- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics "Woodstock')

Posted: 9/1/2010 11:53:13 AM The Globe and Mail

Military sees F-35’s stealth as way to assert sovereignty, Campbell Clark, Sep. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-sees-f-35s-stealth-as-way-to-assert-sovereignty/article1692076/

With all due respect, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, that's not the reason Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the other Con's have been giving, not until that so-called 'Russian invasion' last week, that is.

Peter MacKay's reasons appears to be that it is 'eye watering technology' (and that is in Hansard) and it is a great recruiting tool

"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.

'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)

I think making DS's standard issue would fit MacKay's bill much better and be cheaper (depending on the number of games issued)

Also,

I think more to the point is as Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)

I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.

Our current, recently upgraded, arsenal of F-18's seemed to be more than adequate to meet the recent, apparent, threats to Canadian sovereignty by the Russians. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawa Citizen)

So, there appears to be no historical basis for the assertion that we need to upgrade from the F-18's to the F-35's to protect our sovereignty.

Also, there is a serious flaw in the logic in asserting that we need to upgrade from F-18's to F-35's for such purpose.

The F-35's may be able to sneak up on Russian Bombers. But, as the F-18's showed I suspect just about any fighter jet could get 'up close and personal' with these planes.

However there are a number of things:

- why is it important to sneak up on them, if the objective is deterrence. One would think 'the more visible the better'

What is the likelihood that they would not refrain from entering our air space even if we were very visible about it.

On the other hand, if they did, we would not likely shoot them down and so why the need to sneak up on them. Unless Harper and the Con government is preparing our military for war, I can't see it. If they are, I think all Canadians ought to know and forthwith.

- If an enemy is going to incur into Canadian air space, they are very likely to do it with at least the same technology as the F-35's and, after all, there are few possible threats to our Arctic sovereignty that are not part of the 'Joint Strike Fighter' (perhaps Mr. Deschamps could explain why they use the adjective 'strike') program.

"The United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey have formally joined the U.S. and contributed money toward the program. These partners are either NATO countries and/or close US allies, and peacekeeping and war fighting more recently have been done by coalitions. " (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-int.htm)

That leaves the Russians and the Chinese - I don't see them violating our air space and I don't see them without comparable technology - this suggests a scene of opposing fighter jets flying all over the place trying to find each other.

On the other hand, if terrorists get hold of comparable 'eye-watering technology' then I might agree and shoot them down on sight.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html