Reply With QuoteFunny how it always seems to be about the plane though.Originally Posted by BC81
In other words you don't even really need aircraft and would be just as useful sitting on the sidelines.Pray tell who has threatened Canada? Besides second and first world war, the only other major war we fought (prior to Afghanistan) was you guys.
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot... Serbia threatened us as well
Funny how it always seems to be about the plane though.
Well some people just like going back and debating things to death.
Then why are you debating then? I think it was you that went on to go on about how it was LM's fault in a sarcastic comment, without actually reading the OP.
Like mentioned, this was about the transparency of Canada's government, not Lockheed Martin or the US government or anyone else.
If the Canadian government decides to have a fair and open competition which eventually sees the F-35 as the loser, I bet you'll be the first one to go into the "But the F-35 is waaaay better then everything else! Pray to God there won't be a real war!" mode.
lol! 123456
... and suddenly it's for the lulz. I refer to my earlier post:
I'm laughing at you because you seem to think it odd for someone to think the better aircraft is the better aircraft in an absolute sense. If you can only afford $10 million per aircraft than obviously the F-35 isn't the better choice in that instance despite it being the better aircraft if one can afford it.
CPuffs - Are you workin for them in some capacity or another because .. you heavy doing the PR with your ever present online lobbying for that trumped up project
Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Commander of Air Command, RCAF
“The F-35 Lightning II is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf,”“Given the increasingly complex and uncertain future security environment, the F-35 Lightning II will provide Canada with the greatest probability of mission success and the greatest probability that our men and women will survive and return safely from their missions.”(Australia) PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE“As commander of Air Command, I am delighted that the Canadian Forces will acquire the F-35 Lightning II, and I am fully convinced that this is the right fighter aircraft for Canada,”
AIR Commodore Graham Bentley, RAAF
I didn't see any Lockheed Larry in those quotes. Funny how people privy to some of the more classified capabilities share these thoughts.ACTING CHAIR: So what you are saying is, 'Believe us; we've got all the classified data in a brown paper bag'—
Air Cdre Bentley: Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.
Nope. Just want to see our forces get the best jet. "Trumped up"? Elaborate.
Seph is pretty much right on every point here. I think that the 35 is what we need up here, contrary to all the politicizing, having the US next door pumping our thousands of em should keep maintenance costs down pretty low. Hell I think we should get around 100, not the crummy 65 that won't even allow for losses to age/crashes.
They should have held an open tender, let the F-35 win, be very clear with the purpose and capabilities of the plane and blamed any cost overruns on the US.
Instead they got a situation where the Canadian gov seem like the incompetent party. (which it totally is, in this case)
Interesting that you mention LGen Deschamps. He admits there was no need for a Plan B in case of delays and kept the good faith in the F-35 that it would fit Canada's needs perfectly from the very beginning. I assume he too has a lot of questions to answer after the GA's report. After all, as Chief of the Air Staff (since Oct 2009!), he has failed as well in informing the government and ministries about the possible delays and cost overruns. Are these part of the classified capabilities? By the way, Deschamps also claimed the CH-148 Cyclone was a state-of-the-art and unmatched maritime surveillance and control helicopter - although the 28 helos on order have yet to be delivered to the RCAF after heavy delays.
From http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/...g.asp?id=12635
Thanks for the laughs, LGen Deschamps. It would have been an even better joke if he had included "and transparent".The RCAF has proven its ability to deliver robust air power and – with our ongoing modernization – I am confident that we will continue to provide the high degree of service that Canadians expect from us, in a fiscally responsible manner.
From what I've read about the GA report and its aftermath, the Canadians expect clear and honest answers from their government, DND officials, ministries, RCAF, etc. I'm confident it will be very entertaining to follow the coming decisions and reports.
I was hoping for a more coherent response, but I'm not surprised. So lets not muddle the points we were initially making.
You claimed the JSF fit the USAF needs and wondered why it would fit Canada's needs. The needs I'm assuming you're talking about are an aircraft's capabilities to successfully execute the tactical, operational and strategic missions within RCAF doctrine. I assuming these are the "needs" you're talking about because you mentioned the A-10. We're not talking about program management, or costs, or helicopters. Just the needs that found the principles behind air power.
And so in this respect you made it seems as if Lockheed was telling RCAF what they needed. Yet, I provided links to RCAF and RAAF senior officers that contradict exactly what you were implying; this is the aircraft that they want to take to war. Where did you go with this???
Also, your personal attack on LGen Deschamps is pretty shallow. The implication that he's incompetent by riding the lines of the mismanagement or cost overruns of this and other programs, and his failure to foresee or disclose information is a double-edged sword. I see two problems in your muddling.
First, you moved the target of your criticism and didn't address my reply to what your consider are the RCAF "needs."
Second, that's a pretty broad stroke. If that's your way of discrediting him then you better be ready to add hundreds of program officers from every air force around the world on every major defense acquisition in the last 30 years to that list. Are you willing to point that high-powered perception at some of your fanboy programs - and discredit or imply incompetence within their respective air forces based on your criticisms/criteria?
The condemnation of actual LM managers is understandable but the disparaging of actual military personnel is obnoxious and shortsighted. Lieutenant-General Deschamps has over 30 years serving his country and 7,500 flight hours, yet Steak-Sauce thinks he's a joke and is to be laughed at because he doesn't fit his narrative. That's borderline ashole.
They are air force personnel first and EVM professionals second. Actually, I don't even know if they are EVM certified. EVM specialist with 25 years of costing experience can't even get the metrics right on this program.
So although his understanding or insight into the program management/cost may be lacking, I don't see how this translates into him not knowing that this is the aircraft "that should suit the Canadians" - which was my original reply in this thread.
Posting Permissions
