3900 replies to this topic

[Derek L]

that's quite a lame response! Surely you must be able to qualify... to quantify... your figures per war eventuality, clearly speaking to each respective war eventuality... surely! Surely yours is more than an empty catch-all... cause, like... how do you measure the effectiveness of your catch-all against perceived war eventuality? How does your measure gauge/determine whether the fighter-jet acquisitions were too few... were too many... or were just right? Don't you have any 3-bears insight into that too few/many, just right measure?

Lame? Quite obviously all of our purchases of fighter aircraft were meant to fulfill commitments made by past and the present Governments………….

[waldo]

Quid-pro-quo no? Let’s back track, are you asserting the previous linked article on the subject of concern relating to the operation of UAV’s and bandwidth are false?

you can choose to jerk your own circle... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

But again, about your security and bandwidth lament - with all your fevered expertise, are you asserting that the WGS and AEHF satellite systems are unsecure? Yes or No? Equally, again, are you asserting there is a current 'bandwidth' constraint/limitation? Yes or No?

[waldo]

So you’re suggesting the recent statement released by the CNO is incorrect?

I didn't read a, as you stated, 'press release'... I didn't read a, as you say, 'statement released by the CNO'. Again, I read you link to some blog to read some flunky spokesperson coming forward to offer up a token party-line response!

but, once again, you breeze right over the salient point from the following - how predictable! Other than your self-serving want, what's so special about the F-35 "stealth" that it wouldn't be included within the USN CNO's critique of stealth?

So, again, when the USN CNO emphasized, in the face of stealth weaknesses/failings/limitations, a need to shift towards long-range precision weapons and electronic warfare systems... that completely and absolutely wasn't intended to include the F-35 "stealthiness"? Right? Why not? What's so special about the F-35 "stealth"?

[waldo]

Surely you must be able to qualify... to quantify... your figures per war eventuality, clearly speaking to each respective war eventuality... surely! Surely yours is more than an empty catch-all... cause, like... how do you measure the effectiveness of your catch-all against perceived war eventuality? How does your measure gauge/determine whether the fighter-jet acquisitions were too few... were too many... or were just right? Don't you have any 3-bears insight into that too few/many, just right measure?

Quite obviously all of our purchases of fighter aircraft were meant to fulfill commitments made by past and the present Governments.

it's unfortunate you can't articulate those 1100 fighter jets procured in terms of your expressed war eventualities? So yours is an unsubstantiated procurement catch-all then, hey?

waldo factoid: in the so-called 'jet age', Canada has participated in 5 varying levels of conflict, with the following fighter jet commitments to the respective conflicts:

=> Korean War (0), Gulf War-1 (24), Kosovo (18), Afghanistan (0), Libya (6) --- total 48

during the period of time associated with the varying levels of conflict and Canada's 48 fighter jet commitments, Canada has purchased a total of 1100 jet fighters.

1100 purchased <=> 48 committed in conflict

[Derek L]

you can choose to jerk your own circle... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

Can't the same be said for yourself? It is, after all your assertion

[Derek L]

I didn't read a, as you stated, 'press release'... I didn't read a, as you say, 'statement released by the CNO'. Again, I read you link to some blog to read some flunky spokesperson coming forward to offer up a token party-line response!

but, once again, you breeze right over the salient point from the following - how predictable! Other than your self-serving want, what's so special about the F-35 "stealth" that it wouldn't be included within the USN CNO's critique of stealth?

So the statement was made by a “flunky” towing the party line? Not representative of the CNO? Is the CNO tied up somewhere? Reference Wiki leaks if you must

[Derek L]

it's unfortunate you can't articulate those 1100 fighter jets procured in terms of your expressed war eventualities? So yours is an unsubstantiated procurement catch-all then, hey?

1100? Canadair built nearly 2000 Sabres alone......Perhaps you should check your sources

[Moonbox]

Okay move the goalposts from 1962 on. I don't think the Korean War or the Can. Sabre should really be part of the discussion, otherwise we might as well bring WW2 into the argument.

[waldo]

Can't the same be said for yourself? It is, after all your assertion

again, you avoid the questions! You threw up a claim concerning, 'security and availability of bandwidth'. The "pipe" today is adequately sized and ongoing measures are in place to extend upon both WGS/AEHF systems... any constraint reflects upon budgetary aspects relative to commercial. When you're questioned about security concerns your go-to is... the Iranian drone 'capture'... even though you haven't a clue as to how the drone came to be in the hands of Iran. It reaches epic hypocrisy when you use a possible 'hacking' aspect to question UAV technology... while you conveniently ignore the more probable recognition surrounding Chinese 'hacking/espionage' of F-35 data/information.

[Derek L]

Okay move the goalposts from 1962 on. I don't think the Korean War or the Can. Sabre should really be part of the discussion, otherwise we might as well bring WW2 into the argument.

But Waldo Initiated the goal posts from the Korean War.

[Derek L]

again, you avoid the questions! You threw up a claim concerning, 'security and availability of bandwidth'. The "pipe" today is adequately sized and ongoing measures are in place to extend upon both WGS/AEHF systems... any constraint reflects upon budgetary aspects relative to commercial. When you're questioned about security concerns your go-to is... the Iranian drone 'capture'... even though you haven't a clue as to how the drone came to be in the hands of Iran. It reaches epic hypocrisy when you use a possible 'hacking' aspect to question UAV technology... while you conveniently ignore the more probable recognition surrounding Chinese 'hacking/espionage' of F-35 data/information.

So that’s a no on disproving the concerns made by both American and French officials in the links I provided?

[waldo]

So the statement was made by a “flunky” towing the party line? Not representative of the CNO? Is the CNO tied up somewhere? Reference Wiki leaks if you must

on one hand we have a most complete and definitive article penned directly by the USN CNO... one that I quoted from, at length; in particular the section on his position on stealth limitations. Alternatively, we have you linking to a blog reference that doesn't even quote the USN CNO directly; somewhat amusing since you readily decry blog reference... unless it suits your own self, hey?

but again, you keep refusing to answer the question concerning the USN CNO's expressed concern over stealth... and what you believe precludes inclusion of the F-35 from the USN CNO's criticism of stealth. You won't touch this - not with the proverbial 10 metre pole!

[Derek L]

on one hand we have a most complete and definitive article penned directly by the USN CNO... one that I quoted from, at length; in particular the section on his position on stealth limitations. Alternatively, we have you linking to a blog reference that doesn't even quote the USN CNO directly; somewhat amusing since you readily decry blog reference... unless it suits your own self, hey?

but again, you keep refusing to answer the question concerning the USN CNO's expressed concern over stealth... and what you believe precludes inclusion of the F-35 from the USN CNO's criticism of stealth. You won't touch this - not with the proverbial 10 metre pole!

Again, care to point out in said article were the CNO addresses the F-35 by name? That combined with the issued clarification of the interpretations made in the blogosphere clearly refute your assertion neatly.

Edited by Derek L, 16 July 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[waldo]

So that’s a no on disproving the concerns made by both American and French officials in the links I provided?

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns. While you're doing that answer the two questions you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge; Again:

... why is it so difficult for you to ever answer straight-forward Yes/No questions? Again:

But again, about your security and bandwidth lament - with all your fevered expertise, are you asserting that the WGS and AEHF satellite systems are unsecure? Yes or No? Equally, again, are you asserting there is a current 'bandwidth' constraint/limitation? Yes or No?

[Derek L]

identify the officials and briefly articulate the concerns in terms of your expressed, "security and bandwidth" concerns. While you're doing that answer the two questions you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge; Again:

I already did........In said links, coupled to the link to the conference, the same conference you originally provided, addressing those very concerns from the experiences of the operators of said platforms, with perspective from both sides of the argument, expressing as to why UAV/UCAVs won’t be a replacement for manned aircraft, but a complement to, for the foreseeable future.