Signals.Cpl

So what happens when the government start looking at other aircraft and the infrastructure, manpower, weapons and maintenance costs remain only the initial purchase price changes? Or will we have a different equation for the new fighter, just initial purchase price?

And when the next fighter is chosen we would still have all the extra 24 billion in costs...

And buying 400 planes that nobody needs or wants and hiring 10,000 or more people to maintain them and fly them adds enormous expense while your solution to rent them out so they bring money in is ludicrous, no one will get use of those aircraft because they will either be used by petty dictator wannabes who use the as a private jet or will be consistently rented out and neither the military or the various police forces will get any use of those aircraft. The only thing "your" solution does is waste money when the CF has to get more troops to maintain the useless 400 aircraft which means that those are people who will bring little value to the CF overall. Buying 400 different aircraft and helicopters adds to the demand to maintain an inventory of parts and places a demand on training technicians to repair dozens of designs more then they need to. Getting MiG's for the CF is out of the question as those planes breakdown like every other piece of equipment made by human beings and depending on Russia to give us the spare parts is not a good idea as at some point in time politics will interfere and Russia will stop supplying us and those "cheap" fighters you want to purchase will sit in an RCAF base gathering dust essentially being billions of dollars worth of paperweights. As for the other aircraft they add nothing to the abilities of the military or police even if you add weapons to them as the weapons will most likely be useless in a situation against fighter aircraft. Learn basic math: -10,000 personnel making an average of $3,500/month and this is a lowball figure is $35,000,000/month x 12 months = $420,000,000/year just in personnel costs. -throw in $100,000,000 in fuel and repairs a year. -add to that the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be wasted to certify technicians and aircrew on dozens of different aircraft. - a billion or so to expand our infrastructure to be able to handle the few hundred new aircraft. so just the maintenance of the aircraft and salaries of the troops would be almost $16,000,000,000 over the lifetime of the aircraft and again this is a lowball figure because if you use the realistic numbers plus all the other little expenses associated with the manpower aspect that number could very easily double if not triple. I am lowballing the $100 million for fuel and repairs but that could increase dramatically as well. The fact that we need to build more infrastructure to support those aircraft and maintain such infrastructure just increases the price exponentially it could conceivably cost $40 billion or more to operate those aircraft and that is the low side of things. The cost for the F35's is around 9 billion and the other 24 billion that people are complaining about is the upkeep of the aircraft, personnel, infrastructure and all other costs associated with the planes, increasing the number changes the costs as you need more people, bigger infrastructure investment and maintenance as well as much more in maintaining the aircraft because they would be dispersed throughout the country rather then consolidated in as few bases as possible and would be dozens of designs instead of just a couple. The cost would be billions more then the F35's and the return on investment would be dramatically lower as now we will have aircraft that depend on a foreign power that is on many occasions at odds with us and could shut down our diverse fleet of fighters and helicopters at the times when the relationship gets a little frosty. Your imaginary solution does nothing but assume that you can waltz in to the CF, slash the salaries of the troops...you know the same people that put themselves in harms way when Canada needs them, the same people who spend in some cases years apart from their families and who miss the important milestones in their children's lives... this is ludicrous as people will realize that they sacrifice so much to do a job and they could go and work in the civilian world for more money with much less in the way of sacrifices and would get to spend much more time with their families. The guy who is divorced from reality and cannot do basic math or grasp basic logic is calling me selfish, a liar and a crook with no morals or decency? Gee you have a way with people who disagree with faulty your point of don't you?

I think there is a small dispute along the border with Alaska, either land or sea I can't really remember but there was a small issue there.

Your "solution" "solves" a "problem" that does not exists while at the same time taking away money, resources and manpower from projects and systems we do need. Explain what your so called solution is and why we require billions and billions of dollars in investment to solve the imaginary problem.

You don't get it do you? We need as few designs as possible, to limit the cost in the long term and this applies to the weapon systems as well. I believe we have an Air Defence Regiment in Gagetown and if they ask for some anti-aircraft weapon systems its one thing but when someone who is so divorced from reality advocates the purchase of weapons for a threat that does not exist its a whole different ballgame. Buying weapons the CF does not need just screws over the soldiers, sailors and aircrew because it means the money that is so desperately needed is diverted in to systems that end up being useless while the badly needed equipment purchases are postponed.

You don't have the most basic grasp on this subject, you seem to think that the major cost of the F-35 is the F-35 itself and it is not, the aircraft cost around 9 billion to purchase then you add all the other costs and you get the 35 billion you are proposing something that will cost tax payers billions upon billions of dollars while bringing nothing in the way of new capabilities. CF members love their jobs and that is the reason that many do the job that requires them to spend significant time away from loved once, moving every couple of years and living in remote locations but once you cut the pay and make members choose between serving their country and taking care of their families, for the most part families will win out and you lose great people. You pay military members decent and they will endure the hardships because they love their jobs, when you pay them much lower then they would get in the civvie world, expect much more from them and have them see their families lacking in the basic necessities of life you are likely to see few people in the military and even fewer wanting to join. You get what you pay for, you pay people significantly below what they would make in the civilian world and expect more of them then you will lose the good and have to settle for the bottom of the barrel.

Everything, you want to cut the Challengers in order to do what? Get Helicopters that will be placed all over the country in the off chance that one or 2 Cabinet ministers were to need them at some point over the next 2 decades? Do you know where the main cost of military comes from, I believe that 50% or more is spend on personnel. So your genius idea is to get dozens of aircraft and split them all over the country each one requiring its own crew and maintenance staff as well as infrastructure for what purpose? Waste the budget of the military? And why would the military need helicopters stationed in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa far from the bases that might actually need them? Giving something to the military but putting restrictions on where they could station the equipment means that the military will get little use of it and government bureaucrats will be using it constantly. Now lets go to the police portion of the argument, I am sure that it will be their greatest wish to get helicopters at the expense of the Federal Government and see little use of them or essentially have highly trained police pilots flying those helicopter used as taxi's. Please oh please tell me you are either joking. This "idea" does not even get the title of being the dumbest idea possible as it would give the dumbest idea possible a bad name. And where do we get the spare parts if our relations with Russia get frosty? The purchase costs are irrelevant, the major expense is the pilots, ground crew and infrastructure and with your idea instead of having one type of aircraft to deal with in our system we would have to maintain spare parts and equipment as well as weapons for multiple aircraft... This would make the cost of buying the F35's look like child's play and this does not even cover the portion where Russia stops playing nice with us and we have to go to Uzbekistan and beg them for spare parts if they have any. So to save money you want to buy 200 Personal jets, and hire 400 pilots and 10,000 ground crew as well as the infrastructure and support system to maintain and repair those aircraft? For what the minister of culture? Really we will spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars purchasing, equipping training and maintaing the aircraft crew and infrastructure so that bureaucrats can fly somewhere? Ok, so lets say we get 200 of them, each one get a pilot and co-pilot, then we get 10 men ground crew to maintain each aircraft, then throw in that there would be a need for a substantial supply network to get parts to and from supply depots to the field so add there at least a couple of thousand. Then the people manning the weapon systems, their salaries and the cost to consistently keep them well trained in order to avoid shooting down some passenger jet that got to close... now at a lowball figure of 10,000 crew and support staff with an average salary of $3,500(keep in mind this is on the low end) multiplied by 12 months, and then by say 20 years(for the life span of the aircraft) and you get tens of billions of dollars in upkeep and that does not count the unnecessary weapon systems, initial purchase and ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, fuel, training and infrastructure needed to support this idiotic and extremely unnecessary undertaking and that is just the things I can think of, I'm sure there is quite a lot I am forgetting. So we should purchase it for the police and military, the bureaucrats will use them at will and when not in use will be rented out? And what happens when you need to bring wounded troops back from Germany? What would you helicopters and heavily armed light aircraft do for us there? Should we beg the US for transport because we blew our budget on some idiotic idea and can't bring our wounded from overseas? Please tell me you are joking... I can think of quite a few places better then the middle of the freaking lake to put a meeting where the heads of state will have to hop from one yacht to talk to one another. Ever wonder why they would want to get rid of it? The Bulgarian Military realizes that the country is aligned to western Europe and North America and as such they should equip their forces with weapons and equipment that would give them access to spare parts and expertise in a war situation that the Soviet Union gave them during the Cold War Just because it is for sale does not mean we should go and buy it, the idea that we should purchase Russian Equipment and be at the mercy of Russian foreign policy is idiotic. Wether we like it or not, our loyalties lie with the US and as such on many occasions that would put us at odds with Russia which means that we would be short on spare parts and equipment at those times. I see absolutely no need for that what so ever. So we will spend tens if not hundreds of billions in equipment, training and personnel to fly some "VIP" from their office to the airport to fly them to another airport to catch a plane? I can see how that makes perfect sense. Challengers are versatile, you can use them for VIP's, Dangerous Prisoner transfers, Casualty transport amongst others, we need at most one Aircraft for the PM with appropriate equipment to be in contact at all times, one for the CDS to be able to run the military even if traveling and 2-4 for Other Duties, if anything we should purchase dedicated military aircraft that serve the same purpose and more. The PM has a justifiable reason, the CDS has a justifiable reason but few others would have one except for emergencies, your "idea" aims to eliminate the CHallengers and replace them with hundreds of aircraft and sea craft that do not even cover a small portion of the spectrum of duties that the Challenger would be expected to do. Purchasing hundreds of aircraft and arming them for war means that there is always the chance to just handover heavy anti-aircraft weapon systems and ammunition to terrorists on a silver platter, I must say that would make me feel so safe and Im sure all Canadians and Americans would feel the same way knowing that heavy weapons are unprotected and available almost at will to anyone willing to carry them...

I really want to know what login is talking about... cut one or even 4 jets to purchase dozens of aircraft in their place? Just the manpower cost of that would make it counter productive and then you would have dozens of aircraft of different ability and not one could do the job of the challenger. And buying MiGs for escorting those aircraft? Are you for real or was that part of the joke?

I really want to know what the cost of all the aircraft include, wether they are using the same method of calculation or just pulling number out of thin air.

It probably will not happen overnight, but concentrating their bureaucracy will save money but as you mentioned will also cost a lot of jobs but this also means that there are more resources and hopefully a strategy to deal with all the problems rather than a a fragmented strategy with every province doing its own thing to "fix" their problems. It just might give the maritimes a stronger position when discussing with the federal government.

Check this one out: http://literallyunbelievable.org/ Some people believe the onion is true, and then argue when confronted with the facts...

Login, I won't bother replying to you after this post. The thing is you can't stop progress, as much as you want to you cannot do it. If we left it up to "geniuses" like you we would still believe that a King or Queen were send as a gift from god and had some divine right to rule over us little plebeians and we had not right to limit their power. If it were up to your kind we would still be under ruled by absolute monarchs as people like you cried and cried when the power of the monarchs was restricted, and they cried again when Monarchy was abolished... If we listened to the likes of you we would be no better then some of the nations in this world ruled by someone apparently send by god...

And that might have been a big deal in the 18th century, but at this point in time Canada is an independent Nation and might some day become a republic. That is not acceptable to you, not necessarily anyone else though... Really? And is that an imaginary line you put down? It is completely clear, you are full of BS and I am not entirely sure why I am wasting my time with you... You are trying to present that your initial claim of him being a traitor does not equal to him committing treason yet time and again you have proven that is exactly what you meant. So he betrayed another? You? A cause? A trust? Whose trust did he betray? Yours? So we finally get to the root of the issue, you used a word you did not fully understand... ok got it... We should look out for Canada's best interests first of all, look out for the US as much as we can because our livelihood depends on them and a distant third is the monarchy as it is nothing but protecting our historical ties to the UK. So in your opinion we should act in the Queens best interest before our own? I don't see a major change one way or the other but not supporting the monarchy is not stupid its an opinion. So we are back at this again, you think someone is a traitor, corrupt, disloyal or stupid simply because they disagree with you... got it.

The Queen is not responsible for the economic wellbeing of Canada nor are her representatives, that responsibility falls on the PM of Canada. He went to India in an attempt to boost economic ties and improve trade relations. One Question though, whose god is supreme? Maybe not directly, but when the constituents make their voice heard and the MP votes contrary to the wishes of the majority of his/her constituents and instead votes based on personal beliefs and/or party line. An MP is elected to make the voice of his constituents heard, there is a reason why many people are so disconnected and disillusioned with our political system, they see that they vote once and have no say until the next election, people feel that their voice is not heard in between elections. There is the way that you and I might wish the situation were and then there is the reality of our political scene. There is how YOU see things, and then there is reality... is that better? You said that they were immune form and above the law, this proves that they are in fact NOT above the law. No please answer the question, if Mr. Harper were to rape or murder someone or if he were to take billions in public funds for him self would he be held accountable? If he above the law then? Why do you think a majority is so important? It is important because the party that has a majority can pass its own agenda and policies...now who is the leader of the party? Would it be the PM? Great, when is the last time that the GG interfered in Canadian politics? When is the last time that Canada went to war because the UK went to war? When is the last time the GG took direction from the Queen that was contrary to what the PM and the Canadian Government want? They have powers that they have no exercised in 70 or more years, I'd say they are pretty ceremonial at this point in time and should the crown interfere in Canadian politics without a pretty darn good reason I can see us becoming a republic shortly. ? The Queen and the GG have nothing but ceremonial and theoretical power, how would the commonwealth react if the Queen decided to exercise her powers in Canada through the GG without the consent or request of the Canadian Government? No its not, when was the last time that the GG and by extension the Queen/King took action that was against the wishes of the democratically elected government of Canada? If you presented an issue, any issue that might help since your rant held nothing but accusations and BS. There are statements of fact, unfortunately none of them happen to reside in your posts. I love it, you call someone traitor and now are trying to back peddle to avoid explaining the idiotic accusation. So he is a traitor to this country because his believes are different from yours? You are a tolerant fellow aren't you? And nothing in the post Argus made suggested disloyalty, corruption or treason... you went and accused him of those things and now you are back peddling... Any crime, since you argument is that someone else brought the criminal accusations out and you following suit... just because someone else did something does not mean its right or that you should follow in their footsteps. So his position has committed treason now? So we are back to committing treason... Therefore you calling him a traitor implies he was a traitor to Canada meaning he committed treason... I guess you don't like anyone with an opinion contrary to yours do you? Your circle of friends must be the most like minded group in the history of the world, anyone who disagrees with you suddenly becomes a traitor... you have some things in common with certain dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam to name a few as they did not really like opposition to their beliefs just like you... Freedom of speech thing you know... Argus is entitled to his opinions and views and is more then entitled to express them as he sees fit on any medium be it an online forum, a newspaper or any other means. Really? I can think of quite a few people who would go to jail for a looooong time if that were a crime and it were enforced... That is your opinion... And he did not lie, he expressed his view on how he saw government... is it a lie only because he did not bow down to the great and infallible login and his opinion. Where did he lie? They are if the GG technically answers to the PM... The job of the PM is to look out for Canada's best interests, if it means that he should go to India and negotiate a economic deal thats great... if it means that he should go to China to foster closer ties that is also great...

Let me ask you the following: Which nation will not accept Israel’s existence? As much as Egypt may huff and puff they benefit greatly from remaining on the good side of the US, they benefit financially and give the chance as we saw they would love to be the power broker in the region. Then we come to Syria, nothing to see here as they can offer nothing but a token disapproval of any plan for the time being and the foreseeable future they are out... How about Jordan? Well they have an economic and military relationship with the US and I highly doubt that they would jeopardize their ties to the US. Lebanon well their approval is not a prerequisite for peace but should they become a problem they could be dealt with appropriately... Saudi Arabia, their position seems to rest on Palestinians having their own nation and as such they would be satisfied with any such deal mainly because of the threat in the gulf that Iran poses and Saudi Arabia needs the US military to Guarantee their security in the region. Iran will most likely oppose any peace between Israelis and the Palestinians but their opinion in the region does not matter much. With cooperation from Egypt and Jordan the flow of weapons will slow down to a trickle if not stop all together. If the political aspect is done properly there should not be much problem. As dre stated Israel should reward moderates who negotiate and shun violence while reacting with force when approached with force. The goal is not to defeat or negotiate with Hamas or any other terrorist organization, the goal is to show the Palestinian people that negotiation is the way to go, because sending 1,000 or even 5,000 rockets at Israel would do nothing but bring death, destruction and more poverty while peaceful negotiations bring stability, prosperity and peace. Defeating Hamas will not come from the weapons of the IDF but from the Palestinian people, convince them that it is in their best interest and it more profitable to make peace and they will defeat the extremists themselves.

So you think it is not the responsibility of the PM to look out for Canada's best interests? And how many time have you seen or heard an MP vote against the wishes of the majority of his constituents in order to vote based on party lines? There is how you and I wish it were and then there is the reality as in how it is. I am not "buffing" anything, I am stating how I see things. As I mentioned there is the model, the way things should be and then there is reality. The way things ought to be is MPs voting based on the wishes of their constituents rather then their own system of beliefs or their party line, unfortunately time and again you see MPs vote against the wishes of their constituents based on personal beliefs and/or party politics. Charles Taylor, Karl Doenitz and Slobodan Milosevic prove that heads of state can and are brought to court. So Mr. Harper could go rape or murder someone without any consequences? Could he deposit a billion dollars in to his account with no consequences for his actions? ?? His party would generally vote with him. The GG and by extension the Queen is nothing but a ceremonial figure, the Queen and her successors may have certain powers within our government and through our constitution but that power for all intents and purposes is only ceremonial... when is the last time that the GG or the Queen has interfered with Canadian internal politics or foreign affairs? "You are wrong" without any supporting facts is not an argument, at least not one for anyone over the age of 5. You have not corrected a thing... Its true because I say so is not a legitimate argument. Nothing in that post was fact, it was ramblings and an insane tirade... Stop with the idiotic accusation: In the few lines above, you accuse a respected member of the community here of being a traitor, having a "corrupt and disloyal" point of view, not knowing what "peace and good order" are... Let me say that again, you ACCUSE someone of being a TRAITOR for BELIEVING...not doing but believing someway contrary to what YOU believe... Your quote above is nothing but insane ramblings by accusing based of point of view and beliefs rather then actions... You called someone a traitor for their beliefs and you called their point of view corrupt and disloyal... Following your logic I can accuse you of any crime because somebody else started down that path? Your comments were an outright assault on a member's character based on faulty and bs reasoning. Who did he betray?Canada? That would be treason... You? He owes you nothing... I doubt you are his friend, betraying Canada is treason, and his principles seem to be intact... Whats next? Calling me a traitor too? You really love that word don you? Whats up wanna be the thought police? Is that why you believe it is traitorous to BELIEVE a certain way? Keep digging... Calling a friend a traitor is one thing, calling a stranger a traitor for his beliefs and views about his country implies treason... you can try to justify your bs all day long. There is not difference, not in this case as you implied someone was a traitor TO CANADA for his beliefs and views... being traitor to your country == treason... Are you trying to argue against yourself now? The oath of allegiance does trump the rights of people to express their point of view, and not supporting monarchy and the crown does not equal treason in any way shape or form... otherwise we would have a interesting problem as a substantial number of Canadians don't approve/support/want monarchy.... should we send them to the reeducation camps?

Both sides need to get rid of their extremists. And I would wager that plenty of Israelis would jump at an opportunity for peace and vote them out. Given a clear and concise plan presented to the people and I personally believe that people will chose peace and security over fear and everlasting war. I don’t think that’s so far off, I think that the world will get tired of both sides and impose a solution on them. At this point the US and Egypt can keep the two sides in check, the US exerts pressure for Israel to act reasonably and Egypt puts pressure on the Palestinians to act reasonably and there is chance of success.

And things change quickly, Israel is on top of the situation right now and could do as it pleases, now is the time to find a solution rather then ignore the problem because they can and look for a solution when the situation gets desperate.

And the hard way is a short term solution as your grand children ill be discussing the consequences of the "hard way".

I agree, use the West Bank as an example when show them that poverty is with them because they choose it while people in the West Bank choose prosperity. I don't think it will be much of a choice once it becomes evident.

I agree with that, show that moderates following a peaceful course of action bring results while extremists bring forth death, poverty and continuous suffering will let the Palestinians in Gaza decide who they want and what they will get as a result of that choice.

I don't have time to watch it right now, I will watch it sometime tonight.

Security Forces from the West Bank with light military support from an Arab Nation to help deal with Hamas solves the problem. If Egypt and Israel Open the flow of good to Gaza but shut down all smuggling of weapons in it should be relatively easy.

So what is the solution? Stop any negotiations and hope that Syria keeps the weapons contained? In the event becomes a threat then this will be dealt with accordingly in the mean time life goes on and solutions for the problems we face need to be found.