Lockheed Martin shills still flogging F-35 strike fighter

My first question is why the Globe and Mail allowed this pro-Lockheed propaganda into its commentary section instead of making the company buy advertising space.

Writer Paul Manson's background is unique in that he has been both the chief of Canada's defence staff and chief of Lockheed Martin Canada. The cosy connection between Lockheed and the Canadian defence establishment was further illustrated last September when Lt. General Charles Bouchard, the guy who directed the NATO bombardment of Libya in 2011, was named head of the company's Canadian operations.

Critics claim the F-35 is designated the II because it is too heavy, too slow, too fuel thirsty, too complex, and too expensive. That might be why Manson shied away from performance specifics in his article, focusing instead on generic fear-mongering and Canada's international image.

How do you like this howler?

The West failed to see that in short order, it would find itself immersed in strange new conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now, suddenly, Ukraine. Predicting the place, time and nature of modern human conflict is a mug's game.

Not so fast, Mr. Manson! The only thing "strange" about these conflicts is that none of these enemies posed any threat to the "West". They were strictly wars of opportunity voluntarily entered into by NATO. Picking the place and time of your next war is simple enough when you're the party starting them.

And then there's this;

Not to be disregarded is the impact the selection will have on Canada's international image as a contributor to collective security.

The meddling by NATO in the above countries has improved our collective security? That's an extremely dubious proposition. With respect especially to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it is plainly obvious that Western intervention has had the opposite effect. We're being asked to commit many billions to this technology based on what our allies in this dysfunctional military alliance might think of us?

From a Canadian perspective, would we not be better served by taking leave of this alliance which long ago outlived it's usefulness, and invest those billions in the many pressing needs we have right here at home?

NATO General behind F-35 propaganda offensive

Let. General Charles Bouchard isn't wasting any time earning his paycheque at his new job.

Only a week after the recently retired General announced that he had joined Lockheed Martin as head of Canadian operations, Canadian media are inundated with variations on this theme: if Canada doesn't go through with the purchase of 65 F-35 strike fighters, then Canadian businesses stand to lose 10 billion or more in F-35 contracts! Not only that, but the cost per plane has just been dropping like crazy, to the point where the entire Canadian purchase will now be done for less than half of what those benefits to Canadian industry are!

Wow!

The incredible Lockheed Martin F-35 money & jobs generator gives back two dollars for every dollar you put in!

Unfortunately, that latest price of 75 million being quoted is about half of what critics like Winslow Wheeler are projecting in their latest estimates.

Back when he was leading NATO's air war on Libya I often got the impression Bouchard was uncomfortable with some of the more egregious bullshit that he had to speak into the microphones at his daily briefings to the press.

Maybe he's become more comfortable with shovelling propaganda.

F-35 dead; long live the drone

Drones were not yet a factor fifteen years ago when the F-35 development contract was being signed between Lockheed Martin and a dozen governments that were potential buyers.

Canada was one of the parties to that contract. According to the National Post Defense Minister Peter "Pinocchio" MacKay is having second thoughts. We know this because rather than answer questions about Canada's commitment to the F-35, MacKay chose to remain silent, and veteran MacKay watchers know that is a sure sign he is telling the truth.

Other than the fact that it doesn't work, the main problem with the F-35 is it doesn't work. That, and it's also by far the most expensive fighter jet in its class. For the cost of one F-35 a country can buy 100 drones. When you think through what a country needs an air force for, it's hard to see an argument for the F-35.

Spying? Delivering payload (i.e. missiles and bombs, shit to blow people up)? Supporting ground forces? What else do fighter planes do?

Everything a fighter jet can do a drone can do at a fraction of the cost.

Except have dogfights with other fighter jets. That's pretty much all a fighter jet does these days that you can't do with a drone.

But you'd skip right past the dogfight and just shoot down the 150 million dollar F-35 with your 1 million dollar drone.

Furthermore, owing to developments in detection technologies, the F-35 is no longer the "stealth" fighter it was  originally conceived to be. Virtually all of the intended buyers have been scaling back or deferring their orders, if not opting out altogether. For Canada, an opt-out would mean waving good-bye to the 300 million plus that has already been contributed to the development program.

But that makes more sense than throwing even more money into a fighter jet whose time has passed.

Technology has changed.

Fighter jets are as obsolete as the trebuchet.

Canada hedging bets on F-35 purchase

Canada's commitment to the F-35 program is looking less and less commited as time goes by.

This week Junior Minister of Defense Julian Fantino went out of his way to point out to critics that the contract to buy the fighter plane that doesn't fly isn't actually signed yet. You only talk like that if you're leaving an exit open.

Could be all political smoke and mirrors of course. The Harper gang is revealing the latest budget tomorrow. It's widely expected to be a slash-and-burn nightmare. Expect cuts to everything except prisons and the defense budget.

In that climate it's hard to justify the F-35 deal. The cost keeps going up as the performance benchmarks keep coming down. Most of the "allies" in the joint strike fighter project have already abandoned the plane or seriously cut back on their commitments.

Ironically, it's the allies who Harper and MacKay claim are the reason for our purchase. We need the plane to be able to fight alongside out allies.

Fight who?

That's a separate but obviously related topic. NATO membership is a major point of pride among a certain species of Canadian military types who fancy themselves big players on the world stage.

If one of our NATO allies like Turkey or Albania get themselves into a shooting war, the rest of NATO is obliged to help them out.

Canadians should look at a map, read up on Turkey and Albania, and then decide if it's time to scrap not only the F-35 contract but the NATO alliance as well.