Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bias in article title

The subject here is the CF-18 replacement. We are prejudging the results of the Canadian election by insisting that:

  • The CF-18 will be replaced.

and

  • The replacement aircraft shall be the CF-35.

Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the CF-35 term has been harped on by Harper and does indicate a slightly different aircraft than any JSF used by other countries so please use CF-35. Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
As we discussed over at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement I disagree and think this is the best title for the article. This article is about the proposal for a sole sourced purchase of F-35s and it has lots of text for an article on that alone already. If the Conservatives do not form the next government after 2 May 11 and the proposed contract becomes a competition instead, then that would be essentially starting the process of picking a fighter over again and should be a new article and should eventually have the name of the aircraft chosen as its final title, although until that is known it could be named for the competition project name, like New Fighter Aircraft, was for the competition that settled on the CF-18 was.
We have also had a consensus in the past (see Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II/Archive_5#Recent_deletions) to retain the use of the term Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II in child articles of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II to tie the nomenclauture together within WikiProject Aircraft.
As far as terminology goes, the PM is the only person who has called it the CF-35. The Department of National Defence officially is refering to it as the F-35. If the aircraft enters service with the CF than it will be given a formal designation, like the CF-188 is for the CF-18 or the CF-116 was for the CF-5 and a popular name or designation, such as CF-18, CF-5. At the present time I think the PM is politicizing the issue (even more) by calling it the CF-35 to make it seem like an done deal when even DND doesn't call it that. I think we would be remiss in accepting that terminology as encyclopedic, although we can note that the PM has called it that. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I should add that even Harper in his quoted use of the term indicated that at present the aircraft is not called the CF-35, "The CF-18 will not go on forever," Harper told reporters at L-3 MAS headquarters in Mirabel, north of Montreal. "At the end of this decade it will reach the end of its useful life and that’s why we will purchase the F-35, which will become the CF-35 for the Canadian forces." I don't think there is any argument to be made that it is actually called the CF-35 today, although it may be one day. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for input from the members of WikiProject Aircraft on the issue of article name. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Article appears to be about the Canadian purchase of the F-35 so the article title appears appropriate. (although I would have thought Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement may have been better in line with the parent article). MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I concuer with Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Also, since the Canadian government has stated its intentions to buy the F-35, this title does not show bias. If that changes, then the article can be renamed. - BilCat (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I did gain a consensus over at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement for this current name, but I wouldn't object to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement either. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Understood, and no criticism of that process was intended. However, "Canadian Lockheed Martin" could be interpreted as a company name. For example, Pratt & Whitney Canada was originally called "Canadian Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company, Ltd". "Canadian procurement of (the) Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II]] might be clearer, tho it does not follow the prescribed format. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Bill, okay I see your point. It would also make it easier to search usng the Wikipedia search function as it would come up with Lockheed Martin F-35... typed in, along with all the articles in the family. That all makes me think that it should be moved to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Bill: thanks for moving the article, you beat me to it! Everyone can note that the new name here now meets Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Election section - party policies

The Liberals released their election policy document today and I have quoted the F-35-relevant parts from it. This leaves the article unbalanced right now, but my intention is that as the rest of the parties release policy documents, probably later this week, that I'll add quotes from each of them to build up a cohesive and balanced picture of what each party is saying on the issue. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from its beginning,

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Harper+shifts+focus+jets/4552354/story.html The generals have stuck to those points, even though there were some inaccuracies in the material, such as the claim that Canada has been a full partner in the JSF program since 1997. The government’s own records show that is not true, with Canada becoming a partner in 2002. In the early days of the program, Canada was only an observer and had contributed very little, said Alan Williams who, as assistant deputy minister, eventually approved Canada’s deeper involvement in the development of the plane.

Correct the bit above in the article, eh? Hcobb (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it never made complete sense as all we had paid for was a seat at the table. - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

5 April 2011 panel discussion

With Winslow Wheeler and Angus Watt, transcript on Globe and Mail. It is interesting but I didn't much there worth adding to the article.- Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Date format

An IP editor has been edit-warring to change the date format from DD MM YYYY to MM DD, YYYY and citing the MOS. The MOS in WP:STRONGNAT actually says: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently." The current format is completely clear and comprehensible and is commonly used in Canada, including by govt. There is no reason for changing the date format in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but it looks like we'll need to bring in somed big guns to stopr the constant reverting without discussion. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I just did a second revert on the same thing and asked the editor to bring it up here. It is amazing how many people quote the MOS, with having read it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadians by and large use MDY. Don't believe me? Check like the first 10 or so sources like I just did, EVERY SINGLE ONE that had dates used month first. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Guess you'd better get the "somed big guns to stopr" --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Doen. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
User:TheTruthiness - Sorry but your own WP:OR on the subject doesn't trump the MOS, which specifically states that this format is acceptable for articles about Canadian subjects. If you disagree then this isn't the right place to make that case, as it will affect thousands of articles. You are better bringing this up as a guideline change on the MOS talk pages. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
He brought it up at WT:MOSNUM#STRONGNAT for Canada, where the consensus seems to be that WP:DATERET is the longstanding rule for Canadian articles. Also not that the second point at DATERET is "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." That's why the original articles, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement use dmy, and why this article continued such usage. I don't know if the Canadian milkitary prefers one style to the other, but as a former Canadian military officer, I expect Ahunt would have an answer to that. - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for noting that, I added a comment there. The Canadian military usage standard is DMY and has been since the 1960s or earlier. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft missing engines, will be dragged along by mooses

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Engines+included+Canada+fighter+deal/4629196/story.html?cid=megadrop_story Engines not included in Canada’s $29B fighter jet deal

Not quite. See:

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22960/?SID=d14c551996e557f1a899c71498fcf078

Hcobb (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The DefPro article doesn't mention engines at all. Am I missing somthing there? - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that the complaint is that engines are govt. issued equipment, but the cost breakdown does not show this, just $85 million per aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The cost breakdown in that article skirts the issue altogether, not mentioning them as "incuded" or "excluded". The media articles are apparently based on other documents, though, that specifically show the government supplying its own engines. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Canada's involvement with JSF begins in 1997, not 2010

If this article truly wishes to represent "the account of Canada's participation in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II program" it should begin in 1997, not 2010. 207.219.3.222 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a ref that shows this then it can be included. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
1997 [1], 2002 [2][3], 2008 [4]. Anyone that believes the current Canadian government just decided to buy these planes last year is deluded. 207.219.3.222 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually the second para of the article says "Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from its beginning, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process." Thanks for the refs, I'll see about using them to set a timeline. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaking on Harper

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201151713273937174.html Commenting on Harper's rhetoric in a 2010 cable, US diplomats note that: "The persistent high public profile which this government has accorded 'Northern Issues' and the Arctic is, however, unprecedented and reflects the PM's views that 'the North has never been more important to our country' - although one could perhaps paraphrase to state 'the North has never been more important to our Party'."

Not sure if it's a good enough source or match for this article however. Hcobb (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitting on top of the world

http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/10/3245-canadas-new-f-35-stealth-fighter.html The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) determined in 2008 that a pair of communications satellites with a high inclination over the Arctic, could not only significantly improve aircraft communication

Direct enough to include? Hcobb (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It does seem to at least partly address the comm issue. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Question Time with Finn and Jake

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/24/the-commons-the-f-35-has-as-many-explanations-as-problems/ “The F-35s Canada is buying cannot be refuelled mid-air with existing air force equipment and they cannot land on short runways in Canada’s North. Now, we learn that our brave pilots will not be able to communicate while patrolling our Arctic airspace. Can members believe this?”

Has any part of her gov pointed out that the answers to two of these three questions were already part of this article? If so, got a ref? Hcobb (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It just seems like it's slowly unravelling

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Tandt+Controversial+project+could+shelved/5619308/story.html "It just seems like it's slowly unravelling," said an industry insider who specializes in aircraft procurement. "It's a mess." ... "They expected a whole bunch of kudos for doing (the F-35)," said one. "They believed this was win-win, industrially, that everybody would be happy. It has kind of crept in that it just ain't so."

It's full of nifty, but unattributed stuff like this. The same article has shown up on multiple Canadian feeds, but I haven't seen a second source for any of it yet. I suggest giving it a pass until a true second source pops up, no? Hcobb (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No CF-35 will ever be lost to any cause

At least they better not be. There is no plan-B for the hope that all of these fighters will last for several decades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/air-force-fears-ottawas-buying-too-few-stealth-fighter-jets/article2221486/ “Canada is the only country that did not account [for] attrition aircraft” in its proposal, said an undated capability-and-sustainment briefing given to senior officers late last year.

Oops! Hcobb (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a very big issue and one that was "planned out" of the procurement. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The F-35 is longer ranged than the Super Hornet

The F-35 flies cleaner than the Super Hornet, carries more fuel internally and can carry the same external load. So if the Canadian govt. has made a big mistake and somehow chosen a fighter that is too short ranged in the F-35 then the Super Hornet would not be a decent replacement. To overcome things like facts we'd need the testimony of somebody a little better placed than a former colonel, right? Hcobb (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in question cites two reliable media refs, if you have a reliable ref criticizing the person quoted beyond what the Conservative government has always been quoted as saying, then please do add it. Otherwise adding your own criticism of his remarks is strictly WP:OR. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity. - Ahunt (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Page move

An editor recently moved this article to Canadian procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. I asked an admin to look this over and he moved it back. At WikiProject Aircraft we have a consensus to name child articles, like procurement subjects, using the format Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II COUNTRY procurement to make the Wikipedia search parameters work better for readers, so please don't move the article again without a new consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This might be a dumb question...

...but the title is really clunky, so why isn't it "Canadian procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See page move item below. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall Bias in article

I think much of the perceived 'criticism' of the Conservative government in this article is factual & fair comment. However, does anyone have the dates of the initial $10 million investment & the follow-up $100+ investment to become a Level 3 partner? I don't have this info, but it seems pretty clear that those cash transfusions took place under the previous Liberal government. The who, what, when, where, and whys related to those funds would really improve the article. Just saying, in case anyone wants to bother substantially improving this entry... 24.108.30.223 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be useful and very welcome, it is just a matter of finding the refs for it. At the time it was just an industrial program investment with no commitment or intention to buy the aircraft, so it didn't get much coverage in the press, making refs hard to find. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The one page introduction of this article is great. However, the "Purchase Controversy: section of the article really needs help. Just the overall length of this section relative to the rest of the article is completely unbalanced. If you want to present a "history of the Canada's involvement" in the JSF program, you really should include a reasonable balance of information. 174.0.208.133 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point the whole subject is nothing but the purchase controversy as nothing else in the story has occurred, so naturally it will be the bulk of the text at this point in time. I expect we will be able to consolidate and combine sections when the purchase is either proceeded with and aircraft enters service or when it is cancelled, which ever comes first. I see you have tagged it for neutrality, but your argument above is for story elements balance not neutrality. What is your neutrality objection? - Ahunt (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. The title of the article is "Canadian Procurement". There is a section of this article titled "purchase controversy". No problem so far. This section contains some historical information. No problem. There are pages and pages and pages devoted the last 2 years of history of the Canadian procurement process. This is not balanced. Obviously some (and the media in particular) consider these 2 years of history to be "a controversy" and that is fine. But by allowing including this section devoted entirely to the "controversy" and by allowing this section to drone on and on such that it represents the bulk of the article, the article no longer NPOV. According to the title of this article, the article is about the Canadian procurement process. So, if we are to include some history, it should include the previous 8-10 years of historical information otherwise the article certainly does not present a NPOV. I'm inclined to believe that the article would be substantially improved by limiting this section to a few paragraphs. Alternatively, perhaps you would prefer to take all that information and make an article dedicated to the "procurement controversy" so this article might be somewhat representative of quality encyclopedic content? As I read the article I really felt that it did not project an image of quality so I hope my comments might help make this article better. 174.0.208.133 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is primarily the title of this section which that I find so disagreeable. Could it be changed to "recent history" and invite people to complete the historical record? 174.0.208.133 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a very complex story with lots and lots of references so there is no problem putting together an encyclopedic article from this as has been done. As I stated above, once the end of the procurement story is known with either aircraft deliveries or a cancellation (I can't think of of any other possible outcome, either they are purchased or their aren't, but maybe I missed another possibility there?) then we will have a much better idea what can be cut cut and what turned out to be critical turns in the story. As far as changing the section title, sure that is no problem, I will do that. I think just making it "History" would be as neutral as possible. As I noted above we could use more earlier history on the industrial participation, but it wasn't very controversial at the time and so the press, even the aviation press, didn't pay a lot of attention to it. If you have refs on it then by all means let's expand it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Filibuster noteworthy?

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/272652/f-35-investigation-to-resume-in-the-fall/

Worth a mention, or at least a note that the discussion might continue in the fall? Hcobb (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I did see that story in several publications, including on CBC. I didn't think it was critical to the story, but if you want to add it in I wouldn't object. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Defence officials juggled numbers to rationalize F-35 costs, e-mails show

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/national/Defence+officials+juggled+numbers+rationalize+costs/7118534/story.html

Leaving this here to be spun up faster than a jet engine. Hcobb (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This other story is in the Ottawa Citizen as well. I read this one carefully but thought it was too inconclusive to add to the article now. It may be useful in the future though as part of a back story if it goes anywhere. I would be fine if another editor thought it was worth including now, though. I suspect that the hearings scheduled for tomorrow on the hill will give some context to what is needed from these two refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

CF-105 Arrow

I think it is important to have information concerning the plan to revamp CF-105 Arrow instead of buying a fleet of 65 F-35 Lightning II. The government of Canada had shoots down the project and have declared to be expensive and unrealistic. I think it is a pertinante information about the current situation of the F-35 procurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jimderkaisser (talk • contribs)

There have been a number of proposals for other aircraft in place of the F-35 purchase that the Canadian government has already committed to. The idea of rebuilding the Avro Arrow, cancelled 53 years ago, instead of the F-35, is not a very developed or serious proposal and the government summarily dismissed it as such. The mention of this belongs in the Avro CF-105 Arrow article, where it is already given one sentence. I don't think it belongs here as it it really doesn't have much to do with the story of the purchase of the F-35 - someone proposed building the 53 year old Avro Arrow instead of the F-35, even though it doesn't meet the governments specifications and very little of the design documentation exists, it would have to be redesigned from close-to-scratch, would have to replace the CF-18 in just seven and a half years and the government said "no". This is too trivial to mention in this article. I know that this was already brought up on this page and deleted, so I am sure other editors will have some thoughts on whether it should be included or not. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Doesnt need to be mentioned it is not relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this article supposed to be the place we dump the "D'oh Canada" stuff to keep it from cluttering up the real "F-35 Sucks" articles? Hcobb (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I should add some input from Paul David Manson in The Ottawa Citizen, who says of the Arrow proposal "Although some readers may be taken in by this preposterous suggestion, those who are familiar with the complexities of the modern fighter aircraft scene will have got a good laugh at what is surely an un-timely April Fool's joke." I think this adds to the notion that this is not serious and doesn't belong in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada vs Norway

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/09/18/norwegian-fighter-pilots-respond-to-defence-watch-post-on-the-f-35-and-its-drag-chute/

Should this article morph into being the article for the "arctic variant" of the F-35 Baby Seal, as Canada and Norway seem set to get more or less the same exact version? Hcobb (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major issue to change the focus of this article, although it is worth tracking. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Head of air force tells Canadian Press other planes not considered, later statement says that's not true

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/23/pol-cp-dnd-f-35-air-force-alternatives.html

Do we really need to cover every statement? Hcobb (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It is a useful ref, but I am not sure that there is enough meat there to warrant entering it in the article at this point in time. Future events may prove otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Too tangential?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Defence+department+procurement+bureaucrat+step+down/7500632/story.html The Defence Department’s top procurement official — a key player in the Conservative government’s plan to purchase the controversial F-35 stealth fighter — is leaving the public service, the Citizen has learned.

Seems a bit not much connected to the topic, really. Hcobb (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The story doesn't seem really connected to the F-35 procurement in any direct manner. If he had resigned over the handling of the file or something then it might be relevant, but he just reads like a routine retirement with 40 years of service to me. I don't think the article is a mess as it is. It is probably too long and detailed, but once the end of the story is known (buy or cancel) then details that turned out after the fact to not be all that relevant can be pared down, but in the meantime I think it is a reasonably comprehensible, NPOV and well-sourced account of events- Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Investigation now complete

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/22/opposition-accuses-tories-of-whitewashing-problems-after-f-35-study-lets-dnd-off-with-slap-on-wrist/ But the committee stopped short of laying any blame for what Auditor General Michael Ferguson found was a determined effort by defence officials to twist rules, downplay problems and withhold information to ensure Canada purchased the plane.

There you go, nobody is to blame for the mess, so let's whitewash this article and be done with it. Hcobb (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Good news article - thanks for pointing out the ref! I will add it to the article here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Survivability, not stealth

I'm getting peeved at everybody in the debate. Nobody is pointing out that the real debate is on survivability and that is not magically delivered by low observable aircraft. Instead this is the result of manning, equipment and mission. If one assumes that Canadian aircraft will not venture into harm's way then they won't need much in the way of defenses. Also a well trained pilot with jamming support will survive if he avoids being targeted. However it would be total OR at this point, because nobody in the actual debate is talking about it. Hcobb (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada doesn't have a history of buying aircraft based on operational considerations! The CF-5 purchase was proof of that! - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

IRB gutted

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/05/paradis-commits-to-backing-aerospace-sector-mum-on-irb-problems/ Asked whether that would apply to the F-35 acquisition, he would only say “it would apply to any procurements going forward.”

Can we skip over the gutting of Canada's aerospace sector? Hcobb (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It is really very peripheral to the Canadian F-35 story at this point in time, although that may change. I would say leave it out for now. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Panel members

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1299376--independent-panel-to-oversee-conservative-government-s-new-search-for-fighter-jets

Good enough source to list the panel members yet? Hcobb (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The Toronto Star is definitively a WP:RS, although it isn't clear where their details come from. I will add the info into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done, please have a look and see if I covered it adequately. - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just a bit BLP-wary of listing people on the basis of one source that didn't specify where they got the info. At this point I'm almost anticipating the start of malicious leaks from the Harper govt. Hcobb (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

When information like this that is "cabinet confidential" appears in media sources before parliament is informed, you can count on it having come from official sources. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Move the article

Do we have to wait for next week's expert panel...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/07/an-f-35-panel-great-but-the-hard-decisions-still-loom/

To rename this article to CF-18 replacement? Hcobb (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot going on in this story right now:
but I am not in favour of re-titling this article right now. If this really does go to some sort of competition that results in buying a new aircraft then this article should remain where it is as part of the F-35 story, but be wrapped up as essentially concluded. If this all turns out to be more sleight-of-hand in the process of buying the F-35 anyway, then this article should continue under the current title, with a description of what happened included. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ahunt, this article is about the Canadian procurement of the F-35 and will continue to be valid whatever comes out of the politics. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally there is a lot in those refs, so I have worked them into the article. I suspect that there will be a lot more news this week when the KPMG report is made (the rest of the way) public and the panel, etc, is announced. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ripping up the contracts

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/10/what-was-the-prime-minister-talking-about/

Media hound did the legwork to track down the issue. Seems like another Harperism. Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The MacLean's article is accurate as far as I know. If Canada does not buy the F-35 then Canadian companies may not get any new work beyond the existing contracts, but the notion that L-M would rip up existing contracts with Canadian suppliers is "Harper hyperbole". Also you can note that the government has been monitoring all media on the F-35 story very closely, presumably including this Wiki article and this talk page. Nice to know we are contributing! - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas 2012

As explained at F-35 reports could be Christmas nightmare for government - 3 reports of fighter jet cost overruns are due this week, this story could get very busy in the next two weeks. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

...and it has done just that! Not sure where or if this fits As Canada’s F-35 purchase stalls, U.S. is already pushing for sixth generation fighter by 2030. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"The only role for new fighters is to support U.S. operations and “shock and awe” campaigns against other nations, Staples added."

So this is really a debate about missions, more than money. Hcobb (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that the cost flows from the missions picked. For instance if the nation was to look for an aircraft to defend its own airspace, period, then stealth would not be a requirement. Stealth is mostly tied to the strike role and so the roles picked drive up costs. The main point I got from the Citizen's 6th Gen article is that the F-35 is planned to be obsolete by US acquisition of a 6th Gen fighter only eight years after Canada will complete getting theirs (assuming on time . In reality by the time they are actually delivered they could already be obsolete). I think the fact that the US is currently planning to make the F-35 obsolete so quickly may be worth adding somewhere, perhaps in the main F-35 article as it really adds to the question of "why spend so much?" Now of course "planning" is not "doing" and reality, and again costs, may intervene. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I note your addition of the Deschamps assertion on interceptor stealth there. Other experts disagree with him, but it is a good addition to the story. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think the op-view from that same ref is notable then add it. Hcobb (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to do that. I did add it, mostly because the opinion came from Philippe Lagassé, who is now on the panel that will have a large input into the future fighter project. - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Answer to the Ultimate Question is 30, not 42

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/12/the-reset-button/ How does the government get 42 years? By adding in 12 years for “development and acquisition,” from the decision to acquire the planes in 2010 to the delivery of the last plane in 2022. No previous estimate included development costs. And indeed they add next to nothing to the total: just $565-million. But by tacking on another 12 years, they allow the government to spread the cost over a much longer time frame, and make the annual cost of the planes seem much lower than it is.

The ultimate question is if this is worth mentioning? Hcobb (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I did read that in the article this past week. It could be included, but my guess was that it was drilling down a bit too far into the wrangling. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The current debate point is that the costs per year haven't gone up, we're just looking at a longer timeframe, but the timeframe has been extended in two directions, further into the future and into the past, so the cost per year of active duty has increased. Hcobb (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did get that from it - the govt is playing with numbers and including the year talking about buying the aircraft as part of the aircraft's lifespan to spread the costs out. It's deceptive. Feel free to add it in, if fit it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hill Times interview with Alan Williams

This new article has a lot of new opinions, but I am not sure that there is anything here that can add to this article at this point in time. Any thoughts? F-35 process ‘corrupted’ from the beginning, says Williams. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And here's another article that complains about the costs of the recent reviews of the purchase.

http://www.globalnews.ca/canada/politics/6442800655/story.html

The aircraft isn't in a death spiral, the purchase program is. Hcobb (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias under November 2010 heading

under the 'November 2010' heading, it says 'A national poll conducted by Abacus Data between 29 October and 1 November 2010 indicated that the Canadian public was evenly split on support of the F-35 purchase with 35% in support and 37% opposed. The same poll stated that 57% of Canadian either wanted to increase military spending, or keep it the same, as opposed to 29% who wanted to decrease it.[44]'

I have a problem with the 57% vs 29%. If you look at the linked poll, the numbers are 41% to keep military spending at current level, 29% decrease military spending and 16% increase spending. In the text, the 41% and 16% are added together, as if, wanting to keep spending as it is and wanting to increase spending is the same.

I submit that this is false. The numbers are not broken down further in the report and the linked report actually says 'When asked about changes in government spending on the military, Canadians were generally opposed to the idea of increased spending. The desire to maintain current levels of spending was reflected fairly consistently across all profiled demographic groups, with women and Quebecers most likely to support a spending decrease. Desire to decrease spending outweighed the desire to increase spending by a considerable margin across all groups,'

I am deleting the problematic last part of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.173.51 (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fair. I just restored the ref that supports the text remaining. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the ref, Ahunt, it is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.190.170 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia hypocrisy: Let's decide once and for all

There is possible hypocrisy in Wikipedia. There is a section in this article about the Wikipedia controversy. It is almost if Wikipedia is trying to make itself look good. Yet when there is an event that makes Wikipedia look bad, such as wrongly saying that Senator Ted Kennedy had died, Wikipedia editors try to cover up and insists that there be no mention.

Let us decide once and for all. This discussion may end in 30 days.

Decree: If there is widespread coverage about Wikipedia about a subject, it is fair to include it. Wikipedia should not include mention of itself only when it can be done so in a favorable light and savagely fight against it when Wikipedia is portrayed in a negative light. As a result, the Wikipedia mention in this article should be kept.

Support. This is the correct and honest way. SMK2013 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is completely the wrong place to bring this issue up. It is a broad issue that affects all of Wikipedia, so it needs to be taken to a Wikipedia wide venue, not one obscure article like this. As far as the mention of Wikipedia in this article, it is well-sourced to reliable third party refs and shows possible government attempts to cover-up the subject of the article so I think there is good reason to keep it here. That may not be the case for other mentions of Wikipedia in other articles, however. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Two engines less than half of the Super Hornet debate

It seems off balance to me to bring up only the twin engine bit in comparing JSF vs Super Hornet. Personally I'd be happy with half price, but we can have a much longer section that goes into all of the differences if needed. Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What, precisely, are the sources describing? That's all we should have, and not a word more. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I just thought it was a germane point, since twin engined aircraft are commonly much more expensive than singles, both from a purchase and operating cost perspective, but if you think it is not that important than it can be removed. My main reason for restoring it after deletion is that it was an IP edit, with no edit summary to explain why it should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues pointed out in the one source used for claim:

  • Super Hornet already in service vs F-35 in dev.
  • Two engines vs one.
  • Super Hornet cheaper to buy and to use.
  • F-35 planned to be bought and used in greater numbers for a longer time.
  • F-35 stealth vs Super Hornet agility.
  • Super Hornet's advantage in low speed flight and short landings vs F-35A

So why single out just two factors? Hcobb (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For brevity, but feel free to add them all if you think it worthwhile. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the house of commons notable?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/07/the-commons-think-of-the-f-35-as-a-senate-with-wings/

The Baby Seal seems to be a common punchline in that body. Include every mention? Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to add some text and that exact ref this morning here! I think it is worth adding, only because the aircraft and its procurement have gone from an embarrassment for the government to now an object of national ridicule. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Far to long

I suspect nobody would ever read all this stuff, I appreciate it is a bit of an issue in Canada but at 191,951 bytes it is at least twenty times to big. It looks like a copy of every press release and quote released on the subject, mostly not notable. Perhaps suggest the regular editors on the page think about a serious cull. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We have been waiting to see if the procurement goes ahead or gets canceled to determine which information is relevant or not, It will be very easy to cut down at that point, but difficult before then. - Ahunt (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantino's comments

There is no wikipedia page for Stewart Webb, could this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocVM (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is non-notable. Hcobb (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not certain exactly what the Canadian position is

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-usa-canada-defense-f-idUSKCN0T90CB20151120#gLvukYkftsyLZptC.97

Is Bob Work notable on this? Hcobb (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Liberals have been very clear in their election promises that they will not buy the F-35 and instead hold an open competition that will exclude the F-35 as the wrong aircraft for the job and too expensive. I think the US (ie L-M) is trying to "fuzzify" things here to provide some wiggle room for influencing things. I would suggest that this be held and see what the govt says on the F-35. If they handle this issue like the rest of election promises so far they will next announce the competition and its parameters. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Harjit Sajjan notable then? http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/national/defence-minister-cautious-on-f-35-jets-despite-party-pledge/article27424850/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe Hcobb (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure he is notable, but he didn't say anything notable!! I still suggest we leave this until something is actually announced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 34 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked But about half the pages added are "404" and thus not fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ref is "404" and thus still broken. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How can information on developments in '06, '08, and '09 "duplicate the article text in point form and add nothing" when the history sect. starts in '10?

Can someone point out where the article mentions, as an example, "2006 The Canadian air force concludes the F-35 is the most cost effective plane to meet its needs. But only one JSF test model existed at that time and there was no way to actually prove the JSF had the lowest cost per aircraft or that it would be the cheapest to fly.[298] Announcing a "strong preference" for the F-35 according to the Auditor General.[297] December 2006 Canada signs a Memorandum of Understanding for the next phase of JSF development under a Conservative government, expected to cost US$551 million through 2051. Canada emphasized that the commitment does not mean Canada will purchase the plane. Canada also had to accept F-35 procurement rules, according to the auditor general, who claimed ministers were not fully informed of this aspect. [297][298] May 12, 2008 The Canada First Defence Strategy calls for replacing the CF-18 fleet, beginning in 2017.[299] 2009 Department of National Defense (DND) asks the Conservative government for permission to buy the F-35. Permission is denied.[299] February 2010 The Pentagon notifies Canada that the U.S. is “reassessing its cost projections” because of expected delays in development, according to the auditor general.[299]? Not to mention that a simple timeline is much more digestible at a glance than the article currently is.TeeTylerToe (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The time line added (which was not a time line, it was more text. A timeline looks like this) was almost all duplicate information to the main article text. If there was a bit of non-duplicated information then should be incorporated in the main article text, rather than starting a second article within the first article. It made reading the article impossible and the duplication made the article ridiculously long. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

kpmg estimate confusion

It looks like I'm seeing sources citing a $44.8 Bn kpmg estimate but also $45.8bn in other places. Nationalpost seems to say $44.8Bn. It looks like cbc sources say $45.8Bn.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a simple typo on the part of one or the other news agency. Hard to tell which one is right, though. We could note the discrepancy in the article, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 52 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement/Archive_1&oldid=1119746893"