the caucus are also some of the top recipients of political money from the company that designs and builds the fighter, Lockheed Martin. (emphasis mine)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...upN_story.html

It is very telling that Lockheed Martin feels such a need to spread so much political cash around to try to prevent the F-35 budget from being cut. The emperor has no clothes, but with enough cash maybe some important decision-makers can be bamboozled further into supporting this colossal waste of money.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by nfitz

Surprised me too. However, I clearly said they tend to support the Liberals. Last election was pretty odd. Liberals were pretty unsupportable. Heck, I donated to the local candidate, and then voted against them as the election deteriorated.

The Star endorsed the Liberals in the provincial election, as is their pattern

Liberals ARE left leaning (somewhat).

Globe endorsed the Tories ... are they right-leaning?

Depends what else they do.

Really? After the way they went after Miller and Giambrone, you need me to go find links? They were downright vicious.

You are going to need to explain a bit more than that. Military is my field, internal politics is not.

However, here is an unbiased article about the political affiliations of the above papers:


http://sixthestate.net/?page_id=1794

Here it states globe is right leaning while star is more towards the liberals than ndp, but far more than the conservatives.

To hell with NATO. The whole purpose of NATO was to defend Western Europe against the Soviets. It's over ... Russia isn't going to invade Germany. They can barely deal with their own people.

NATO's agenda morphed, now the alliance is primarily to assist allies with their foreign interests, as well as prevent internal squabble between previously hostile states. (of course the old agenda still resides)

The former is useful to us.

Defend our airspace against what? It's completely not necessary ... and a waste of money.

For one thing, the Russians are still poking us with bombers on a regular basis.

If it was so important, do you really think a handful of active fighters at 2 airbases makes any difference?

It would.

Militarily speaking, having an operational and capable air force even of low quantities are a force enabler for strategic defense assets such as SAMs. Further, their(f-35) ability to detect launches of Ballistic missiles from over a thousand miles away provides valuable intelligence for proper countermeasures.

Politically speaking, having a capable and operational air force provides a useful deterrent against anything from harassment, spying, EM sniffing, and all the way to a preemptive strike.
---------------------------------------

Desperate times indeed:...
...It is very telling that Lockheed Martin feels such a need to spread so much political cash around to try to prevent the F-35 budget from being cut.

Ad hominem, you are attacking the company and not the product.

The emperor has no clothes, but with enough cash maybe some important decision-makers can be bamboozled further into supporting this colossal waste of money.

Nothing in your post provides any evidence for this conclusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------

New information:


Turkey's estimate for 100 F-35s.

Summary: 100 F-35s delivery begins 2015 for $16 Billion.

Means 65 F-35s would likely cost $10.4 Billion.

Assuming this estimate encompasses the same details as the Canadian estimate(possible, but unsure), it is More than Harper's estimate by 1.4 Billion, but far less than the PBO's prediction.

Even at that price, the F-35 is still worth while considering the price for the Eurofighter and Rafale ranges from 75-125 million a pop.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by cr9527

This is classic strawman and ad-hominem.

Originally Posted by cr9527

Ad hominem, you are attacking the company and not the product.

"strawman"... "ad hominem"... thanks for the '90s flashback.

[asd]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02...n_1299113.html

I heard the same on CBCNN.

It's been fun following this thread -- even theories of rhetoric -- somewhat flawed but still entertaining. Chalk me up on the side of out of my right mind, when it comes to assessing the editorial stances of our newspapers in Canada. The issue of right wing versus left wing is meaningless -- subjective opinion not fact. The context, the culture, is key.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by asd

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02...n_1299113.html

I heard the same on CBCNN.

Your article is just a redigest of what has been posted months ago.

It's been fun following this thread -- even theories of rhetoric -- somewhat flawed but still entertaining. Chalk me up on the side of out of my right mind, when it comes to assessing the editorial stances of our newspapers in Canada. The issue of right wing versus left wing is meaningless -- subjective opinion not fact. The context, the culture, is key.

I agree with the left vs right. I couldn't care less who said what. Just so long as the facts are accurate.
===========================================

"strawman"... "ad hominem"... thanks for the '90s flashback.

Thank you for your complete lack of contribution to the entire thread.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heres a contribution:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...t%20Not%20Rise

Here, the recent Japanese estimate of the F-35 (A or B model, unsure) would cost 123.5 million each, including spares.
Not much else detail is on there.

Assuming this is the procurement cost (due to inclusion of spares see fig on page 17), combined with harper gov's 0.9 Billion extra costs for salaries and rebasing, the total comes to 8.927 Billion for 65 jets. ~ 9 Billion

This article is literally days old (feb 22.)

Gee, where have I seen that number before? Could it be that the PBO's estimate of 15/30 Billion is just pulled right out of his behind?

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Thank you for your complete lack of contribution to the entire thread.

Complete lack of faith or trust in your calculations, more like it. Going back to the first posts and re-reading the very title of this thread it is important to remind yourself that this thread is not about you but rather about F-35 Issues, and that you are but one contributor to this thread amongst many.

Today a series of media articles have pointed out that Defence Minister Peter MacKay has been using RCAF personnel for political purposes to dig up dirt on an opponent. Here's one example, from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02...iberal-critic/

Does this make anyone question whether RCAF personnel are also doing other bidding of his, such as touting an awful purchase like the F-35? Just askin'. BTW, isn't Scott Simms formerly of the Weather Network?

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

Complete lack of faith or trust in your calculations, more like it. Going back to the first posts and re-reading the very title of this thread it is important to remind yourself that this thread is not about you but rather about F-35 Issues, and that you are but one contributor to this thread amongst many.

I unlike you, actually contribute to the subject.

If you don't trust my calculations, fine. Just look at the newest article I linked. It stated Japan's estimate for F-35 is 123 Million including spares. Now, multiply that number by 65, and see what you get.

Today a series of media articles have pointed out that Defence Minister Peter MacKay has been using RCAF personnel for political purposes to dig up dirt on an opponent. Here's one example, from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02...iberal-critic/

Does this make anyone question whether RCAF personnel are also doing other bidding of his, such as touting an awful purchase like the F-35? Just askin'. BTW, isn't Scott Simms formerly of the Weather Network?

Firstly, you are again attacking the people that made the decision but not the decision itself.
Secondly, you have yet to establish why the purchase is aweful.

In fact, you've yet to establish ANYTHING about the F-35 with ANY sort of evidence.

[stampeder]

Makes you want to just move on, right?

Hey everybody, one of the most telling things about Defence Minister MacKay's comments today about committing to the purchase of the F-35 was his wording:

OTTAWA - Defence Minister Peter MacKay has put some wind beneath the wings of speculation that Canada may cut its planned purchase of 65 stealth fighter jets. Asked point blank whether he could guarantee the number of the jets Canada would order is firm, MacKay didn't directly answer. "We're committed to buying aircraft that are going to give the Canadian Forces the chance that they need to perform mission success," said MacKay. MacKay's refusal to confirm Canada will purchase 65 of the radar-evading fighters is a change from September 2011 when he was firm on that number of planes.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics.../19377811.html

This is raising eyebrows all over the place since it hardly confirms any sort of sensible purchasing plans that we would expect to be in line with fiscally conservative values. It's anyone's guess how many planes they are secretly expecting to actually get for the same money.

[Nanuuk]

We should be buying Super Hornets in addition to the F-35's and have a fleet of at least 100 aircraft.

[nic78]

Yes excellent idea. Buy 32 F35's and 68 F18 Super Horents. The Super Horents could be obtained at $50 million a piece, and are available tomorrow, also provides a different mix of jets for different types of roles/missions.

They are also faster and have a greater range than the F35's.

[stampeder]

A mixed fleet is what we'll likely get since the government is hell-bent on buying the F-35, but if the intent of having a mixed fleet is to have a stealth-fighter component, there are some show stoppers that make a mixed fleet a bad idea. Given that:

• the RAND Corporation has already estimated that the F-35's stealth technology will have been rendered obsolete before we ever get one of those planes (see earlier posts)
• the recent crash landing of a stealth drone in Iran has delivered some of that technology right to such international interests as China and probably Russia too
• as I've argued earlier, stealth is not particularly necessary in the first place for our needs
• the F-35 under-performs the Super Hornet in almost every conventional way
• any supposed economic benefits to Canada from shared production would be vastly outweighed by the total cost of the F-35 deal
• Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Turkey and Australia will all be fighting with Canada for the same work so there are no guarantees of the quality, longevity, or even availability of such work
• if cuts in purchases of the F-35 happen amongst those countries, it follows logically that the amount of such work will drop, making the work and the entire purchase less and less valuable to our economy

it is therefore logical, sensible,and fiscally conservative to avoid buying any F-35s. The rationale for a mixed fleet is just not there because the F-35 is a waste of time and money.