|
|
|
F35
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
the f22 idea i presented was hypothetical, and considering the election this fall, could easily happen. it currently has about the same likelihood as the f35 being delivered on time and on budget, another frankly hypothetical guess.
face it, the f35 is NOT the fighter that best fits CANADA's needs.
read my post again. didn't say you were directing it at me, actually. just disappointed that you had nothing substantial to add to the discussion other than personal attacks. interesting that you read my comment that way. . .
as for the harpo gov'ts handling of the whole affair:
f35 boondoggle:
still no cost certainty
gov't still lied to canadian people
still no due diligence or transparency
they signed a blank cheque with our tax dollars
OpenGambit
Banned
this f22 possibilty has about as much credibilty as my battlecruiser statements.
you mean the f35, right?
the f35 you keep yammering on about is nowhere close to achieving the capabilities you and lockheed martin claim it will do. furthermore, the day that the rcaf will supposedly get these jets-from-heaven is being pushed further and further back.
if anything, talking about the f22, which is in production and has a functioning role already is more anchored in reality than some glossy brochure-speak that you, lh, and the dnd are selling.
we in the real world should not be buying it, and if the harpos are to be believed, they are reconsidering it.
the government's handling of this issue has been a HUGE fail.
the f35 itself has already been a HUGE fail, with dismal hopes of ever fixing all of the issues it has, while simultaneously pricing itself into the stratosphere.
the AMERICANS don't even like the f35. . .
http://rt.com/usa/news/f-35-countries-program-us-677/
F-35 failure forces countries to reconsider contracts
American military top-brass met with foreign officials overseas this week after growing problems with the US Air Force’s F-35 program has caused a handful of nations to consider terminating their contracts with the States to purchase warplanes.
Ongoing incidents onboard the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets have caused the US Air Force to suspend the program themselves several times as of late, and with other countries lined up to purchase the planes at roughly $200 million a pop, malfunctions, delays and growing costs are raising more than just a few eyebrows.
From Sydney, Australia on Thursday, US Air Force Major General John F. Thompson, deputy Joint Strike Force Program executive officer, told reporters that the military vowed to see no further delays in the F-35 program that has so far been marred with mishaps.
General Thompson reassured representatives from Britain, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands this week that, despite consistent concerns, he was confident that the program would see no further flukes. That decision came after Canada announced that it was considering the cancelation of an order of 65 warplanes; Japan, who intended on ordering a few dozen themselves, said they were also considering pulling out.
"We have been given the adequate time needed to execute the program,” explained General Thompson. "There was plenty of lively discussion on affordability and production. What we pledged today was to maintain a very open line of communication."
Despite investing $382 billion in its F-35 program, the US has continued to encounter setbacks along the way. Last year the Air Force suspended operation of its fleet of 20 Joint Strike Fighters after they experienced malfunctions, and that was already the third time the program was put on hold. With the Pentagon publicizing last month that the US was going to postpone its own plans for a fleet of 179 F-35s citing budget concerns, now other countries are considering the same.
On top of technical and mechanical problems, countries considering purchasing the planes cite growing costs as a big issue. The US decided to momentarily move aside its plans for nearly 200 planes saying it would save the Defense Department over $15 billion, but now that decision is proving disastrous for others. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the aircraft, said that the postponement will only put a higher price tag on the cost of the plane, which isn’t good for potential purchasers. Even still, US officials say that future roadblocks will be rare from here on out.
"I am absolutely confident that we will get where we want to go," added Thompson, reports Reuters. "But from a procurement standpoint, it's up to each partner to decide what they want to procure and how much they want to procure to address their capability gaps."
Both Britain and Australia have confirmed that they will wait until a later date before formally signing off on the acquisition of the fleets they had in mind. In the end, however, the US says the still expect to sell more than 700 of the jets overseas within the next decade.
http://rt.com/usa/news/f-35-countries-program-us-677/
F-35 failure forces countries to reconsider contracts
American military top-brass met with foreign officials overseas this week after growing problems with the US Air Force’s F-35 program has caused a handful of nations to consider terminating their contracts with the States to purchase warplanes.
Ongoing incidents onboard the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets have caused the US Air Force to suspend the program themselves several times as of late, and with other countries lined up to purchase the planes at roughly $200 million a pop, malfunctions, delays and growing costs are raising more than just a few eyebrows.
From Sydney, Australia on Thursday, US Air Force Major General John F. Thompson, deputy Joint Strike Force Program executive officer, told reporters that the military vowed to see no further delays in the F-35 program that has so far been marred with mishaps.
General Thompson reassured representatives from Britain, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands this week that, despite consistent concerns, he was confident that the program would see no further flukes. That decision came after Canada announced that it was considering the cancelation of an order of 65 warplanes; Japan, who intended on ordering a few dozen themselves, said they were also considering pulling out.
"We have been given the adequate time needed to execute the program,” explained General Thompson. "There was plenty of lively discussion on affordability and production. What we pledged today was to maintain a very open line of communication."
Despite investing $382 billion in its F-35 program, the US has continued to encounter setbacks along the way. Last year the Air Force suspended operation of its fleet of 20 Joint Strike Fighters after they experienced malfunctions, and that was already the third time the program was put on hold. With the Pentagon publicizing last month that the US was going to postpone its own plans for a fleet of 179 F-35s citing budget concerns, now other countries are considering the same.
On top of technical and mechanical problems, countries considering purchasing the planes cite growing costs as a big issue. The US decided to momentarily move aside its plans for nearly 200 planes saying it would save the Defense Department over $15 billion, but now that decision is proving disastrous for others. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the aircraft, said that the postponement will only put a higher price tag on the cost of the plane, which isn’t good for potential purchasers. Even still, US officials say that future roadblocks will be rare from here on out.
"I am absolutely confident that we will get where we want to go," added Thompson, reports Reuters. "But from a procurement standpoint, it's up to each partner to decide what they want to procure and how much they want to procure to address their capability gaps."
Both Britain and Australia have confirmed that they will wait until a later date before formally signing off on the acquisition of the fleets they had in mind. In the end, however, the US says the still expect to sell more than 700 of the jets overseas within the next decade.
Last edited:
probably more credibility than the f35 ever has in meeting its stated capabilities, delivering anywhere close to cost estimates, or within 3 years of claimed date. at this point, battlecruisers are more likely than anything positive to come out of the f35 purchase. bet on it.
definitely more credibility than the harpos in their handling of this whole file.
definitely more credibility than the f35 in fitting the needs that canada actually has.
why are we being boondoggled into buying a plane that the AMERICANS don't even like???
how can people continue to defend this purchase when even the people selling it to us aren't sold on it???
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
advocating an option that is not possible doesn't do anything for anyone's argument against the f35. Quite the opposite.
i have also been advocating a full investigation of ALL options, for quite some time now. did you miss that too?
only the persistent f35 thumpers have closed-minds on this issue, blinders placed there by political partisanship or ignorance of the facts on the f35.
add to that the harpos bungling of this entire deal, and canadians should have zero confidence that this boondoggle is the correct choice.
if the current government is to be believed, then the whole process has been rebooted. time to blue sky. no way due diligence can be completed before the end of 2012, especially if they are transparent like they promised to be.
currently, anyone stumping for the f35 is ALSO "advocating an option that is not possible", since it is virtually guaranteed that whatever gets delivered in 8+ years, billions over budget, will not meet the criteria dnd has set. they have bought a pipe-dream that people who only go as deep as reading brochures from lockheed martin would believe.
and they're going to do that with our tax dollars.
f35: overpay, underperform.
reading comprehension fail.
read the quote again. this is not about a lack of public support for the f35. . .this is the u.s. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and the US AIR FORCE that are losing faith in the project.
but no, it's fine. let's keep hammering ahead when everyone else is having second thoughts. . .the british, the aussies, the americans. . .
OpenGambit
Banned
all i see you ranting about in the last few pages is an option that doesn't exist. if the people advocating the f35 are doing the same thing ( as you say), how does that make you more credible?
so you can definitively preclude the possibility that a plane that is currently in production, and is not available for sale simply on the basis of a political decision, will never be available? it doesn't exist at present. like the f35 does not exist at present.
however, the difference between the f22 and the f35 is that one is already operational, and with a defined cost. that's more credible. if you don't see it that way, then we disagree. politics is hardly an impossible barrier to change, when a potentially monumental sea change is possible this fall.
i would love to hear how you'd address all of the concerns that have been brought up about the f35 and the purchase process, or are you just one of those "we're stuck with it, so be done with it" blinkered drones?
to be clear, i mentioned the f22 because someone on here insisted that we could only buy (a) american planes that (b) fit into the 'ncw' concept he's been selling.
i have NEVER agreed that we should accept this premise.
frankly, i still believe the primary role of our new jets should be air superiority and a physical and literal projection of force over our sovereign areas. . .as someone else has already mentioned, not sure how a stealth plane achieves the effect of visibly projecting our strength over the arctic.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
You have tried to peg me to a few points that I never made already, this one isn't gonna stick either.
I don't need to be a f35 lover to point out that you are arguing for something that was nevera an option ( and nothing indicates a change).
And the only thing you have said in response is that your dream is somehow less fantastical than other's dreams.
This wasn't something I followed nor pretended to be knowledgeable about, but you are unconvincing, if you can't convince someone who never had a opinion to begin with, well thats not really my problem.
Last edited:
speaking of unconvincing. . .for someone who claims this issue "wasn't something i followed" you have certainly thrown in quite a few posts in this thread.
however, given the lack of substance in most of your posts--the balance being unsubstantiated opinion (your own words belie this fact, despite your claim to not having an opinion)--then you can understand when i say that i'm not at all concerned with how successful i am at "convincing" you.
at least posters like mnaked have some intellectual honesty by engaging in discourse (after some prodding) with an attempt at qualifying their views.
if you want to maintain the pretense of not having an opinion, perhaps sticking to the glib comments would make your stated claim more believable.
f40 > f35
|
|
|
|
|