Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[teacher]

The JSF is an interceptor and a ground attack fighter. It's a multi role fighter which is what we need as we can't afford to purchase both type.

I didn't realize they were still making Super Hornets, which makes it even more mysterious as to why we don't get any of those instead.

Must it be explained AGAIN!?!?!? The Super Hornets will be retired from the US arsenal by the time the JSF is done being delivered. Unless we want to once again be using out of date equipment. By the time they are retrofitted with current gear they'd probably cost as much as the JSF. Cyclone anybody?

[Mrs.Robinson]

Must it be explained AGAIN!?!?!? The Super Hornets will be retired from the US arsenal by the time the JSF is done being delivered.

Sounds good, we can get very cheap spare parts in the future, sign me up

[fortis risk]

I guess the other thing is for me is that chances are any state that would have a Gen 5 Jet hat we would be going up against is probably going to be a nuclear power. If it becomes all out war with one of those states, we lose every time Like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Nark]

I think what bothers me is that the right wingers on this forum and in government seem to have a problem with the public questioning their decisions. ...
How many fighter pilots have we lost in combat in the past 10 years, how many ground troops. The fighter jet is designed for a type of war that hasn't been fought in some time. IEDs, suicide bombers and gorilla tactics indicative of asymmetrical warfare are the new normal. If we want to protect our troops that is where I would like to see resources directed.

The problem with the lay person, such as yourself, is that when they look at an F-18, they see a "cool fighter," and romanticize about the dogfights it's capable of getting in, and out of.

Now here is where you and I disagree. I've been on the battle field. When I see an F-18, I see a tool that will allow me to blow the shit out of my enemies, by the use of Close Air Support, a mission the F-18 is well suited for.

The JSF isn't just a whizz-bang-go-fast jet that will reach out and say hello to another aircraft. It is designed to blow shit up on the ground, when the troops need shit blown up.


I've avoided a ground fight simply because I had air support overhead.
You don't know what your talking about.

[fortis risk]

Actually I don't see a "cool fighter" at all, not in the least. When I was a kid for sure but now I find that fighters don't represent what I love about aviation at all. The military doesn't turn my crank nor does their toys. I've spent a good bit of time in theaters of conflict where I've seen close up what those toys will do to civilians, in particular what marines have done with those toys inflicting collateral damage.

As an foreign armed service member you are the one person on this forum who should have no input into our decisions.

[scm]

If anyone has been following the Peak Oil or The Future thread, it is likely that Canada will require more forces.

Civilians need to be trained and armed. The world does not "love Canadians".

Did Stalin not love Hitler?
As a vegetarian humanist, I will acknowledge that we need to militarize.

The energy crisis may see the USA shudder, and the climate crisis might redraw our borders.
Better than to fight. They are human too. And they have a bigger force.

As much as I hate war and violence, I hope the USA and Canada can maintain
a giant fucking military force for the next 100 years.

[Moose47]

fortis risk
Post subject: Re: Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:23 am
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 6:21 pm
Posts: 207
Location: Low and slow
... As an foreign armed service member you are the one person on this forum who should have no input into our decisions.>>>

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

Semper Fi

[alctel]

yelling 'semper fi' doesn't really mean much and what's that got to do with anything

[The Old Fogducker]

Fortis:

People get killed in wars ... an unfortunate but real fact.

Would it be a demonstration of "karma justice" if only combatants were the ones being wounded or killed until peace was obtained ... yeah, sure it would. BUT ... it just isn't going to happen. So, your beautifully idealistic outlook just isn't going to translate to reality in many, many generations into the future any more than it has for tens of thousands of generations in the past.

Perhaps you could make a real difference if you were to attend a candle-light vigil for world peace in front of the Iranian Embassy.

In the meantime, based upon real world experience, I'll suggest Nark's info has 3,000 times the credibility of yours.....nothing personal, just weighing the facts at hand.

The Old Fogducker

[alctel]

Fortis:

People get killed in wars ... an unfortunate but real fact.

Would it be a demonstration of "karma justice" if only combatants were the ones being wounded or killed until peace was obtained ... yeah, sure it would. BUT ... it just isn't going to happen. So, your beautifully idealistic outlook just isn't going to translate to reality in many, many generations into the future any more than it has for tens of thousands of generations in the past.

Perhaps you could make a real difference if you were to attend a candle-light vigil for world peace in front of the Iranian Embassy.

In the meantime, based upon real world experience, I'll suggest Nark's info has 3,000 times the credibility of yours.....nothing personal, just weighing the facts at hand.

The Old Fogducker

I guess its all 'collateral damage' anyway isn't it, I mean those 107,000 men women and children who have died in Iraq weren't OUR children, sons, daughters or husbands so why does it matter if we bomb their weddings or blow the limbs off of their children, right?

[Mrs.Robinson]

Fortis:

People get killed in wars ... an unfortunate but real fact.

Would it be a demonstration of "karma justice" if only combatants were the ones being wounded or killed until peace was obtained ... yeah, sure it would. BUT ... it just isn't going to happen. So, your beautifully idealistic outlook just isn't going to translate to reality in many, many generations into the future any more than it has for tens of thousands of generations in the past.

The Old Fogducker

I do agree with you 100%, civilians will always be killed in war. 1 million Vietnamese killed for a war started with friendly fire from US ship. 1 Million killed in Iraq becaause of fake WDM's, thousands killed in Afghanistan because the Americans where preoccupied in Iraq.

The only just war of the 3 I named, is Afghanistan. It is too bad Bush decided to attack Iraq on lies, this actions has lead to many more civilian causalities in Afghanistan, and Canadian Causalities for a lost war.
All those Canadians dead for nothing, a lost war.

As soon as allied troops pull out ti will be back to Taliban rule.


Anyways back on point, civilians causalities will always happen, but they are political decisions and not the decision of our military.

[alctel]

This is kind of off topic now anyway

Also I am resigned to a Conversative minority government for evermore so the discussion is kind of moot as well I think

[Old Dog Flying]

Typical Right Wing "expert"...like a few on this board...

Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

-- Marecha Ferdinand Foch, Prof. of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, Paris, France, ca 1912.

[iflyforpie]

Typical Right Wing "expert"...like a few on this board...

Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

-- Marecha Ferdinand Foch, Prof. of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, Paris, France, ca 1912.

Ha! And the Frogs wound up naming an aircraft carrier after him...

[Expat]

Fortis:

People get killed in wars ... an unfortunate but real fact.

Would it be a demonstration of "karma justice" if only combatants were the ones being wounded or killed until peace was obtained ... yeah, sure it would. BUT ... it just isn't going to happen. So, your beautifully idealistic outlook just isn't going to translate to reality in many, many generations into the future any more than it has for tens of thousands of generations in the past.

The Old Fogducker

I do agree with you 100%, civilians will always be killed in war. 1 million Vietnamese killed for a war started with friendly fire from US ship. 1 Million killed in Iraq becaause of fake WDM's, thousands killed in Afghanistan because the Americans where preoccupied in Iraq.

The only just war of the 3 I named, is Afghanistan. It is too bad Bush decided to attack Iraq on lies, this actions has lead to many more civilian causalities in Afghanistan, and Canadian Causalities for a lost war.
All those Canadians dead for nothing, a lost war.

As soon as allied troops pull out ti will be back to Taliban rule.


Anyways back on point, civilians causalities will always happen, but they are political decisions and not the decision of our military.

Sorry, but I wouldn't call it a just war...That invasion had to do with controlling Central Asia, and even the US makes no fuss about it...
We lost 150 people, and how many got maimed? For what???
The Afghans want us out now, and they themselves say they prefer the peace and backwardness of the Talibs, to what they have now...
AQ and Talibs are flourishing now, with all our efforts...
Our model democracy is the most corrupt place in the world, and human rights are more tramped on than ever before...
This is not a just war...

[Shiny Side Up]

Typical Right Wing "expert"...like a few on this board...

Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

-- Marecha Ferdinand Foch, Prof. of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, Paris, France, ca 1912.

Ha! And the Frogs wound up naming an aircraft carrier after him...

IroNy!

[modi13]

...gorilla tactics...

I don't think we're fighting gorillas. Maybe baboons, but certainly not gorillas...

[North Shore]

http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2010/11 ... again.html

Tuesday, November 02, 2010
F-35 cost overruns in the spotlight again
More cost overruns and schedule delays are in the news today (h/t) on the F-35's development. With this news coming in the heat of election day in the U.S., it will fly somewhat under the radar (pardon the pun). It shouldn't for us though:
Pentagon experts conducting an in-depth review of Lockheed Martin's F-35 joint strike fighter are predicting further cost increases and delays getting the airplanes tested and into service.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to be briefed today on the latest cost and schedule assessments, said two government officials, who requested anonymity because details aren't public. Delays in writing and testing millions of lines of intricate software code and continuing problems and delays with testing the especially complex Marines version of the aircraft are driving costs higher.

The latest projections are based on a preliminary analysis of test and production data from a comprehensive "technical baseline review" of the F-35, the officials said. The review of the $382 billion program is to be presented Nov. 22 to the Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board.

The $50 billion development cost estimate for the F-35 could rise as much as $5 billion more, and Pentagon analysts now estimate that the aircraft may be as much as 11/2 times more expensive to maintain than the warplanes it will replace, the officials said. The F-35 has been billed as being less costly to maintain and operate than existing planes.

Air Force and Navy versions of the plane could be delayed another year and the Marines version by two to three years, the officials said.
Note the estimate that maintenance costs may be one and a half times more expensive than the planes being replaced. Sounds uncertain and costly. How our government can then credibly provide assurances that costs for this purchase can remain under control, in terms of both purchase price and maintenance, remains an unanswered question.

Elsewhere, the testimony offered by ADM Dan Ross at the Commons committee on National Defence on October 19th has come under criticism by aerospace journalist Bill Sweetman who takes issue with a number of Ross' statements. This one, for example: "The US Government does not participate in RFP competitions." Writes Sweetman: "The last statement would be news in India, Singapore and Korea, to name but three." His entire item is well worth a read and seems to raise many questions about Ross' testimony.

This large proposed expenditure is happening at a time not so far removed from a major financial crisis that the world went through. Out of that experience and at a very basic level, we were supposed to have gained a sense that the concept of "too big to fail" is just not true. Further, that we would prefer if those institutions who could do us harm, private or public, be vigilant and ask tough questions on issues and decisions that pose a high degree of risk. This proposed purchase falls under that type of umbrella. As the facts come to light it's hard to view it any other way. It remains remarkable then that a "just trust me" type of attitude, manifested in the sole-source route they wish to take, is the one that the Harper government has chosen here.

[Nark]

As an foreign armed service member you are the one person on this forum who should have no input into our decisions.

I'm honored that you hold my opinion in such high regard. But sadly, you will not see "Nark" on and parliamentary or Canadian DND paperwork when the JSF is acquired.

My input into this thread is warranted, unfortunate for you. Being that I was

foreign armed service member

in these modern times, my input has fact based relevance. As opposed to say yours, which is just conjecture.

[modi13]

Let's assume for a moment that if Canada is ever invaded by Russia/the US/Iran/Moldova we'll be nuked into oblivion or completely decimated by a superior force, and ignore the defence of Canadian territory. What if, perchance, the CF continues to do what it has for the past century: interdiction into foreign conflicts. What if we become involved in further peacekeeping operations that require a more aggressive strategy, such as the bombing of Kosovo? The Serbian military had some of the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft weapons available, and even shot down a US aircraft, so wouldn't it be to our benefit to have a fighter that doesn't show up on radar? Having a strike aircraft designed for hitting ground targets is precisely what's required in this situation, and having one that's capable of defending itself against air attacks would also be essential should the defending military have an air force of any size, as in the Gulf War.

[fortis risk]

I realize that through some inadequacy issues you feel the need to define yourself through your service time. Its funny that since I don't feel the need to do the same you assume that I have no relevance.

We are watching an empire crumble. An empire that pursued an aggressive foreign policy, that did so while spending massive amounts of debt on high tech weapons. Those high tech weapons are proving themselves inappropriate. If you honestly believe that things are any better in Afghanistan, the middle east or in fact the world as a result of the deployment of these amazing weapons you are delusional at best.

Please don't take this to mean that I don't like your country. Its like watching a good friend in a long fight with a terminal disease. I just hope we don't get infected.

[Expat]

To predict the future, future wars, or best weapons for them, one has to study history. One has to assess to potential threats in the next 20-50 years.
Without some serious thinking, we will be relegated to the level of those old, timed-expired neo-cons, who rule the world politics now. These backward thinking babbling idiots want to fight the cold war that wasn't. All the US efforts in the past 20 years have been directed to that goal.
From the carpet bombing of Kosovo and Serbia to destroy one very strong ex-soviet country, to the War on Terror, all efforts until now were directed at keeping Russia from becoming a world power again.
And this all happened without them realizing where the real long term threat was.
But fortunately for the rest of us, these idiots are not far-sighted, or even clever. They keep making the same mistakes over and over.
1. They let Pakistan become nuclear, because they were not friends with India. They even armed the mujahedins to fight the Soviet Union, not knowing that these weapons would eventually turn against them.
2. They screwed up in Iraq, and created a Shia wild card, that will eventually turn against them, and join Iran's position.
3. Now, they are arming Saudi Arabia, with discounted weapons, in an effort to scare Iran. And if that turns out like past initiatives, it will backfire royally. The Saudis may change sides, like Arabs do, and point more weapons at Israel. And then, may be this is the plan...
4. In order to maintain the system going, the US needs to spook its citizens with an Evil Empire. It will not work with China, as they see it coming, and maintain a very low profile. Besides, they are already too powerfull financially to be made Evil. So we keep hearing of these small harmless countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea as evil, so that our ill-informed citizens agree to spend billions for new, useless weapons...With enough provocations, these harmless countries respond with disdain to the US, which uses this as provocation, and instills more fear into its generous tax-payers...
I could go on...

[ARCCOM]

I dont understand why there such a big uproar over the cost of the F35. People compare its price today with the cost of the last generation of fighter aircraft without taking inflation into account. I believe the CF18's were purchased in 1983 for about $35 million each, in todays dollars that is $75 million($140 million using a relative share of the GDP calculation) which is in the general ballpark of what the F35 will end up costing. Opponents of the F35 on the basis of price do not understand simple economics.
Even the F15 when it was released in 1972 cost about $30 million which today is equivalent to $150 million which is in the ballpark of the F22 cost today. People need to understand that these new 5th generation fighters are not any more expensive than the 4th generation fighters when they came out.

[Mrs.Robinson]

Fortis:

People get killed in wars ... an unfortunate but real fact.

Would it be a demonstration of "karma justice" if only combatants were the ones being wounded or killed until peace was obtained ... yeah, sure it would. BUT ... it just isn't going to happen. So, your beautifully idealistic outlook just isn't going to translate to reality in many, many generations into the future any more than it has for tens of thousands of generations in the past.

The Old Fogducker

I do agree with you 100%, civilians will always be killed in war. 1 million Vietnamese killed for a war started with friendly fire from US ship. 1 Million killed in Iraq becaause of fake WDM's, thousands killed in Afghanistan because the Americans where preoccupied in Iraq.

The only just war of the 3 I named, is Afghanistan. It is too bad Bush decided to attack Iraq on lies, this actions has lead to many more civilian causalities in Afghanistan, and Canadian Causalities for a lost war.
All those Canadians dead for nothing, a lost war.

As soon as allied troops pull out ti will be back to Taliban rule.


Anyways back on point, civilians causalities will always happen, but they are political decisions and not the decision of our military.

Sorry, but I wouldn't call it a just war...That invasion had to do with controlling Central Asia, and even the US makes no fuss about it...
We lost 150 people, and how many got maimed? For what???
The Afghans want us out now, and they themselves say they prefer the peace and backwardness of the Talibs, to what they have now...
AQ and Talibs are flourishing now, with all our efforts...
Our model democracy is the most corrupt place in the world, and human rights are more tramped on than ever before...
This is not a just war...

I will reword it. It could be considered just for some after what happened on 911, or least more justifiable then some other wars that the US has started. The execution of war, is a war crime on behalf of the United states. They have have only made al qaeda stronger. The diversion with Iraq made them loose the war in Afghanistan , had this not happened there might have been success with way fewer civilian causalities.

An analogy it going on a 10 day antibiotics treatment and stopping after 5 days on a doctors recommendation. This could lead to the creation of a super bug that can't be destroyed with antibiotics in the future. The only way to win at this point if pulling out and letting the natural defense try to beat it. The Doctor would be guilty of malpractice. In this case the USA is guilty of a crime against humanity.

This entire conflict could also have been avoided had the US not made al qaeda in the first place, again another crime against humanity.

[alctel]

Out of interest, what is so special about the 'marines version' that it will take an extra year or two over the other two variants? Is that the STOL? If so, why isn't the Navy version delayed?