[Newsbot]

Title: Media used anti-military 'think tank' members to trash F35
Category: Military
Posted By: EyeBrock
Date: 2010-07-24 06:26:42
Canadian

[EyeBrock]

Quote:

Look closer at F-35 critics

Re: F-35 purchase coverage.
When the F-35 fighter decision was recently announced, some news outlets led readers to believe that three critics of the purchase are defence experts and independent of one another, giving no hint that all belong to the same basically anti-military organization.

Canadian Press, for instance, said Steven Staples is with �the Rideau Institute, a defence think tank.� (Globe and Mail July 16, 2010.) The Rideau Institute is not a defence think tank. It�s a left-wing peace and social policy think tank that routinely criticizes Canada�s military spending and seems to favour a peacekeeping, search and rescue model.

Then Globe and Mail reporters called F-35 critic Michael Wallace �a University of British Columbia defence and international relations professor.� (Globe and Mail, July 17, 2010.) Actually he is professor emeritus in the UBC political science department, which means he�s retired but retains his title as an honour. More to the point, Michael Wallace is on the board of the Rideau Institute, which the reporters don�t note.

Finally, the Toronto Star published a column by Michael Byers � a jack of all trades when it comes to commentary, and a defeated NDP candidate. Like Steven Staples, Byers doesn�t like the F-35 purchase. Like Staples, he suggests the money instead be spent on search and rescue aircraft. And like Staples, he�s with the Rideau Institute � although you wouldn�t know it by reading the Toronto Star, which lists only his UBC affiliation.

Don�t get me wrong. The public should hear a full range of opinions about matters like the F-35 purchase, from both hawks and doves. But let�s tell readers who�s a hawk and who�s a dove. Otherwise, they might mistakenly think defence experts are against this major defence purchase � when in fact it�s peace activists who are being quoted.
The Honourable Pamela D. Wallin, OC, SOM
Senator, Saskatchewan.

[EyeBrock]

Hey Derby!

I knew there was something fishy about that article you posted to trash the F35.

This guy Byers doesn't even have working e-mail at the UBC.

What a crock of left-wing anti-military garbage. And the media and you bought it.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

Hey Derby!

I knew there was something fishy about that article you posted to trash the F35.

This guy Byers doesn't even have working e-mail at the UBC.

What a crock of left-wing anti-military garbage. And the media and you bought it.

Just like you bought all the right wing hacks saying the party line about the F35?

The 3rd no competition billion dollar contract awarded. No transparency. No accepting bids from competing aircraft. No choosing an aircraft suited to our needs.

Meanwhile we lost an aircraft today. It'll be a lot more expensive when its an F35 and we will have 3X less aircraft.

[EyeBrock]

Check-out the Rideau Institute home page, Byers is a 'director'.

It's not mentioned any where in his article to the Star. The Rideau Institute are a well known anti-military and very left-wing org.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

Check-out the Rideau Institute home page, Byers is a 'director'.

It's not mentioned any where in his article to the Star. The Rideau Institute are a well known anti-military and very left-wing org.

You do realize that the people talking up the F35 are on the company payroll right? You do realize Canada was browbeaten into purchasing it? You do realize that we were not allowed to choose an aircraft of our choosing because the US needed to sell the aircraft and that the F35 is not the best aircraft suited to our needs right?

I'm sure our massive 65 aircraft air force will be a large deterrent to future enemies.

[EyeBrock]

Yes, dodge the issue.

The Star printed an article that was full of errors, mis-truths and hidden facts, including hiding the biggie that the author is a director of a well known anti-military and far-left org.

You quoted it.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock wrote:

Check-out the Rideau Institute home page, Byers is a 'director'.

It's not mentioned any where in his article to the Star. The Rideau Institute are a well known anti-military and very left-wing org.

They really didn't mention it at all? That is pretty deceptive by the newspapers. Even most newspapers bury information they don't like in the last few paragraphs.

I'm curious Eyebrock, what's your assessment of the F-35? I personally love the aircraft, and I'm glad we're getting a next-gen fighter that is capable for a variety of roles. Stealth features are an added bonus. I think some criticism, like the single vs. twin engine issue is valid, but yeah.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

Yes, dodge the issue.

The Star printed an article that was full of errors, mis-truths and hidden facts, including hiding the biggie that the author is a director of a well known anti-military and far-left org.

You quoted it.

You think quoting someones opinion about someone elses opinion qualifies as proof? What makes you think he is right and they are wrong?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289549

Quote:

Opinion: The F35 fighter jet should be called 'the flying credit card'
By Paul Wallis.

Add Image»
The Prima Donna of US aircraft design is having "500 blueprint changes" per month. This lottery-like approach to design is novel, where the theory is that planes are supposed to fly, too. The price of up to $329 billion is getting some giggles as well.
F35, the Joint Strike Fighter, Lightning II, or Accountancy Uber Alles, depending on your point of view, has been having a few CAD based tantrums. TIME Magazine has a story on the Cinderella of contracting which takes more believing than the original Cinderella ever did.
The new information is that other planes will have to be retired to pay for this thing. It’s interesting to me, because our RAAF has signed up to buy the latest fairy tale from “Where’s My Cost Accountant, Dude?”
Lockheed Martin, who are usually spectacularly good designers of aircraft, are pretty upbeat about F35. If the blurb is any indication, the original design principles were good.
So what’s gone wrong? The “multirole” may be the answer. The first real operational jet fighter, the German ME262, was similarly handicapped by being redesigned to be a fighter bomber, a role which effectively ignored its air superiority capacity, and delayed production for years. In the event, it rarely performed in the bomber role.
The killer for good air designs is the technical horizon over which ideas sail and insist on bringing technology with them. The aspirations may be great, but the results are usually glued together.
F35 is supposed to be a “do everything” fighter, what TIME calls a Swiss Army knife. That’s another indicator of problems. Putting too much tactical load on one system usually means that everything else falls to bits, and you’re dependent on that system. Sticking too much technology on a combat system, so far, has been to put it mildly, an acquired taste, and the taste is normally terrible.
In fairness, this is a true fly by wire plane, by intent and by design. If it can do what it’s supposed to do, and isn’t buried in advanced logistics, it might well be the sort of shock the F117 was in the past. The original Stealth fighter, F117 was proven in combat as an effective system.
However- F117 didn’t have this prolonged gestation. The role and functions were clear. There was no suggestion of a free set of steak knives. F35 is sending the wrong signals in that regard, and worse, it’s looking like the guys who are supposed to fly and tactically deploy the planes are second class citizens.
That, if it’s the case, is just plain dangerous. It’s adding shallowness to a situation which requires depth, namely air superiority. The US is the pioneer of true air superiority. A lot of tactical doctrines and operational functions depend on it. The US hasn’t been in a position of inferiority in the air since Pearl Harbor and the following few months.
A high maintenance, thin in numbers, difficult aircraft could produce that situation. It may have local superiority, but it can’t be everywhere. Other, much cheaper weapons are a threat to it. This is a Rolls Royce entering a dodgem contest, if it can't measure up to the forthcoming conflict scenarios.
Nor has the cost been pinned down. The Flying Credit Card, sad to say, may be true. The price tag is starting to look prohibitive, although Lockheed were recently mystified at the Pentagon estimate of up to $329 billion. They don’t think it’ll cost that much, and expect it to be “far lower”. What, doesn't anybody actually know?
Let’s hope someone does, for everyone’s sake. That’s $329 billion which might have other uses, too. It may be a snide remark in context, but the USSR sent itself broke on ridiculously expensive weapons. It also had a dysfunctional economy when it fell to bits. It defeated itself. The US may be conducting a war on itself, at this rate.
The US budget, that somewhat furtive, evasive looking thing, may need a few bucks here and there while the Lightning II avoids living up to its name. So far the only targets being hit are the dollar signs.
The 500 blueprint changes per month, assuming that's true, are likely to be "knock on" design issues. They tend to be interrelated, because stresses and other design considerations need to be counter weighted when changes are made. That means one design alteration may require several more to accommodate the change.
All perfectly understandable, but this thing hasn’t had any operational tactical testing yet. It’s just done its first successful vertical take off. The proof of value is going to have to be defined sometime, and that time doesn’t look like anytime soon.

Meanwhile we have bought into a very expensive unproven aircraft that isn't even ready for delivery.

[EyeBrock]

kai,

I'm with the Aussies on this one. It's probably the best bit of kit available. The 'options' are just not really competition. I think the Liberals showed foresight in getting us involved in this way back in 2001.

We had quite the discussion on this one!

I'm just shocked that the media took these three guys from the Rideau Institute as the gospel.

Really biased reporting and much the same as I saw in the G20 reporting. It is very saddening to see that we can't expect the facts to be reported anymore.

We are just getting very biased opinion in place of the news.

Personally I think Derby and others have a point. If there are alternates, their viability should have been openly explored. I know that these options don't fit the bill but so should everybody else.

[commanderkai]

Bias in news really doesn't surprise me anymore. It's really sad, but if that's what the newspapers want to print, then let them and let their readership sink.

I really do hope we make the best out of these F-35s. I'd actually like to see they be used for things other than air shows.

[EyeBrock]

Youtube have a good show on the aircraft from the Military Channel. Its quite interesting and informative.

Or you could check out the Rideau Institute, the Star or the Globe and see how many babies we are going to kill with the F35.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock wrote:

Youtube have a good show on the aircraft from the Military Channel. Its quite interesting and informative.

Or you could check out the Rideau Institute, the Star or the Globe and see how many babies we are going to kill with the F35.

Haha, I've seen some interesting info on the F-35. I actually had to write a small paper discussing what aircraft we should purchase to replace the CF-18, and I think I chose the F-35...but that was a few years ago.

I just don't fully understand the criticism...or rather, the seething criticism by some members/individuals.

[EyeBrock]

commanderkai wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Youtube have a good show on the aircraft from the Military Channel. Its quite interesting and informative.

Or you could check out the Rideau Institute, the Star or the Globe and see how many babies we are going to kill with the F35.

Haha, I've seen some interesting info on the F-35. I actually had to write a small paper discussing what aircraft we should purchase to replace the CF-18, and I think I chose the F-35...but that was a few years ago.

I just don't fully understand the criticism...or rather, the seething criticism by some members/individuals.

Just the usual partisan stuff and the now obvious political agendas.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

commanderkai wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Youtube have a good show on the aircraft from the Military Channel. Its quite interesting and informative.

Or you could check out the Rideau Institute, the Star or the Globe and see how many babies we are going to kill with the F35.

Haha, I've seen some interesting info on the F-35. I actually had to write a small paper discussing what aircraft we should purchase to replace the CF-18, and I think I chose the F-35...but that was a few years ago.

I just don't fully understand the criticism...or rather, the seething criticism by some members/individuals.

Just the usual partisan stuff and the now obvious political agendas.

Really? How about Hyperion? What political angle does he have or have you ever read his criticism of the Libs?

My criticism is based on the fact we can get a comparable aircraft at 1/3 the price and be able to field a much larger and more effective air force. Methinks you have a political agenda of your own. You are not exactly the non-partisan type and dismissing criticism of the purchase as automatic anti-CPC rhetoric isn't any fairer then people like digger blaming all cops for the transgressions of a few.

Should we scrap the entire navy and purchase a single expensive air craft carrier also?