F35

[afong56]

Forum Sponsor

I'm waiting for your "substantive post" or "facts". Your link is to a BLOG! A blog with someones opinion based on the "facts" he brings forward. So the writer is Bill Robinson. In your link here is his "bio"
" Editor’s Note: Bill Robinson has observed DND equipment programs for decades now, first in his role with Project Ploughshares and now with the Rideau Institute."
Oh, he's "observed" DND equipment programs for decades, not he's been an insider or involved in it, just "observed" like if I watch enough medical programs, I'm a medical expert. Well let's look at his Project Ploughshares involvement. This is direct from their website:
Vision

A secure world without war • A just world at peace

Project Ploughshares operates under the belief, shared by all of our sponsoring churches, that

• War is to be and can be avoided
• Project Ploughshares was established as an agency of The Canadian Council of Churches to give practical expression to the fulfillment of God's call to bear witness to peace, reconciliation and non-violence and to contribute to the building of a national and international order that will serve the goals of peace with justice, freedom and security for all.

LOL... Ok I can see how he can give an impartial view of any type of "war machine" with a positive blog. Well there always his Rideau Institute experience...

The Rideau Institute can win coverage for your reports, place opinion columns in daily newspapers, or organize your press conference in Ottawa for the National Press Gallery.
We will work with you to identify your policy goals, and then create an event and policy meetings to help advance your agenda.

Wow, sounds like a legitimate research company and not at all like a propaganda mill.

You really NAILED IT!!!

1. thanks for joining into the dialogue. did you bother reading from the start of the thread? please go back and take a good look, thanks.

2. do you know what a logical fallacy is? look it up some time, and then come back and re-read what you just wrote.

3. feel free to share any sources you have that support the purchase of the f35 and actually, factually counter the argument being presented against this boondoggle, thanks.

4. he NAILED IT.

 

[sonnythebull]

1. thanks for joining into the dialogue. did you bother reading from the start of the thread? please go back and take a good look, thanks.

2. do you know what a logical fallacy is? look it up some time, and then come back and re-read what you just wrote.

3. feel free to share any sources you have that support the purchase of the f35 and actually, factually counter the argument being presented against this boondoggle, thanks.

4. he NAILED IT.

Now you just have lost it and are arguing with yourself. You really smell like a bitter unsuccessful, over educated, under talented pundit who has achieved very little if anything. Post your achievements in life to lend credibility to your rants and I will agree with more of what you say. You arent all ******** just mostly it seems

 

[mmmnaked]

afong got bitchslapped by Gnu

absolute domination

 

[afong56]

Now you just have lost it and are arguing with yourself. You really smell like a bitter unsuccessful, over educated, under talented pundit who has achieved very little if anything. Post your achievements in life to lend credibility to your rants and I will agree with more of what you say. You arent all ******** just mostly it seems

arguing with myself? seriously, do you have a reading comprehension issue? go back and read the post i responded to and my response, again.

and i might be willing to post bona fides if you could demonstrate how it has ANYTHING to do with the topic of the thread, instead of being another red herring. . .

. . .i'm willing to wait a long time for that explanation, lol. . .really, take some time to read your own posts and realize how weak they sound to someone else. seriously, get some perspective and stop trolling.

and for the record, i don't care if you ever agree with anything i write. judging from what you have written, i'd rather be on the other side of whatever you believe. take that however you want.

afong got bitchslapped by Gnu

absolute domination

only in your own little world, buddy, only in your own little world.

you might want to start by adding something meaningful to the thread instead of posting your little nonsense couplets. start by providing some credible points supporting the purchase of the f35, with cited sources for your information, lol. . .like your pal there, stop trolling.

 

[mmmnaked]

Credible points and FACTS presented by afong are brought to us by lobbyist bloggers and liberal pundits.

 

[OpenGambit]

The rhetoric in this thread kinda got out of hand a few pages ago. But the way I see it, while cost overruns are fairly normal for projects involving a significant amount of R&D and there should definately be allowance for that, there are legitimate questions that should be asked about whether we are getting value for our money. From a government that is supposedly fiscially conservative, I would not expect blank cheques being drawn.

That being said I do agree with the defense expenditure as upholding both our territorial soverignty as well as furfilling our treaty obligations, I don't think we should be free riding on the US on defense... its a stupid thing to do.

the 2nd point I would note is that I question the value of including things such as crew costs and maintenence costs into the calculation for the F35s, while they are appropriate additions from an accounting point of view in absolute costs, they are of little help in judging the relative cost of the F35 to other alternatives, and its not entirely clear whether those are sunk costs that would be spent in any event, or additional only because its the f35.

 

[afong56]

The rhetoric in this thread kinda got out of hand a few pages ago. But the way I see it, while cost overruns are fairly normal for projects involving a significant amount of R&D and there should definately be allowance for that, there are legitimate questions that should be asked about whether we are getting value for our money. From a government that is supposedly fiscially conservative, I would not expect blank cheques being drawn.

That being said I do agree with the defense expenditure as upholding both our territorial soverignty as well as furfilling our treaty obligations, I don't think we should be free riding on the US on defense... its a stupid thing to do.

the 2nd point I would note is that I question the value of including things such as crew costs and maintenence costs into the calculation for the F35s, while they are appropriate additions from an accounting point of view in absolute costs, they are of little help in judging the relative cost of the F35 to other alternatives, and its not entirely clear whether those are sunk costs that would be spent in any event, or additional only because its the f35.

on your second point, most analysts derive estimates of post-purchase costs based upon a multiplier factor of initial purchase cost, based upon historical trending. crew costs and maintenance costs are not static regardless of the choice they make, and they do contribute to an understanding of relative cost. that is another reason why the purchase cost of the individual planes are playing such a significant role in the debate.

but what most people don't realize is how inaccurate the gov't numbers are. there are so many additional costs that are just not being considered, including ones that will have to be considered due to the inadequacies of the f35's current design 'features'/flaws, and the inevitable delays that are just not currently factored into the dnd or the gov'ts plan.

on your first point, if i were truly a biased political zealot like my nay-sayers like to insist, then i would welcome the idea that the f35 is the plane for the job. then i could claim that the conservatives benefited from the wise foresight of the liberal chretien government yet again, when they chose to sign on to the jsf venture a decade ago. but i'm not, because i am way more concerned about the tragic waste of taxpayers' dollars that the jsf represents.

the bare truth is that there are not many compelling arguments to support the f35 boondoggle. my posts may exhibit rhetoric, but at least they aren't empty hyperbole. . .

since you apparently have read through this entire thread, i invite you to catalogue any credible, sourced and cited posts that successfully make the case for the f35.

 

[afong56]

Credible points and FACTS presented by afong are brought to us by lobbyist bloggers and liberal pundits.

my sources in this thread:

the national post
the ottawa citizen
the u.s. department of defense
conservative minister rona ambrose

and now, the 'hippie-left rag' the toronto sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/10/f-35-costs-will-go-sky-high--and-mackay-should-know-it

f35 boondoggle:

no cost certainty
gov't lied to canadian people
no due diligence or transparency
they signed a blank cheque with our tax dollars

care to remind us all of your sources???

lol, thanks for coming out. . .

 

[sonnythebull]

on your second point, most analysts derive estimates of post-purchase costs based upon a multiplier factor of initial purchase cost, based upon historical trending. crew costs and maintenance costs are not static regardless of the choice they make, and they do contribute to an understanding of relative cost. that is another reason why the purchase cost of the individual planes are playing such a significant role in the debate.

but what most people don't realize is how inaccurate the gov't numbers are. there are so many additional costs that are just not being considered, including ones that will have to be considered due to the inadequacies of the f35's current design 'features'/flaws, and the inevitable delays that are just not currently factored into the dnd or the gov'ts plan.

on your first point, if i were truly a biased political zealot like my nay-sayers like to insist, then i would welcome the idea that the f35 is the plane for the job. then i could claim that the conservatives benefited from the wise foresight of the liberal chretien government yet again, when they chose to sign on to the jsf venture a decade ago. but i'm not, because i am way more concerned about the tragic waste of taxpayers' dollars that the jsf represents.

the bare truth is that there are not many compelling arguments to support the f35 boondoggle. my posts may exhibit rhetoric, but at least they aren't empty hyperbole. . .

since you apparently have read through this entire thread, i invite you to catalogue any credible, sourced and cited posts that successfully make the case for the f35.

So you will admit you have achieved nothing in life but reposting info and using big words on the Internet?

 

[afong56]

So you will admit you have achieved nothing in life but reposting info and using big words on the Internet?

so you will admit that everything you've posted in this thread is completely off topic and completely worthless?

if so, then sure, lol.

oh, and try responding to the posts that are actually directed AT you, lol. fail.

 

[OpenGambit]

since you apparently have read through this entire thread, i invite you to catalogue any credible, sourced and cited posts that successfully make the case for the f35.

I would rather keep looking up what bike I want to buy in the next few weeks. My mind is filled with hard astestic choices like colour, exhaust placement and front headlights.

 

[afong56]

the 2nd point I would note is that I question the value of including things such as crew costs and maintenence costs into the calculation for the F35s, while they are appropriate additions from an accounting point of view in absolute costs, they are of little help in judging the relative cost of the F35 to other alternatives, and its not entirely clear whether those are sunk costs that would be spent in any event, or additional only because its the f35.

and one other point:

regardless if you don't see the merits of including these costs, as i have cited earlier, the dnd and peter mackay knew back in 2010 that these costs HAD to be reported, and they AGREED to do so.

then they went ahead an LIED to the public.

nothing unclear about that.

 

[afong56]

I would rather keep looking up what bike I want to buy in the next few weeks. My mind is filled with hard astestic choices like colour, exhaust placement and front headlights.

an admirable time wasting activity, but i promise you, the other task will take very little of your time. . .very little. . .

 

[OpenGambit]

and one other point:

regardless if you don't see the merits of including these costs, as i have cited earlier, the dnd and peter mackay knew back in 2010 that these costs HAD to be reported, and they AGREED to do so.

then they went ahead an LIED to the public.

nothing unclear about that.

I also lie to my girlfriend about the real costs of my motorcycling hobby.

Now if you will excuse me I have to continue doing due diligence on my 15-20 k purchase.

 

[afong56]

I also lie to my girlfriend about the real costs of my motorcycling hobby.

Now if you will excuse me I have to continue doing due diligence on my 15-20 k purchase.

the lies you tell your gf are none of our business. . .

how you spend your money, is also none of our business.

however, the taxpayers' dollars that come out of our pockets, yours and mine, are indeed our business.

 

[OpenGambit]

the lies you tell your gf are none of our business. . .

how you spend your money, is also none of our business.

however, the taxpayers' dollars that come out of our pockets, yours and mine, are indeed our business.

i was being flippant, obviously.

 

[sonnythebull]

so you will admit that everything you've posted in this thread is completely off topic and completely worthless?

if so, then sure, lol.

oh, and try responding to the posts that are actually directed AT you, lol. ]

You know when you bluff and set terms no one wil agree to you admit to having nothing to put up. Tell us your story and let's see what you have to offer, which as of now seems like nothing.

 

[afong56]

the f35 is the wrong choice?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html

is this guy right?

are we barking up the wrong tree?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If we take a hard analytical perspective on what Canada's long term strategic needs in fighter aircraft are, as distinct from DND bureaucratic “wants” in this area, several considerations become prominent:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]National air defence will require a large twin engined fighter with superlative supersonic performance, superlative radar performance, and a large missile payload to defeat strategic bombers and their cruise missile payloads;[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The proliferation of advanced long range fighters such as the Su-35S and PAK-FA will put a premium on combat agility for both beyond visual range (BVR) and within visual range (WVR) engagements, supersonic agility, and stealth performance;[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Expeditionary campaigns into “contested” airspace will require the ability to survive against advanced SAM systems such as the S-400, S-300PMU2, HQ-9 and planned S-500, putting a premium on high stealth performance;[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Expeditionary campaigns in COIN environments will require the ability to operate from shorter airfields, with high endurance and large, varied weapon payloads.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, by both definition and design, is fundamentally unsuited to any one and every one of these basic needs.[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The F-35 lacks the range, missile payload, radar performance and especially supersonic performance to be effective in the strategic air defence role, and with a single engine puts the lives of Canadian pilots at unnecessary risk in harsh Arctic conditions.[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The F-35 lacks the supersonic performance, missile payload, radar performance, agility and stealth performance to be effective in combat against the Su-35S Flanker E+, and has no ability to compete with the Sukhoi PAK-FA. This makes the F-35 ineffective in strategic air defence, if fighter escorts are deployed, and ineffective in expeditionary campaigns where the opponent operates such fighters.[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The F-35 lacks the stealth performance to penetrate modern air defence systems armed with weapons such as the S-400, S-300PMU2, HQ-9 and planned S-500, especially if these SAMs are supported by modern “counter-stealth” radars operating in the lower radar bands.[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]In uncontested COIN operations, the F-35 lacks the payload and endurance to perform well, does not have the ballistic survivability for Close Air Support (CAS), and the CTOL variant demands long runways for operations, limiting choices in deployment sites.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Against each and every one of these clearly identifiable strategic needs for Canada's future fighter force, the F-35 JSF is an abject failure.[/FONT]

 

[afong56]

You know when you bluff and set terms no one wil agree to you admit to having nothing to put up. Tell us your story and let's see what you have to offer, which as of now seems like nothing.

i wrote that post because i don't take your posts seriously. i stopped doing so a long time ago when i realized you had nothing to actually add that was on topic, and were just trolling.

sorry, thought you figured that out already.

you can't expect people to respond meaningfully when you write nonsense, lol. what do you think this is, the schoolyard?

 

[sonnythebull]

i wrote that post because i don't take your posts seriously. i stopped doing so a long time ago when i realized you had nothing to actually add that was on topic, and were just trolling.

sorry, thought you figured that out already.

you can't expect people to respond meaningfully when you write nonsense, lol. what do you think this is, the schoolyard?

Oh what pyschological warfare you use, so Impressive. You don't even write Nonsense, you post other peoples nonsense.

Forum Sponsor