Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


The PMO’s/Dimitri Soudas’s stupid statement of the week

Question to the PMO and Dimitri Soudas – who decided to turn a potential terrorist incident yesterday into partisan politics by claiming Ignatieff’s Liberals wanted to defend Canada with kites, because of their questioning of the costs of the F-35 Stealth Fighter jet, as well as not putting it up for a competitive process bid:

How exactly do 18 billion$ (or more) of 65 F-35 stealth fighters defend Canada against a bomb hidden in a printer ink jet cartridge in the cargo hold of a passenger plane? Do the F-35’s have X-ray vision and can detect bombs in mid-flight? Can it escort a plane to a safe airport or shoot it down better then our CF-18’s, or some other alternative fighter jet?

There is partisanship.. and then there are idiotic statements that I expect to find on a Blogging Tory blog, not from the PMO press releases. When did the PMO hire conservative bloggers to write press releases for them?


15 comments to The PMO’s/Dimitri Soudas’s stupid statement of the week

  • Derek

    The F-22 is not going to be developed past the 187 firmly stated production quota. The US will not be exporting the F-22 to friendly allied nations because it wants to maintain its strategic mark. The make-up of the F-35’s electric software data are also going to be safeguarded by the US which has decided not to release the full breakdown of key data gathering instrumentation components.

    I wonder why they’d want to do that if this was a clear cut business decision aimed at strengthening its allies capabilities?

  • ridenrain

    Since the Lefty think tanks are calling the F35 a cadillac, what would they call the F22? It’s definately the better fighter but does Canada need,or can it afford a bleeding edge air superiority fighter?
    Since it was the Liberals who got us stuck in Chretien’s war, what is Iggy’s plan for the Canadian forces?

    • Redrum

      @ridenrain, it’s hardly “bleeding edge”: it first flew in 1990, and it’s… already been deemed to be REDUNDANT… it’s going to be out of production in 18 months. …unless someone can talk some sense into the Pentagon that their Allies need it since the Russians reverse engineered it and are now producing something faster than the F-35s (which ARE the bleeding edge ones: bleeding MONEY).

      Ignatieff doesn’t have any particular other model in mind: that’s the point — he wants a proper needs assessment done NOW to determine what the most appropriate one(S) should be for our foreseeable mission priorities. (Not one that filled a hole in the US’s various fleets).

  • ridenrain

    Lol. Redrum. Is that your thoughts or are you just a parrot?

    “The new F 18 twin engine super hornet out performs the single engine F-35 and at half the cost of the F-35.”
    Please prove that. I’d be pleased if you could show me examples in the last Red Flag competition.

    Just as the F22 was slandered by fools, untill it repeatedly beat experienced F15 eagle pilots, I’d go with the new technology. The F18E is a revised bomb truck, a larger, Wallmart special of the same thing. I’m not saying it’s bad but it’s really just an economy size of the same thing.

    If the Liberals want to suggest the F22 and the vast reductions in spending to afford the +\-$160 Million price tag.. but we don’t need and can’t afford the bleeding edge of air superiority fighters.

    • Redrum

      @ridenrain, um, no, those were “quotations” – “parroting” is what YOU do — mindlessly talking other’s points.

      As for the latest ‘Red Flag’ competition results,

      as you should know if you’re going to pretend to be more of an expert on this than the sources I was quoting (who were drawing on the Air Power Australia reports www +
      and the specs available at, e.g., http + :// )

      …with only about half a dozen prototypes built and being tested to date, the F-35 hasn’t been in any of those competitions, yet, has it?

      But even on paper, and even overlooking the fact that it’s alternate (Rolls Royce) engine has been scrapped because of a glitch, and all its various other bugs that have bloated its costs & delayed its production, it’s been described by The Center for Defense Information as,

      “a ‘dog.’ If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter…. [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot…. less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam…. payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay…. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’… too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods…. What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.”

      www +

      Interesting, tho’, that you disavow the F-22 (which the Air Power Australia folks actually nominate as the best bet for our needs*) as being a better plane but too rich for our blood — thereby totally undermining the Cons’ position that “Nothing’s too good for the troops,” and bolstering the view that it’s high time to evaluate OUR needs, not our vendor’s.

      So, if it’s a super-fast, highly manoeveurable interceptor fighter jet with room for more than just 4 air-to-air missiles we need, then that’s what we should get (rather than one of these multi-role turkeys), so we should be lobbying the US hard to SELL THEM to us instead of phasing them out, like jackasses. And if they open them to export (other countries want them, too), their costs will come down….. and unlike this F-35 glitch-fest which even the Pentagon’s totally fed up with and about to wash their hands of, they actually WORK.

      The Cons. have been such pushovers in playing to the US Defense Industry’s wants in all of this, istead of our own.

      * www +

  • Redrum

    John Kibbitzon picked it up rather uncritically at the Globe.*

    A few of the comments were bang on, tho’:

    by ‘Griffin’: …”If the plane blew up in mid-air, it would probably take out the two F-35’s escorting it, and spread a debris field on Canadian soil. How, does this escort defend Canadian airspace?”

    by ‘Bill W James’: “The F-35 is like a jack of all trades but master of none. The new F-18 Super Hornet is more suitable to Canada’s needs.
    The hornet has the ability to carry more fuel plus work as a tanker for those long arctic missions.
    The short range F-35 is more dependent on mid-air refuelling, which is a challenge in remote locations. In parts of Canada’s Arctic, it can take eight hours for a C-135 Hercules tanker to arrive.
    The new F 18 twin engine super hornet out performs the single engine F-35 and at half the cost of the F-35.

    The US and some allies commissioned the building of a fighter jet to replace the teens era. Canada contributed as a tier 3 which gave us essentially [an] option to buy.

    What they come up with is the F-22, which few Governments can afford, and besides the US cut off exports. Told to go back to the drawing board, they came up with the jack of all trades but master of none, F-35.

    • maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,911 kilometres an hour at 40,000 feet)
    • range (unarmed): 3,700 kilometres
    • engines: two General Electric turbofans generating 7,250 kilograms of thrust each

    • maximum speed: Mach 1.67 (1,773 kilometres an hour at 40,000 feet)
    • range (unarmed): 2,220 kilometres
    • engine: single Pratt and Whitney turbofan with 12,700 kilograms of thrust”

    by ‘Metasphere’:
    “Really stupid position by the Cons on this one, actually. If the task is a sustained escort of a long-range commercial aircraft, then the single-engine, short range, F-35 is exactly the wrong plane for the task.
    Funny how the supposedly militarily alert Cons would be so oblivious to an obvious problem.
    Maybe this purchase is more about getting nice fat Lockheed directorships for Harpo and Pinnocchio.

    …Only Con Cultists will be morons enough to fall for this ploy. What good are strike-fighters supposed to be for the task of an interceptor? Does Pinnocchio Mackay even know the difference?

    The F-35 is the wrong plane for Canada’s needs. It’s a STRIKE fighter, designed to engage military targets on the ground, like tanks and radio posts.

    It is not an INTERCEPTOR for defending airspace against incursions.

    In terms of air-superiority or interdiction, the F-35 is no match for the relevant Russian competitor, the Su-35. As the link below shows, the Su-35 beats in most respects, including

    -rate of climb
    -number, size, and targetting ability of weapons, and
    -radar detection capability.

    Possibly worst of all, because it is so underpowered, to get the F-35 to make Mach1 required removal of the fire suppression system. With no fire suppression system, any fire on board means the pilot will have to ditch the plane. ANY fire means loss of the plane.

    The F-35 is a lemon that fills a slot in the NATO machine rather than helping defend Canada. The purchase is untendered because competition could win instead, and the price we are paying is twice what Israel is being charged for each plane.

    Once again, the HarpoCult government is selling out Canada, and the military.”

    * www +

  • foottothefire

    When it comes to harperites, stupid statements are not the sole dominion of Soudras but certainly are a reflection of their leadership.

    • Marie

      And their supporters may I add. Soutas,Canada’s very own Boogie Man; King of dirty politics and doing a poor job at that too.

  • Norad said the F-18, two of them had already been flying in the Bagotville area. so we did not send them up.Does anyone know where the government is going to get some sircraft cariers..perhaps 2 WW2 corvettes, for the F35?

    • Redrum

      @Annie, NORAD ordered Canada to shadow the plane as it crossed our air space, but as it happened, our F-18s were already in the air on training at the time, so they got there right away.

      There are 3 types of F-35s, only one of which lands on carriers. The Cons. are ordering the cheapest, which uses conventional runways, but are not planning on getting any carriers.

  • Margaret

    Bombs can appear anywhere. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that they were deliberately planted on Arab planes, to discredit them.

    Soudass should never have been elevated to the PMO. It’s too Orwellian by half.

  • ridenrain

    I want to hear from those folks who wanted to discuss opening our airspace up to middle east based airlines. Dosen’t seem like such a good idea now, does it?

    • Redrum

      @rainNspainONplane, hmm, if you want to apply retroactive reasoning (the Harper gov’t was clearly trying to protect Air Canada jobs, not Cndn lives, in their beingled UAE negotiations; it had NOTHING to do with terrorist threats) & stretch a point like that:

      Well, since the suspicious packages were all being shipped by UPS & Fed-Ex — two AMERICAN companies —

      http + ://

      I guess we should cut off diplomatic relations and shut down joint military bases or ventures with the USA, too?

  • “When did the PMO hire conservative bloggers to write press releases for them?”

    Is that a rhetorical question?

  • MoS

    Soudasshole shouldn’t be acknowledged in civil discourse.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.