Is the F-35 the right plane?


A former air force colonel questions the purchase.

Retired colonel Paul Maillet, an aerospace engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager, said the F-35 does not meet the needs of the government’s Canada First Defence Strategy, a key pillar of which is Arctic sovereignty. “How do you get a single-engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support… to operate effectively in the North?” he asked.

Maillet called the F-35 a “serious strategic mismatch” to Canada’s military needs, and suggested the Royal Canadian Air Force would be better off purchasing a fleet of F-18 E/F fighters.

See previously: Why the F-35? and What we do we plan on doing with our fighter jets?


Is the F-35 the right plane?

  1. Why are the Harper Cons so hot and heavy to get these jets? Because it’s such a bad idea? They obviously feel taxpayers are beneath an honest explanation for wasting more than $25B of their money.

    • Because they’re too heavily invested in them to back out now. Part of the problem with being unable to admit when you’re wrong is that you’re unable to correct when you’re wrong.

      They were initially for these jets because that’s what DND said and they simply weren’t interested in doing any work to determine if that might be the right course of action. So hey, that’s what DND wants, let’s not waste time questioning it, full steam ahead!

      Then the first criticisms came out and they flipped into standard defence mode. This is the best option available, how do we know that? Because we’re the ones pursuing it. Obviously it must be the best option then.

      So having high-centered themselves on that hill, it’s going to take a mighty effort to get them off of it.

  2. I see with the latest version of Disqus, Macleans is out to censor what few conservative oriented posters there are by removing comments which receive negative recommendations.

    Since progressive-oriented commenters far outnumber the far fewer conservative-oriented commenters, the policy will mean that Macleans is siding with the progressives against the conservative commenters, and effectively hiding/censoring out views.

    It will render the comment section useless, since the comment sections will just turn into the tyranny of the progressives, with any conservative-oriented opinion hidden and removed because of negative review.

    Strange way for Macleans to support freedom of speech and expression, allowing majority opinion to determine what comments are allowed to stay and which can get voted off, merely on the basis of popularity.

    • For the first .. and probably last .. time, I agree with you. Although it’s
      possible that Maclean’s is not the villain ?

    • I imagine the minority of left-leaning posters over on the Sun comment boards feel the same way.

      So is Macleans censoring the right and the Sun censoring the left? Or perhaps your comment is ridiculous, and that the changes are not politically motivated.

    • Extremists rarely add anything to the conversation, and there are considerably more right wing extremists here than left wing extremists – although neither are as bad as the “my party, right or wrong” hacks that sometimes show up. So overall, weeding out the crazies just might improve the discourse.

      • It doesn’t improve the discourse.

        Remove offensive posts, by all means. But removing posts just because the majority doesn’t like a legitimate opinion, when the majority is so tilted to one side, is both stupid and counterproductive.

        Do you really just want a “progressive” echo chamber? I don’t mind being in the minority here, tilting against the windmills, but if our comments are just voted off the island, just because you don’t agree with them, it just becomes a total waste of time.

        There is something to be gained from just seeing what the other side says about particular things.

        • Just because you’re not right wing doesn’t mean you’re left wing. Knocking down the extremists doesn’t tilt the forum towards leftism, it tilts it towards sanity.

          For my own part, I wouldn’t vote down a comment because it was straight right wing, but if it was dishonest or ill-thought out I’d think about it.

          • I actually would prefer if even the most uber of offensive comments was left up, so that everyone can see the depths to which some can sink. But I am annoyed at having to type in my email address for every comment, and disqus is not allowing me to “register.”

        • You are being more polite than usual today. I trust you will forgive me for noting that I fail to understand how reading offensive, insulting and demeaning comments about progressive views is supposed to edify me.

    • What? Are you whining that people have a means of expressing their disagreement by voting?

    • I get a little “show this comment” thingie for the negative-rated comments. So they’re not being censored, they’re just being saddled with yet another Disqus “annoy-the-customer” feature. I’m in Firefox 11 btw. No comments at all show up in IE9 after this latest change.

    • First, I doubt Macleans is out to do anything of the sort one way or the other. Take off the tinfoil hat. In case you haven’t noticed, these forums are third party software.

      Second, quit clutching your pearls. Conservative-oriented opinion will survive just fine. Mindless attacks, deliberate mis-reading of posts, and complete non-sequitur, however, are likely to die a quick death. Or shorter: We’ll probably see a lot less of OriginalEmily and DennisF. If you want to argue that’s a bad thing, or that limiting those things will limit conservative-opinion, I’ll leave you to it.

      Third, what on earth made you think that Macleans has any interest in supporting freedom of speech and expression? They’re a private entity, not a public one.

      Personally, I’ll probably be voting more things up than I used to, as I tend to think negative ratings should really only be for troll type statements.

      • The posts don’t disappear anyway, you just click and you can see the comment. And I feel I need to defend Original Emily — she’s never come across as a jerk in my eyes, but she does get picked at alot here. Actually her comebacks when she’s under attack make me laugh out loud sometimes. With admiration, that is.

        • More often than not, I find that her response is a non-sequitur. Perhaps I’m just not bright enough to understand the links, but often I can’t see how her response relates in any way but the most tangential to what she’s replying to.

          • “Perhaps I’m just not bright enough”

            I wouldn’t beat yourself up over it. I don’t think I’m bright enough either.

          • You are both extremely bright; that is not the issue. Everybody doesn’t like everybody; it’s a fact of life.

  3. I hope the government listens to ex-colonel Paul Maillet. He gives weight to my concern about the inappropriateness of a “single-engine, low-range” plane.

  4. And voila, the Maclean’s censor has kicked in.

    4 people voted against a post decrying censorship, and the post is disappeared.

    Enjoy your echo chamber.

    • Probably because you accused Macleans of doing it on purpose. Stupidity dies now.