Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3669
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Dec 2021, 16:09

Corsair1963 wrote:Trudeau has the perfect out. All he has to do is claim the F-35 is much improved over the original aircraft. Then select the F-35 as the winner of the Canadian Fighter Contest.

:wink:


Yes, I fully agree with you above that will likely happen.

Actually I remember Turdeau (I just noticed that I spelled his name wrong but I like this spelling, so I'll leave it as it is ;) ) saying in the parliament just after he won his first election that the F-35 was an aircraft still in development and it was "not really yet". Well, now it is and he will most likely use this excuse to back up his (stupid decision) to held a competition.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1222
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Dec 2021, 09:02

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:First: You do understand that this discussion is purely hypothetical, since there is no way F-35 is going to lose?


Apparently it's you who doesn't understand that this discussion is "purely hypothetical" since your argumentation usually starts with "accusing" the other of being "Wrong" or "Wrong again". Kinda hard being "Wrong" or "Wrong again" during a purely hypothetical discussion, eh? :roll:

Actually you are incorrect again (notice I avoided the word "wrong" since you seem to be very sensitive to that particular word).

For a discussion about a hypothetical situation shall make sense, and not confuse people, it still needs to be based in facts. However one can make assumptions, or describe the hypothetical situation that one intends to discuss. This is easier to understand with a simple example:

For instance, you may write "if the SH had still been in the competition, then I believe it would be the second choice after the F-35". This is fine to write, it contains the word "if", and it expresses an opinion based on a hypothetical situation.

However, if you instead write "the SH is still in the competition, and I believe it is the second choice after the F-35" then I would need to point out that this is "wrong" (or incorrect, if you were to write this sentence) since the SH is not in the competition. This is a fact. Misrepresenting facts has been, is, and will be wrong. Discussing a hypothetical situation is something else, but one needs to make clear what the hypothetical situation entails.

I hope you see the difference. If not, please let me know and I would be happy to explain this to you in more detail.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7472
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2021, 14:20

A contract decision is expected next year, but if the F-35 is chosen, 10 years of effort, human resources, and tax dollars will have been wasted.



well yes, but I must warn, it can ALWAYS be worse. If they decide to buy Gripen NG in order to pretend the money and effort was not in vain, they buy themselves even more trouble. So as painful as buying F-35 anyway may seem, the alternative is worse. Which is why I've been saying "told ya so" for over a decade. hb_pencil pointed out years ago that one of the Canadian pillars is "good governance" and not buying the most obvious choice, that met requirements for the least cost without wasting 10 years and billions of dollars, would have been "good governance" which is why they didn't jump don't the rabbit hole the way Trudeau did.

Too bad so sad, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him not wonder through the desert for another ten years to find the water you lead him to from the start.

steve2267 wrote:10 years wasted?

Hardly.

Turdeau will have increased F-35 procurement from 65 to 88. Bully for him. :D


I said when they "hit the pause button" back in 2011 (and that was Harper government) to one of my Canadian friends, Canada is going to spend an awful lot of time and money to come right back to where they started. So I was accurate in that, what I didn't predict was just how badly Trudeau would make it even worse. I never predicted his election, the interim fighter invention, buying more F-18s etc. Pausing was dumb. 2015 and on was absolutely clown shoes stupid.


hb_pencil wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Its ironic because if a tender was held 10 years ago, F-35's LRIP price then could have been substantially higher than the gripen which could have put the comp outcome in doubt. Revisionist will depict Trudeau as coming out of the closet for the F-35 by delaying the decision.


No, they did that analysis in 2009 and again in 2014 - both times the F-35 was the cheapest capability.


This. We also know Norway rejected Gripen NG even before this as well. in 2011, the only Gripen NG buyer was the Swiss, Sweden followed in 2013. One of the big problems with Gripen NG was sweden said they would buy it only after someone else did first, this put Saab in an awkward position of trying to sell something that not even their nation was buying. it was a risk and very much hurt the Gripen NG.

luke_sandoz wrote:
But they haven’t missed marching in one of Trudeau’s favorite Pride Parades in years


the military makes for great political props.

loke wrote:
For a discussion about a hypothetical situation shall make sense, and not confuse people, it still needs to be based in facts. However one can make assumptions, or describe the hypothetical situation that one intends to discuss. This is easier to understand with a simple example:

For instance, you may write "if the SH had still been in the competition, then I believe it would be the second choice after the F-35". This is fine to write, it contains the word "if", and it expresses an opinion based on a hypothetical situation.

However, if you instead write "the SH is still in the competition, and I believe it is the second choice after the F-35" then I would need to point out that this is "wrong" (or incorrect, if you were to write this sentence) since the SH is not in the competition. This is a fact. Misrepresenting facts has been, is, and will be wrong. Discussing a hypothetical situation is something else, but one needs to make clear what the hypothetical situation entails.

I hope you see the difference. If not, please let me know and I would be happy to explain this to you in more detail.


Thats a helluva card for you to play given all the WRONG things you have said about Gripen the last 10 years on multiple forums, and not being able to tell hypothetical sales pamphlets from the reality of what was actually happening. Tell me, at 10+ years of Gripen NG fandom, does the light bulb go on and you suddenly think "hey wait a minute, how come its been 10 years and I'm still waiting for this simple, cheap, easily produced light fighter variant to get into service?" 10 years.

Why have you been typing "just wait and see!" for over TEN years now, Loke? do you ever step back and wonder that? and after 10 years this aircraft is somehow problem free, and on time and on budget? you have the nerve to talk about "misrepresenting facts"? I think you are the last person on this forum, along with any other Gripen NG fan to be lecturing about what is hypothetical and what is reality, and what is a an actual fact or what is wrong.

even your assertion that Saab would guarantee that they can integrate 5/2 eyes with their amazeballs software is absolutely completely WRONG. not hypothetically wrong, not theoretically wrong, but actually terribly horribly WRONG. There is no way on planet earth Saab will guarantee a massive upgrade that they can't be involved in at all. If they did, Canada can completely mess up the upgrade and then charge Saab, or bend them over with their own guarantee, for the overages-- for obvious reasons the lawyers at "thrifty smart fighter inc" will not allow that to be in the contract.

As ALWAYS, we have seen Saab massively inflate their capabilities in public, and then find out later on that it was not real. much like the bragging about "full tech transfer" when they don't even own all the tech, or the magical super cruise that they suddenly quit talking about in 2017. wonder what happened there...

I can only wonder what Loke in 2011 would have said if he was told Gripen NG won't be IOC until 2022? There's your hypothetical
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3669
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Dec 2021, 15:00

loke wrote:Actually you are incorrect again (notice I avoided the word "wrong" since you seem to be very sensitive to that particular word).


I'm not sensitive or have any problem with the word "wrong".
However I'm sensitive to people who often display arrogance while at the same time being often and constantly wrong in his/her posts and cannot admit being wrong even when being faced with arguments that clearly prove such posts to be wrong, accusing others of being "wrong".
In case you haven't noticed, I'm talking about yourself.

I hope you see the difference between the actual "wrong" word and your "wrong".
And I don't think I need to explain this to you in more detail!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3669
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Dec 2021, 15:06

XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:<Lots of garbage rant>


Thats a helluva card for you to play given all the WRONG things you have said about Gripen the last 10 years on multiple forums, and not being able to tell hypothetical sales pamphlets from the reality of what was actually happening...

...

Why have you been typing "just wait and see!" for over TEN years now, Loke? do you ever step back and wonder that? and after 10 years this aircraft is somehow problem free, and on time and on budget? you have the nerve to talk about "misrepresenting facts"? I think you are the last person on this forum, along with any other Gripen NG fan to be lecturing about what is hypothetical and what is reality, and what is a an actual fact or what is wrong.

even your assertion that Saab would guarantee that they can integrate 5/2 eyes with their amazeballs software is absolutely completely WRONG. not hypothetically wrong, not theoretically wrong, but actually terribly horribly WRONG...

...

I can only wonder what Loke in 2011 would have said if he was told Gripen NG won't be IOC until 2022? There's your hypothetical


DITTO Xander! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post07 Dec 2021, 16:10

Why do people really think Sweden out of all countries can really make a good plane?

The track record is Brazil.

Do you really want to join a club of Sweden, Brazil and Canada?

Or Israel, UK, Japan, Korea, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, USA, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy

Like just saying it out loud makes it even stupider, which is hard.
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post07 Dec 2021, 17:03

Canadian myths about the F-35.

1) Single engine - um yeah the F-16 hasn't flown in Alaska or something

2) No need for stealth or strike(really? what about striking a sam site lol)

3) Cold weather - Right, never factored by ALASKA, or Norway, or Denmark.

Literally all brain dead arguments.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8182
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 01:31

sunstersun wrote:Canadian myths about the F-35.

1) Single engine - um yeah the F-16 hasn't flown in Alaska or something

2) No need for stealth or strike(really? what about striking a sam site lol)

3) Cold weather - Right, never factored by ALASKA, or Norway, or Denmark.

Literally all brain dead arguments.


In the case of Canada, the F-35A would offer far better range and presence than any of the other competitors! Which, is a critical factor for the RCAF.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1572
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 07:01

The opposition party is being opposite. Which is a big step, as they are the ones that wanted the F-35. You have to love Canadian politics.

Mugyenyi: Canada doesn't need these costly warplanes
"The Liberals promised not to buy the F-35 fighter jet. Now it looks like they will. Opposition MPs must hold the government to its pledge."
https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/mug ... 801bc4da91
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8182
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 08:20

optimist wrote:The opposition party is being opposite. Which is a big step, as they are the ones that wanted the F-35. You have to love Canadian politics.

Mugyenyi: Canada doesn't need these costly warplanes
"The Liberals promised not to buy the F-35 fighter jet. Now it looks like they will. Opposition MPs must hold the government to its pledge."
https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/mug ... 801bc4da91



:lmao:
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 08:38

lol canada should just buy all american and call it a day.

legit trolling at this point.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8182
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 08:47

sunstersun wrote:lol canada should just buy all american and call it a day.

legit trolling at this point.



Nothing wrong with buying the best........ :wink:
Offline

go4long

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 15:53

Corsair1963 wrote:
optimist wrote:The opposition party is being opposite. Which is a big step, as they are the ones that wanted the F-35. You have to love Canadian politics.

Mugyenyi: Canada doesn't need these costly warplanes
"The Liberals promised not to buy the F-35 fighter jet. Now it looks like they will. Opposition MPs must hold the government to its pledge."
https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/mug ... 801bc4da91



:lmao:


The NDP, Bloc, and Green party have 59 seats between them. Literally not enough to even cause a ripple in the house. This article is all a ridiculous attempt to stir up favor for a Gripen purchase.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7472
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 20:48

sunstersun wrote:lol canada should just buy all american and call it a day.

legit trolling at this point.


It sort of is, I can't imagine a more comical outcome than this, and regarding the CF-18 replacement that is really saying something. Reality would have had Canada selecting Super Hornet and F-35 in a more close run contest with F-35 coming out on top as it has with Australia and Switzerland, and likely Finland too which is another member of the hornet club.

Instead they publicly humiliated Boeing in the most disrespectful way possible. And set the Gripen up to be curb stomped since it stands even less of a chance than the Super Hornet. They threw out the aircraft that could meet the requirements in favor of one that simply can not.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26800
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2021, 22:03

Australia 'started a process' but stopped very early to select the F-35 because 'competition' was pointless in 2002.
"...Australia joined the US-led F-35 program in a rush in 2002. There was no tender process or formal evaluation. Nor could there be. The aircraft was still brochure-ware, with delivery schedule and cost unknown, albeit thought to be Australia’s most expensive defence equipment purchase...." https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... c-purchase
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hairysteed and 7 guests