When the NDP becomes govt, I want a name change of that ministry to include "peace".
Same here. And get rid of that "Royal" bullshit.
Tow away costs on F35 are escalating.
Tue, 2012-02-14 09:17
#52
Boom Boom
Wed, 2012-02-15 11:49
#53
John Ivison: Ottawa Sets Sights on Armed Drones
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/john-ivison-ottawa-sets-s...
"The Harper Cabinet has discussed potential solution to its F-35 fighter jet dilemma - the use of armed drones..."
Thu, 2012-02-16 13:49
#54
John Ivison: Ottawa Sets Sights on Armed Drones
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/john-ivison-ottawa-sets-s...
"The Harper Cabinet has discussed potential solution to its F-35 fighter jet dilemma - the use of armed drones..."
Man when the drones rise up we are so screwed :p
Thu, 2012-02-16 13:55
#55
Our military should be redesigned to be more like Starfleet in its principles and applications.
The pillars of the "Canadian Forces" should be scientific exploration, emergency response, peacekeeping (I mean that in the Lester B. Person tradition), engireering solutions, and cultural outreach, and of course national defense.
Thu, 2012-02-16 14:02
#56
To expand on that thought in addition to the normal army, navy, air force, sections of the military I'd take the communications section,and expand it to become the science and engireering section and add a humantarian section to the Canadian forces. So it would be the army, navy, airforce, Sci-Enigeers, and Humanitarian sections. Each with its own badge to show which part of the Canadian forces they belong too.
Fri, 2012-03-02 04:51
#57
M. Spector
[url=http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/02/29/credibility-of-dnd-spokespeopl... Defence Department is interested in what you think about the F-35s[/url]
Documents obtained by Postmedia News through access to information show that since the Conservative government announced in July 2010 that Canada would be purchasing 65 F-35s for $9 billion, plus another $7 billion in maintenance costs, the Defence Department has been [b]tirelessly tracking what the media is writing about the jets[/b].The information, which [b]includes blogs and Twitter[/b], is compiled into reports delivered to senior officials every few weeks.
The reports include a breakdown of which journalists are writing about the stealth fighters, whether their stories are positive or negative, and whether the articles addressed the F-35s performance, delivery schedule or price.
One report, from Oct. 17, 2011, notes that over the preceding 15 months, nearly 2,900 articles had been published on the F-35, the majority of which were critical of the purchase....
But the report notes the vast majority of the articles written about the jet aren’t about its performance, but its cost....
The report goes on to note that during the previous month, no less than six prices had been cited by different sources.
These included a [b]$65-million[/b] figure from manufacturer Lockheed Martin, [b]$75 million[/b] from the Canadian Defence Department, [b]$103 million[/b] from the head of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment Office, [b]$113 million[/b] from a U.S. congressional committee, [b]$137 million[/b] from the Israeli military and [b]$148 million[/b] from parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page.
The report then notes that according to the U.S. Defense Department, “the cost of the F-35 has risen by 85 per cent since the program began – from $59.1 million per unit in 2001 to $108.7 million in October 2011.”
Sat, 2012-03-17 23:58
#58
M. Spector
Defence Department officials glossed over warnings that the F-35 project was facing serious scheduling and cost problems as they pitched the stealth fighter to the government in 2010, newly released documents indicate.
Rather, [b]while Lockheed Martin was admitting the program was thousands of hours behind schedule and missing numerous benchmarks, the Canadian military was giving slick presentations highlighting the aircraft's stealth capabilities.[/b]
The documents, provided to the Commons' finance committee on Friday, have emerged following a report [b]the auditor general is preparing to slam the department next month for misleading Parliament[/b] on its handling of the file.
[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Defence+turned+blind+warnings+del... News[/url]
Sun, 2012-03-18 00:44
#59
Man when the drones rise up we are so screwed :pJohn Ivison: Ottawa Sets Sights on Armed Drones
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/john-ivison-ottawa-sets-s...
"The Harper Cabinet has discussed potential solution to its F-35 fighter jet dilemma - the use of armed drones..."
This could have been their strategy all along. F-35s were a ruse for a cheaper plan b, a mixture of cheaper Boeing jets, which is another favoured corporation of the military-industrial complex, and robotic unmanned drones. And then our corrupt stooges can say to the bozos voting for them, See now? We can be both reasonable and frugal when kissing American ass afterall. And some percentage of swing voters are easily taken in by it if it matters to them at all.
Thu, 2012-09-20 08:42
#60
Boom Boom
Pentagon slams F-35 manufacturer No mention of cancelling the program - just taking a harder line with Lockheed Martin. The article does reveal how insanely expensive this plane is, though.
Wed, 2013-02-27 22:21
#61
Boom Boom
I will NEVER believe Canada needs a fighter jet, but on The National tonight, we will see reporting that the Super Hornet (Boeing) can be brought for half the cost of the F35, and it's a better plane.
ETA: the F35 is grounded because of engine problems. 
ETA: just saw on CNN that the F35 program in the USA may be scaled down because of the "sequester" cutbacks. Yayyy! 
Thu, 2013-02-28 03:13
#62
Thu, 2013-02-28 07:26
#63
Boeing on record as saying they can supply Super Hornets for half the cost of the F-35's.
These aircraft ARE IN production now.
Boeing has also promised more work for Canadian companies MORE than what was claimed for buying F-35's.
RESET??? You bet reset!!!
Tue, 2013-03-05 02:01
#64
The F-35 are sort of in production now except they don't work as advertised. Turkey will not take the planes that they were supposed to get because of major flaws. This article goes into a myriad of technical problems with this lemon. The kicker is they can't even land on aircraft carriers because of a design flaw in the arresting hook apparatus,
This article says the hundredth of these lemons is rolling of the lines and they will all have to refurbished to deal with the problems.
On 14 January, very shortly after the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) released its 2012 annual report on progress in various Pentagon programs (including a 16-page section on the F-35), Turkey announced a one-year delay in the purchase of its first two Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Why? ”High cost yield” and flight and combat capabilities that “are not at the desired level yet”. In short, the F-35 doesn’t work and it’s too expensive. (See GlobalFlight.)
That’s just the tip of the iceberg for what is the most expensive military procurement program in history. While some will argue that the key word in the Turkish statement is “yet”, one must ask whether Turkey or the United States and all other partner F-35 nations will ever get what they were initially promised.
Several sources (Aviation Week & Space Technology, FlightGlobal, et al.) have provided briefer summaries of the DOT&E’s F-35 annual report. But few examine the implications of what the DoD has published, or ask questions that should have been asked years ago.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/04/when-money-is-no-object-the-stran...
Thu, 2013-03-07 11:08
#65
Boom Boom
F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots
excerpt:
New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris says that given the latest report by the Pentagon, an extension is unrealistic.
"There are planes that are already available and flying," he said.
"The government needs to have a good, hard look at what they've committed themselves and say this plane is not going to be available to us when we need it."
Needed for what, exactly???? Sounds like the NDP has brought into the fighter jet program, hook, line, and sinker.
Thu, 2013-03-07 12:32
#66
Ready Aye Ready says the new imperialist party. The only debate is over which plane we buy to project our military power around the globe not whether we should be spending a nickel to support NATO wars of aggression in resource rich countries. The policy is all about making the world safe for Canadian mining companies to exploit other peoples resources.
Wed, 2013-03-13 11:06
#67
Boom Boom
U.S. Congressional watchdog says delays in F-35s could put costs of fighter jets out of reach
A U.S. Congressional watchdog monitoring the F-35 stealth fighter jet program is warning that persistent testing and development delays could take the sophisticated war plane’s price tag out of the reach of the U.S. military and partner countries, including Canada, that are backing the trouble-plagued project.
Thu, 2013-03-28 22:33
#68
The new and improved F35 STOVL models are apparently the worst lemons of all.
In short, the vertical landing so touted by the Marines’ as a demonstration of the Corps “expeditionary” culture and “transformational capability” is more applicable to advertising for gullible denizens of Capitol Hill and for air shows—if, indeed, the host facility has a few thousand square feet of refractory concrete and lots of fencing to keep spectators well away from high velocity foreign objects catapulted by the F-35B’s vertical jet exhaust.
At best, the F-35s will be employing 3,000 to 4,000-foot takeoffs and landings at unique “STOVL-only” runways specially prepared by the Marine Corps—and by the F-35B’s gigantic logistical tail.
It is not even clear if these large facilities will even be appropriate for vertical landings and will, instead, accommodate just the medium-speed rolling landings the F-35B can also perform (and shown in the USMC PR video). Or, the F-35B will be restricted to the Marine Corps’ small aircraft carrier amphibious warfare ships, which also require various special requirements to handle the F-35B and its demanding operating characteristics.
The vertical landing capability of the F-35B also comes at considerable cost. According to DOD’s latest Selected Acquisition Report, the airframe and engine for the “B” are $27.8 million more expensive than the Air Force’s already far-too expensive “A” model. And thanks to the extra weight and bulk of STOVL propulsion, the F-35B has even less range, payload, and maneuverability than the Air Force’s unacceptably low-performing “A” version.
Thu, 2013-03-28 23:38
#69
Needed for what, exactly???? Sounds like the NDP has brought into the fighter jet program, hook, line, and sinker.
The dud [s]Bomarc missiles[/s] I mean, F-35's, will be needed to enforce the no-fly zones the NDP agrees to in future. You know, like the no-fly line in the Libyan sand which everyone and their dogs predicted with 112% accuracy that the Gladio Gang would be the first to violate.
Everyone is a professional psychic when it comes to predicting future gladio without actually admitting that NATO is guilty ... guilty of premeditated gladio, that is.
And even if we don't believe it, the NDP is always obligated to speak out in Parliament against colder war maneuvering on the other side of da vorld. This sound reasoning and logic allows us to both criticize the NDP while backing them up all the way from our anonymous existence in the ether world here on babble, and at the same time, never have to show up in Canada's Parliament to provide positive proof of our psychic abilities before [s]gladio[/s] blood for oil acshully occurs.
It's all "conschpeeracy theory" ya know. 
Hint: The F-35's were just a modern day do-over of the dud Bomarc missile purchases from the Yanks. That's all it is. Conservatives are not so much stupid as everyone thinks they are. They are just corrupt as the day is long. Same old, same-ol'. They are just on the take is all. That's not conspiracy theory - it's just the way they roll.
Wed, 2015-01-14 01:50
#70
Broken Plane To Buy Every Homeless Person A Mansion
http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2015/01/americans-have-spent-enough-...
"Just days before its international debut at an airshow in the UK, the entire fleet of the Pentagon's next generation fighter plane - known as the F-35II Lightening, or the Joint Strike Fighter - has been grounded, highlighting just what a boondoggle the project has become.
With the vast amounts spent so far on the aircraft, the US could have worked wonders, including providing every homeless person in the US a $600,000 home."
Will Canucklheads let Harper give their dollars to USA for this?
Thu, 2015-03-19 12:26
#71
Oops: US Close-Air Support Bomb Doesn't Fit on the F-35...Plus, the F-35 won’t receive the necessary software for full close-air support until 2022.
The Small Diameter Bomb II [which doesn't fit] can fly over 45 miles, “reducing aircrews’ time in harm’s way,” according to Raytheon, the military contractor building the weapon. “The weapon’s small size allows fewer aircraft to take out the same number of targets as previous, larger weapons that required multiple jets,” the company website further notes.
Just what Canada needs in a first-strike fighter.
Analysis undertaken by the Department of National Defence found that it’s “highly unlikely” Canada would find itself participating in first-strike conflict with other countries that have sophisticated air-defence systems – a scenario where the Lockheed Martin F-35’s vaunted stealth capabilities and other features might be most useful.
Thu, 2015-03-19 20:30
#72
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f...
A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a “generic” F-35 costs $178 million.
Wow crazy amount for these already obsolete 'aircraft'
Sat, 2015-03-21 14:17
#73
I suppose that doesn't include maintenance costs, for example for the ultra super excellent cutting edge as of two decades ago radar absorbing surface. It gets better with time you know, like a good wine.
...every other stealth warplane has steadily lost its ability to dodge enemy radars owing to wear and tear on the plane’s special skin coating. Not so the F-35...O’Bryan insisted the single-engine JSF, which is projected to cost $1 trillion to develop, buy and maintain, is fundamentally different than its predecessors.“The surface material smooths out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official”
There is indeed a reason it's called a "stealth" jet.
“the number of maintenance personnel required to maintain the F-22A’s specialized stealth exterior has increased, posing a continuing support challenge for this aircraft”...it’s worth noting the extreme pressure on O’Bryan and other Lockheed execs to extol, even exaggerate, the F-35’s capabilities.
Sat, 2015-03-21 21:56
#74
The "fly away" cost is very misleading. There's lots of hidden costs.
Building new buildings to house the jets
Training new support staff.
Training new support staff to teach them how to train other support staff.
Spare parts.
Storing the special spare parts
transporting spare parts.
Hiring people to look after the special parts.
Hiring new people to conduct studies of stuff and things.
new pictures of the jets for the office walls.
New patches.
This project isn't about protecting freedom or being prepared to engage the next near-peer enemy that comes along. It's about money, government deals, campain wheeling and dealing.
Wed, 2015-07-01 12:28
#75
Here's an embarrassing report. Excerpt:
A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.
“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”
Thu, 2015-07-02 06:05
#76
Thanks been a while since we heard about this. I imagine the cons don't want to remind people about this boondogle.
Sat, 2015-07-04 03:01
#77
They interviewed David Axe on As it happens. Good interview about how bad this jet is. The whole thing pretty much needs to be rebuilt and can't even keep pace with F16 falcon from lockheed. Which is over 30 years old. 1 trillion in cost!
Mon, 2015-11-23 15:31
#78
F-35 In A Canadian Fighter Jet Competition? - by David Pugliese
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/f-35-in-a-canadian-...
"US Deputy Defence Secretary Bob Wark has told journalists he still hopes Canada's Liberal government will allow Lockheed Martin's F-35 to compete in the program to replace the CF-18s.
Bob Wark sounds like he his hopeful the F-35 will be considered. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada will not buy the F-35."
Mon, 2015-11-23 17:31
#79
if the competition is done properly,
yes.
Mon, 2015-11-23 17:41
#80
I don't have a problem with the F-35 being in the competition and I don't think this contradicts the promise the Liberals made either.
What the Liberals were saying (and many New Democrats as well) was a prediction of the result.
The expensive plane that does not do what we need yet costs so much we could only afford less than the number we need is not going to make it. But sure let them try.
We need a new competition for a plane based on requirements suited for Canada's defence and patrols.
We do not need a plane only good for being a bit player in some US scheme to bomb civilians in other countries.
Canada likely needs a greater quantity of less costly, planes that have the capability to manage the distances we have in the conditions we have.
Canada will not be defended out of superiority against the US or Russians who are the greatest threat we have to our airspace.
The US are integrated - the best defence against the US threat is to be there in greater numbers. Not to have a plane so expensive that we can only have a handful in the air.
The Russians, as well, are considerably more capable than anything we can buy, due to numbers. Like the US, defence against the Russians is about being there, seeing them and them seeing us when they enter the space.
A new competition based on what Canada needs and can afford will disqualify the F-35. They would not need to be barred from taking part. If someone wants to enter a canoe it will not win -- and that is not due to some prejudice. (So for now the canoe will have to remain in dreams of the chasse-galerie rather than an actual military deployment of drunken voyageurs -- who might rightly scare the crap out of anyone we would send them against.)
So let the F-35 make a pitch if that makes them happy but if the competition is done properly, there is as much chance we will take to sending men of sickly body-odour pissing over the side of flying canoes, while swearing, navigating blind drunk into trees, as we will buy these planes. The F-35 is likely only a little more effective than a chasse-galerie anyway.
ETA: I just want to clarify that I was not thinking of Peter MacKay when I was writing the last paragraph.
Tue, 2015-11-24 08:27
#81
If the competition was done properly we would entertain ALL aircraft. This would include some of the excellent Russian and Chinese crafts along with some of the Indian ones. But I doubt very very much we actually pretend we are a 'global community' and we buy from uncle sam or maybe sweden or UK(more likely as they are part of our english white commonwealth family,members of the 5 eyes as it were)
Tue, 2015-11-24 13:04
#82
If the competition was done properly we would entertain ALL aircraft. This would include some of the excellent Russian and Chinese crafts along with some of the Indian ones. But I doubt very very much we actually pretend we are a 'global community' and we buy from uncle sam or maybe sweden or UK(more likely as they are part of our english white commonwealth family,members of the 5 eyes as it were)
If we were at war with Russia or China it's unlikely they would provide parts for our war machines. The "global community" is not at peace.
Concerning the F-35, the only products that will be considered are those that meet our requirements. The F-35 doesn't.
For example, the government refused to consider metro cars for Montreal from some Asian country because they had metal not rubber wheels. The company tried to sue based on trade deals but lost because rubber wheels are a reasonable and real criteria.
Likewise the F-35 does not meet our needs. If they are willing to meet the price we are willing to pay and to change the design to meet our needs then they can bid. It's highly unlikely that will happen.
Tue, 2015-11-24 19:14
#83
We do not require the latest technology and to buy it we would sacrifice the budget for the numbers we need, for the ships we need and for the other social priorities we need.
The F-35 is for an offensive rather than defense purpose and is best suited to the kinds of missions I do not want Canada to participate in and not so good for the kind of defense monitoring that the country should have here.
But sure let them present their aircraft and let the description of what we need and can afford eliminate it.
Tue, 2015-11-24 21:33
#84
If the competition was done properly we would entertain ALL aircraft. This would include some of the excellent Russian and Chinese crafts along with some of the Indian ones. But I doubt very very much we actually pretend we are a 'global community' and we buy from uncle sam or maybe sweden or UK(more likely as they are part of our english white commonwealth family,members of the 5 eyes as it were)
If we were at war with Russia or China it's unlikely they would provide parts for our war machines. The "global community" is not at peace.
Concerning the F-35, the only products that will be considered are those that meet our requirements. The F-35 doesn't.
For example, the government refused to consider metro cars for Montreal from some Asian country because they had metal not rubber wheels. The company tried to sue based on trade deals but lost because rubber wheels are a reasonable and real criteria.
Likewise the F-35 does not meet our needs. If they are willing to meet the price we are willing to pay and to change the design to meet our needs then they can bid. It's highly unlikely that will happen.
This is the type of fear mongering that cons play, because the ONLY real threat to us is from the USA. Even when Harpo was sabre rattling with a butter knife, the russian ambassador blew it off. Also it would be a good way of smoothing relations with out other neighbours.
Point two, we really shouldn't be in conflicts period, russia, china or otherwise. If we happen to be STUPID enough to 'go to war' with either of these countries it won't matter what our Airforce will look like because it will be inadequate against them.
The Russian Air Force has 148,000 personel
In 2012, the Air Force was made up of:
- 38 fighter squadrons (7 operating MiG-29s, one operating the MiG-29S, 2 operating the MiG-29SMT, 7 operating the MiG-31, one operating the MiG-31B, 4 operating the MiG-31BM, 7 operating the Su-27P, 8 operating the Su-27SM, 1 operating the Su-27SM3 and Su-30M2, 1 operating the Su-35S, 1 operating the Su-30SM)
- 15 bomber squadrons (9 operating the Su-24M, 2 operating the Su-24M2, 4 operating the Su-34)
- 14 assault squadrons (10 operating the Su-25, 4 operating the Su-25SM)
- 9 intelligence squadrons (operating the Su-24MR, and various UAVs)
- 13 training and testbed squadrons
The chinese even more 330,000
Chines People’s Liberation Army currently has approximately 2,200 operational aircraft, nearly 600 of which are considered modern
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/12/04/report-chinese-air-force-closes-gap-with-u-s/#ixzz3sSzQiASW
Defense.org
So our piddily 35-60 aircrafts even with the best pilots, sensors, weapson and training would lose because of shear numbers. Its a strawman argument to say we can't but from them in case we go to war with them. If we produce the jets here under license it would benefit us more and allow us to stockpile parts(which you have to do anyway regardless of seller).
Tue, 2015-11-24 22:44
#85
This is the type of fear mongering that cons play, because the ONLY real threat to us is from the USA. Even when Harpo was sabre rattling with a butter knife, the russian ambassador blew it off. Also it would be a good way of smoothing relations with out other neighbours.
Point two, we really shouldn't be in conflicts period, russia, china or otherwise. If we happen to be STUPID enough to 'go to war' with either of these countries it won't matter what our Airforce will look like because it will be inadequate against them.
I'm not suggesting there is any chance we will actually be at direct war with China or Russia, but we won't buy armaments from countries that are not our allies. Theoretically we could be at war with them, if not directly then in a proxie situation.
There is no physical threat to Canada from the US or anyone else. Democratic countries are invaded economically.
Wed, 2015-11-25 00:20
#86
pir
If the competition was done properly we would entertain ALL aircraft. This would include some of the excellent Russian and Chinese crafts along with some of the Indian ones. But I doubt very very much we actually pretend we are a 'global community' and we buy from uncle sam or maybe sweden or UK(more likely as they are part of our english white commonwealth family,members of the 5 eyes as it were)
When the Russians stop "testing" Canadian airspace, then we might begin to talk about buying fighters from them, but while they're taunting us, hell no. Let's not reward bullying. And it makes usually more sense to buy from long-term allies than from not-allies who at times make enemy-noises.
As regards the competition, I think the first question we should ask ourselves is whether we need fighter planes at all. If not, we can source planes for patrolling our airspace from within Canada itself at a fraction of the cost. If the symbolism matters enough, ok, let's buy some cheap fighters that can do the job from an ally. Nobody fools themselves that Canadians could actually hold their own borders, right?
If we decide we do need fighters for domestic purposes, I'm ok with buying from allies within the global community, but I'd be somewhat less unhappy buying from countries which have a better human rights track record (definitely Sweden over India). IF we must buy now at all -- maybe we can extend the life of the existing CF-18s and look into UAVs instead, or maybe we could go to a mixed fleet again. I am dead-set against buying the F-35; from everything I have read, this is not the plane for us for serious, operational reasons, it is much too expensive, and we don't need the stealth aspect; the F-35 sends the wrong message about us as somebody pursuing an agressive role in the world, which was fine for Harper, but not for me. Besides that I hate Lockheed Martin; damn them and their blackmailing ways. We should not invest in their arms trade and let them try to run our business anyway. I guess under NAFTA we can't just say "get lost, we won't consider you at all anymore"; too bad. Come to think of it, I think we could have easily said already that we don't need a stealth fighter to protect our own borders, but during the election Mulcair was more intent on how important proper procurement procedure is than on how Canada sees itself in the world. So principled about the much less important thing (can you tell I am a little bitter? Yes? Good.)
Oh, and I want to see the operational requirements so people in the know can assess them as to whether they are written to privilege a particular bid, or are genuine; I don't believe that national security truly requires they be kept secret.
Thu, 2016-02-04 10:16
#87
Why are we still consdiering this piece of crap F35?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/all-f35s-to-date-will-require.html
Tthe F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is over three years behind schedule and some $200 billion over its original budget.The fighter jet has been in development for nearly 15 years, weathered half a dozen years of testing and experienced myriad hardware malfunctions and software glitches along the way. Once it's declared ready for combat, it will be the most expensive weapons system in world history.
Now they are attempting to rush the F35 ahead in spite of all of the known problems.
Pilot Escape System would break the neck of the pilot - 100% some kind of neck injury and 23% chance of death for pilots below 165 pounds