The F-35 is not dead

[shimmydampner]

I agree with much of what you've posted on this topic Rockie, but the CBC does seem to me to have a noticeable lean to the left. It's not related to the F-35, but I recently read a piece on gun control that was one of the most ill-informed, biased pieces of "journalism" I've ever come across.

[Rockie]

I agree with much of what you've posted on this topic Rockie, but the CBC does seem to me to have a noticeable lean to the left. It's not related to the F-35, but I recently read a piece on gun control that was one of the most ill-informed, biased pieces of "journalism" I've ever come across.

That can happen occasionally and you will recall CBC News only full time commentator is Rex Murphy who is right wing to the bone so their side is amply represented (on purpose) by him. but the CBC is a public broadcaster funded in part by every single one of us. Their mandate with regards to journalistic integrity and impartiality is there to read on their website. But more than that, they have to be conscientiously apolitical because people of every political stripe are paying for it. "Foolish" would be the word to describe any attempt to be anything but apolitical, and the CBC is not foolish. They just aren't right wing which to a right winger means they're left wing which isn't true either.

The CBC is pointedly apolitical both out of mandate and necessity.

Thanks Dude, that was just the laugh I needed to start my new year.

As for the F35, I don't have an opinion for or against. All I'm saying is that the F18 replacement can't be allowed to turn into another Sea King/FW SAR/ fiasco.

I didn't ask for your opinion on the F-35, I asked you to provide a single instance where the CBC expressed any kind of opinion of it of any kind, political or otherwise.

[frosti]

Insisting on a wide consensus means that you either never get anything done (FW SAR) or you end up with so much compromise that the end product is a boondoggle (Cyclone, Cormorant).

I'd add that the C-17, C-130J and recently the CH-47F Chinook were all effectively sole-sourced - where were the whiny Canadians then? Sometimes when you don't have any other option, sole-source purchasing is the best choice.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I'd add that the C-17, C-130J and recently the CH-47F Chinook were all effectively sole-sourced - where were the whiny Canadians then? Sometimes when you don't have any other option, sole-source purchasing is the best choice.

Referring to the poor sods who have to write the cheques to pay for your new equipment as "whiny", while consistent with your tone on the previous F-35 thread, is perhaps not the most effective way to rally support. I'm guessing the C-17 project was sole-sourced because there is no suitable alternative on the market, unlike the fighter competition, while the C-130J procurement was sole-sourced because it represented an add-on to the existing Hercules fleet, again unlike the fighter competition. The Chinook procurement invoved an acquisition cost plus 20 years of in-service support totaling $4.7 billion, obviously a fraction of the required front-line fighter commitment.

BTW, your reference to the C-17, C-130J and CH-47F procurements responds nicely to mcrit's comment:

Perhaps it's time someone explained to the powers that be that defending the nation requires money and a radical shift in thinking.

Apparently money is in fact being spent, and not just in the RCAF, as you noted, but across all three elements (including $17.1 billion in new trucks for the Army, and the JSS, AAS, APS and frigate midlife extension programs for the Navy).

[mcrit]

I didn't ask for your opinion on the F-35, I asked you to provide a single instance where the CBC expressed any kind of opinion of it of any kind, political or otherwise.

Well Dude, here's the thing. The title of the thread is "The F-35 is not dead", not, "The CBC is a self perpetuating lobby group with an agenda." So, I make sure that my posts actually have something to do with the topic at hand. That way the thread doesn't get locked. You did notice that on the last F-35 thread, right?

As for the CBC expressing an opinion. I suspect that I would have more success getting a blind man to understand the concept of mauve that I would in getting you to see the CBC for what it is.

Apparently money is in fact being spent, and not just in the RCAF, as you noted, but across all three elements (including $17.1 billion in new trucks for the Army, and the JSS, AAS, APS and frigate midlife extension programs for the Navy).

Yes, but not enough to do the job right. It takes quite a bit to rectify 20 years of neglect.

[Rockie]

As for the CBC expressing an opinion. I suspect that I would have more success getting a blind man to understand the concept of mauve that I would in getting you to see the CBC for what it is.

Nope, that still doesn't answer the question. Care to try a third time?

[Diadem]

You are also incorrect in thinking a F-35 pilot is "prepared" to survive in the arctic given only the contents of his seat pan. It would be interesting to watch you try.

And yet:

Yes a twin is just as susceptible to non-engine related issues which would cause a crash in the arctic...Yes, fighter pilots must always be prepared for that eventuality.

So first you agreed that fighter pilots are prepared to survive in the Arctic, but now you've changed your mind. Which is it? Are they or aren't they? And would that situation be any different if they were in an F-35 instead of an F-18?
Once again, since you can't seem to answer difficult questions without endless prodding, considering how many accidents are caused by pilot error and gear collapse, wouldn't it make sense to have two-crew aircraft with fixed gear? As I pointed out earlier, pilot error is responsible for almost half of all accidents, even in the military, to a far greater extent than engine failure, so shouldn't your crusade be against the primary cause of crashes? If you're really concerned about safety, why don't you address that, instead of a factor which is statistically insignificant? You should start lobbying the government to only consider buying fighters with two seats if you're so concerned about the safety of our RCAF pilots.

[Rockie]

So first you agreed that fighter pilots are prepared to survive in the Arctic, but now you've changed your mind. Which is it? Are they or aren't they?

Prepared in the sense that it is a possibility they must accept when they strap the thing on and head north. Practically prepared for it is another matter. Not all military pilots even take the arctic survival course, and the contents of their seat pan that I mentioned previously certainly doesn't equip them for it.

Two seats actually isn't a bad idea either for reasons likely beyond your scope of understanding, and not for the reasons you think. That's from a guy with a single seat background.

[bizjets101]

Personally I don't care what they buy, my choice would be F-22's but that isn't going to happen . . . I'd prefer Harper gone - and whomever - just order what you want - your going to anyway - just show us the receipts!!! Straight up - this is how much it costs now, and what it's going to cost later!!

Anyway, here's an F-35 update from today; http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167185839 ... ighter-jet

[YYZSaabGuy]

Apparently money is in fact being spent, and not just in the RCAF, as you noted, but across all three elements (including $17.1 billion in new trucks for the Army, and the JSS, AAS, APS and frigate midlife extension programs for the Navy).

Yes, but not enough to do the job right. It takes quite a bit to rectify 20 years of neglect.

I'm not sure where your "20 years of neglect" comment comes from - on an inflation-adjusted basis, i.e. using 2012 dollars, spending fell from 1988 through about 2001, then increased every year from 2001 to 2010 inclusive before reducing slightly in 2011 (I don't have 2012 figures yet). The 2011 spend was approximately $22 billion, vs. approximately $12 billion in 2001. Whether that's "enough", given what the military has been tasked to do, is a different discussion, but the fact is that we have maintained and increased our investment pretty steadily over the last decade or so.

[shimmydampner]

you can't seem to answer difficult questions

The pot has called the kettle black...this thread has it all now.

[mcrit]

I'm not sure where your "20 years of neglect" comment comes from - on an inflation-adjusted basis, i.e. using 2012 dollars, spending fell from 1988 through about 2001, then increased every year from 2001 to 2010 inclusive before reducing slightly in 2011 (I don't have 2012 figures yet). The 2011 spend was approximately $22 billion, vs. approximately $12 billion in 2001. Whether that's "enough", given what the military has been tasked to do, is a different discussion, but the fact is that we have maintained and increased our investment pretty steadily over the last decade or so.

I won't quibble over the time periods. Your own numbers show 13 years of reduced funding, I'd submit that the there were many years of inadequate funding outside that period. I'll cede that is my opinion and that your's may differ.
You are correct that military spending has increased over the last decade. I would ask you to consider that the military was thrown into a war after a decade of neglect and that that funding was consumed by the war effort. There are items outside the war effort that still need to be addressed.

Nope, that still doesn't answer the question. Care to try a third time?

If you didn't get it the first two times, I see no point in making a 3rd sally.

[Rockie]

If you didn't get it the first two times, I see no point in making a 3rd sally.

Oh come on, try me.

What does the leftist commie CBC think of the F-35? There should be tons of video proof and finding one single example of them manipulating public attitudes should be child's play.

Just one Mcrit.

[mcrit]

Oh, what the hell. It's only a matter of time before you get this thread locked anyway. Here ya go.
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/ ... r.html/url]

[Rockie]

An excellent piece of journalism that includes on the same web page the US GAO report, the Air Force review and the 2010 statement of operational requirements. That looks like a one stop shop of everything you ever wanted to know about the F-35 from both sides of the issue.

Although I can see how you might view it as lopsided but it wasn't for lack of trying. The following people refused to be interviewed:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay
Deputy Defence Minister Robert Fonberg
Associate Defence Minister Bernard Valcourt
Assistant Deputy Defence Minister (Materiel) Dan Ross
Chief Financial Officer, National Defence, Kevin Lindsey
Lieutenant General Andre Deschamps, Chief of the Air Staff
Lieutenant General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff
Colonel (Ret'd) Dave Burt, Director New Generation Fighter Capability Office
Michael Slack, F-35 Project Manager
Lt. Col. Gordon Zans, Operational Capability Lead, Next Generation Fighter Capability office
Colonel (Ret'd) Randy Meiklejohn, Director of Air Requirements
Rona Ambrose. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada
Tom Ring, Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Alex Lakroni, Chief Financial Officer, Public Works and Government Services
Tony Clement, Industry Minister from 2008 to 2011
Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice-president and general manager of F-35 program integration

[teacher]

Seriously guys, I posted the article to see if anyone had any idea whether the Super Hornet was actually gonna cost almost the same as the F-35.

[Old fella]

Rockie.

An impressive list of individuals who didn't want to talk......... something to hide, you figure. I sure do...........


I think the public appetite for this expenditure has long gone and Harper knows it. Anything to do with F-35 is tainted and likely to stick on the CPC...... and the voters know that as well.

[Mostly Harmless]

Seriously guys, I posted the article to see if anyone had any idea whether the Super Hornet was actually gonna cost almost the same as the F-35.

Nobody knows.... especially those on this board.

[frosti]

An excellent piece of journalism

I don't know wtf you were watching, but what I saw was a giant circus act. The CBCs main goal was to taint the F35 purchase from the beginning, not once did they mention the superior technological advantage over the other fighters. The CBC is a joke and should stick to reporting the facts, not sway public opinion. Case in point: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/ ... aphic.html How about compare the F35 to its competitors instead of putting up a horrible drawing of the jet and a kid sitting next to a UN food bag.

The following people refused to be interviewed:

So anyone with any sort of credibility or anyone who is involved in the program. I'm glad they refused considering the idiots they had on the other side.

An impressive list of individuals who didn't want to talk......... something to hide, you figure. I sure do...........

You probably think we didn't land on the moon either.....

[YYZSaabGuy]

The following people refused to be interviewed:

So anyone with any sort of credibility or anyone who is involved in the program. I'm glad they refused considering the idiots they had on the other side.

Yep, that'll teach those weepy bleeding liberal hearts at CBC to ask difficult questions. We'll just put 'em on "IGNORE"! Hearts and minds, boys, hearts and minds.......

[Old fella]

....and the Boston Globe to boot............

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editoria ... story.html

[mcrit]

An excellent piece of journalism that includes ........

Which brings us back to:

As for the CBC expressing an opinion. I suspect that I would have more success getting a blind man to understand the concept of mauve that I would in getting you to see the CBC for what it is.

Seriously guys, I posted the article to see if anyone had any idea whether the Super Hornet was actually gonna cost almost the same as the F-35.

Sorry for the threadjack, but take heart in knowing that I've said all I'm going to say on the subject of the CBC. I'll even give Rockie the last word.

My guess is that whatever is chosen, it will cost more than many will find palatable.

[frosti]

The following people refused to be interviewed:

So anyone with any sort of credibility or anyone who is involved in the program. I'm glad they refused considering the idiots they had on the other side.

Yep, that'll teach those weepy bleeding liberal hearts at CBC to ask difficult questions. We'll just put 'em on "IGNORE"! Hearts and minds, boys, hearts and minds.......

Considering CBC's political bias towards the F-35 and military in general, they don't deserve a response.

[Expat]

Military procurement activities have always been used as political tools. I remember the days when the Liberals thought that we ought to buy Airbus planes, Iltis jeeps, Centurion tanks, etc... This was a game with the US, who branded PET as a commie. Fair enough. I would have done the same.
I have observed many countries, playing the procurement game. We should join them.
My oil is dirty? Let's buy Typhoons. Or Sukhoi! No pipeline? We can buy Antonov planes! And so on...
NATO interoperability is a joke... NATO is now irrelevant. We are unfortunately seen in the world now as a puppet of the US. I think Canada can do better for its image. As in the past. Actually, we have more to gain, by being detached, then by being subservant, and buying sole-sourced weapons systems.

[Caracrane]

what did I say previously.... F-18SH.... according from the news today, it would be the next.