 |
| During a press conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, on 18 November 2011, US Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta (right) and Canadian Defence Minister Peter G. MacKay both called the F-35 crucial to the defense of North America. "The United States is committed to the development of the F-35 and to a cooperative relationship with the F-35 with our Canadian friends," Panetta said. "The F-35 is going to be an essential fighter … in helping us with security challenges we face." MacKay said, "There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States, so all the hypothetical discussions—and quite negative discussions, quite frankly—about this program are really just clatter and noise.” |
The leaders of both the US and Canadian Defense establishments just called the F-35 critics, journalist and those that are in their camps -- generators of 'clatter and noise'.
Luv it!
That's what we've been saying for years. Pity the critics and that certain mob from downunder are amongst the most vocal, are oblivious to the complete lack of effect they are having.
ReplyDeleteYou would think that after a few years they might get the hint but unfortunately no...
So let's see how they've gone with their proposals?
1. Caribou re-engineering and SLEP proposal? Fail. Caribou retired and replaced temporarily with Super King Air light tactical aircraft, longer term replacement - C-27J Spartan or CASA C-295.
2. KC-747 large tanker proposal. Fail. KC-30A tanker purchased instead.
3. F-111 Electronic Warfare (EF-111A Raven) proposal. Fail. ELTA EL-8022 EW pod purchased for short term offensive EW capability instead. EA-18G Growler for longer term offensive airborne EW capability.
4. F-111S upgrade proposal. Fail. Retired in favour of F/A-18F Super Hornet short term, F-35 longer term.
5. F-22A instead of F-35A. Fail. F-22A wasn't available 12 years ago when they first proposed it. Still not available today. Australian commitment to F-35A hasn't wavered one inch.
Yet they keep telling anyone who'll listen that they are "marketplace experts". Afterall they feel more than competent enough to keep telling us that "F-35 is uncompetitive in the marketplace" (sic).
If that is so, one wonders why Australian Flight Test Services was deregistered as a company in 2004? Surely such a "marketplace expert" could keep his own company running?
http://tinyurl.com/83jm444
you have been saying it for a while that i should just ignore them but it sure appeared that there drumbeat was gaining support...especially in the blogging community.
ReplyDeleteHaters going to hate
ReplyDeleteand that's why you're my ace. sum it all up in a few words!
ReplyDeleteThey attract a few fools to their nonsense and a few disgruntled ex-service people with a grudge to bear (like Chris Mills who was sacked by RAAF) to their "cause".
ReplyDeleteInteresting that they do not and have not EVER attracted a current serving member to their "cause"...
Their "cause" has a bit of popularity online. In the ADF it is treated with the derision it deserves...
Regards,
AD
you know Sol, when i did an internship with the government one time the head of the office had a rule, you couldnt complain about something unless you had a solution, thats what you should ask the anti-F35 people, if their so against it, whats their alternative for all three branches for the next 30 years?
ReplyDeleteand you hit on my biggest frustration with the anti community. they slam every US solution. the F-18 isn't good enough. the F-16, F-15, Rafale, Typhoon (well Bill likes it) and every other 4th gen isn't good enough...only the F-22 is the answer.
ReplyDeletebut then they can't explain why the electronics from the F-35 are being put into the F-22. they can't explain why the 4th gens are trying to equal the F-35 yet they want to kill the F-35!
a basic question yet they can't answer it.
correction they can but there solutions have already been rejected. with that i'm talking about the F-111S. i went to APA and looked at the proposal and i can't lie, i'm impressed but it goes into the bin of great ideas that were never pursued.
you just gave me an idea. i'm gonna do a post on it!
well i see the F22 as primarily an air to air interceptor, while the 35 will be a good interceptor i see it as more of a fighter/bomber, because honestly we dont have a need for a pure air-to-air interceptor in the amounts the 35 will be made, also a platform like 35 is suppose to be on carriers and the 22 is years behind a carrier variant, they can make one probably but would be years behind the 35C and no way to get it on a amphib, so the harriers are the only option and since they are already very vulnerable to advanced AA fire, the 35 is the only obvious choice.
ReplyDeletei guess it all boils down to john saying 'haters hate' but you're right, for everyone in the west there is really no other options.
ReplyDeleteadditionally with globalization unwinding then it will be a cornerstone to the west getting its industries back. this will go down as the age of greed and i can't wait till this age comes to an end.
double digit returns for any industry every year is obscene and unrealistic.
but i digress, the issue is this. we need it, the F-22 is far from perfect and it is unexportable.
question for ya? i'm on vacation...why are you always up late at night?
ReplyDeleteThere is an election before the F-35 is delivered to Canada, so it can still get cancelled.
ReplyDeletethe Canadian people already had a bite at that apple and the critics lost.
ReplyDeletethink you'll change everyone's mind the second time around? doubt it!
A lot can happen in four years, Solomon. Also, if push comes to shove, the government will drop the F-35, rather than make cuts to the national shipbuilding program.
ReplyDeleteIt will happen. First, Canada will cut the order to 40-45, as per an early 90s defence white paper. A year or two after that...all cut, with Super Hornets ordered.
keep dreaming buddy. Canada reduced to a third tier air arm flying aircraft less advanced than India? Singapore? S. Korea? and Japan?
ReplyDeletethe national psyche couldn't take it.
you had your chance and you couldn't even participate in exercises with US forces because the tactics would be too dissimilar.
you would immediately drop to a second tier air arm and would be considered a non factor in any future warfare/peacekeeping ops.
but all thats irrelevant, you're arguing a hope for and i'm talking about a what is real.
now you might have (and are definitely showing) an indifference to what is real but the JSF program is going strong, Canada is a powerful partner and you are just another loud voice shouting in the wilderness.
For me? I'm a shift worker.
ReplyDeleteNot always up late, but very often...
The F-111S looks like a good idea until you analyse it a bit. Carlo writes that changing the engine would have required "just a bit of sheet metal bashing".
Things like that. So ludicrous that there is no surprise whatsoever it was rejected out of hand.
Then of course their costs are about $4-5b short of what the REAL cost would be to upgrade the aircraft the way they wanted to and it shows what a poor effort that was.