login

As opposed to who the NDP? Or Justin Trudeau?

So so close after the US elections are the republicans gonna block the budget. They seem to have the most to loose for obvious reasons, unless it is a protest vote to another democratic term. Not sure how long the president would last without a budget.

You start killing people it is a whole new game. Serious people take people serious. Jokers don't give a damn. Killing people to manipulate others is just bad karma, you probably don't need the people you would let live anyway. Finish them is what serious people would call for. The jokers just use humans like puppets and wonder why they see off white on the ground. You will not make people better citizens by killing their family and friends. If you think that it willl smack yourself a few times and try again. War isn't about reforming bad apples, it is about making apple juice.

It is still a company banking on the future and the f35 is a large part of that future, or does it have a 6th generation lined up in the next 10 years no one told us about? I really am not anti Lockheed Martin but the finances speak for themself with the fact they hold more debt than assets, they are deemend a relatively low bankrupcy risk like how often do people roll 1's on dice? The company offers a lot but with their number of VP's an project bloat I don't have a lot of confidence in the company in global competition where the technology isn't controlled through monopolization. I would go ahead and ask Canada to see if MacDonnell Douglass's f-36 is a go or could be made with parts and get a price quote. The Snecma M88 engine in the Dassault Rafale allows it to supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a 1000-liter belly tank and even in the naval version; it can supercruise up to Mach 1.4 while carrying six air-to-air missiles (MBDA MICA).

Man indians could off him here just as easy. If people who could assasinate him in India wanted to kil lthe PM he'd be dead if those same people were here. As for the armoured car, waste of money, he should have just anonymously rented one in India rather than transporting an entire freaken vehicle over there, that is a waste of money. He probably could have build one in India for less than the price, of the probably hugely expensive one brought from Canada, of transporting it. The other part of that however is that canada is still paying far less I think Obama's Bombay trip cost like more than the Canadian G20 security costs. I'm sure the SS now viewing this page could probably provide better figures. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html

Absolutely not. I no where said buy 40 Rafale up front. I said budget in 1.5 billion a year and project it to run for 5 years or something of that sort Exactly just less f35's unless they are still hot sh1t in 2024, which at that ponit. However the procurement would be some varianet f-18's and Rafale only a few a year to come into service as the cf-18's are down cycled. between 2013 and 2018, when the f35 starts delivery they will fill the rest of the old cf-18s down cycle up to 2020 and be a procurement into 2024. From the pricing 100 million seems more than enough for the procurement based on the deals that were offered for the gulf states and India. Its a different world. This is assuming lockheed martin doesn't go out of business before then. Lockheed can't count on foreign sales for these things any time soon, and subsequent orders arn't likely atleast while it is in control of its business. http://www.macroaxis...y_Of_Bankruptcy Now this is only rated at about a 20% chance of bankrupcy and their debt load is only 25% more than their assets. But I don't see who will be buying the jets after the initially procurements? Are countries like Austrailia and UK going to buy more of these? Who else can buy them? With the Eurozone collapse the US economy dying, are you going to sell them to China, would they even buy them, and then what? Duck? I'm just highly critical of you slotting these in for even 20 years as something to put all your faith into.

The pace of technological change ... the pace of techonological change--- Moore's Law. This ain't the mofo 80's. it is 20 f-in 12. nearly lucky 13. We have robots and AI's running the stock market, designing computer chips and computers that contain more data than the planet. This is not a mechanical age no more. As a third plane for a "low cost" mission capable jet to be a work horse on flight hours and training. I don't suggest solely buying f-18's (nor do I want to see this as an option as opposed a completely Canadian produced knock off, such as buying the rights or something then putting it into production if the price is right (plus some modern upgrades that will make it more mission capable such as f35 360 by 360 vision and firing lines via various systems, upgrades here and there without compramising the fact the plane will be a platform as opposed to a strike aircraft for the "low cost model" with just a little tweaking you can get a extra super hornet out of a f-18 system for no where near the price of an f35 - you know you can aim for something that will match a PAKFA or J20 for defence characteristics, I'm not by manoverability but by punch be it convention, or EW, or something special and unexpected. Also if you can rig a car to drive itself you can rig a plane to do the same with a simple computer system, and that is what a new variant cf-18me version should be .). But I still think that jumpingin with just one jet is a little foolish if the jet hasn't flown or finished testing, and the software development for the system isn't complete. Its like buying a billions windows OS' in the days bluescreens were common.

I think they are just trynig to make more on it, they've been making money for the last decade off a program that has produced only a batch of planes. :"The plane is being bought in order to fly until the year 2060" This is a freaken marriage, do you really want a plane that is being heavily criticized before it is even bought in terms of performance as your "only" plane for the next 40 years, when we are entering a new age of nanocarbon and associated super technologies? They are pricing so they don't loose money on their own screwed up program. In terms of future super awe, this plane is not "fantastic" it is currently "on the edge" but it was designed like 15 years ago. Technology has changed a lot in 15 years. I think 5 years from now when the planes are delivered Canadians can go, we have a good jet. But 5 years later, with 30+ years left in the service life, Canadians will be wondering why they are flying Camels. The worst part is that the things are being bought with a credit card by a fiscally irresponsible deficit spending government adding billions and billions to the shoulders of Canadians while milking them for millions in personal pension benefits. It is absurd and backwards they would force the military to be using obsolete technology for 20 years in an age where there is a technological explosion in terms of new super technologies. It is condeming Canada to an era of tinfoil transistors when silicon chip will be here tommorow. This jet will fit on my fingernail within 10 years. Now don't get me wrong I still support some purchases, just not the methods of procurement (it has to be financed with money in the bank not on a credit card), and the procurement should be done annually to assess new technologies as they emerge. This is why a ready to go proven model like the Rafale should be purchased to replace a chunk of the cf-18's when they end their service life (giving aircrew time to train on the Rafale or like) so that there isn't a gap in experience on the f35's. Plus the people in Quebec will like having a French plane. But the other part is that if 7 of these or 8 of these are bought each year or 4 starting next year then by 2024 that will be 40 f35's, but paid for if your price of 100 million per plane is correct (and it doesn't sound like it is..) budgetting 400 million a year in the defence budget is something the airforce should be able to muster, even if it means not going into syria or Iran when it happens. ) This means that it is paid for out of existing funds and thus does not represent a misappropriation. Meanwhile getting say 8 Rafale per year at 1 billion a year starting 2013, works out to 1.5 billion per year plus an additional billion but out of existing funds. The rafale purchases would end in 2018 at about 4 billion (for about 40), while at that point 20 f35's would be in service. (meaning 60 aircraft in 2018. The f35 purchases would continue based on existing productions (likely upgraded variants rather than old A models that would have to be upgraded) By 2024 this plane will be out of production except for foreign export and the US will have migrated to predominantly unmanned systems, or a newer jet since by that time america will have forgotten the trillion dollar program from their communal memory, should the world still be around. It will then push to get its last major purchases in before the undoubted chaos of the 2030's unless the world is a total police state then ruled by super technology and a computer hive mind. Although I am skeptical of the f-18 pricing here.. perhaps even a mix of rafale and f-18's ex 4 rafale and 4 hornets starting 2013 until the f35's are available then change it up with the f35's take up procurements. http://www.aviatia.n...rafale-vs-f-18/ Look at these claims on the rafale. http://forum.lowyat....pic/2241997/all \ Look at this comparitive in ratings the dutch did F-35 = 6.97 RAFALE = 6.95 Eurofighter = 5.83 F-16 Block 60 = 5.80 The f-18's also give the advantage of not needing to retrain aged crew on a new model for the "leap year" the replacement f-18's could be flown for low priority air escort etc.. since getting hours on them is OK. They could be used for "non current" tech ops, domestic support etc.. as the cf-18 upgrades are phased out, the new f-18's could be used as a legacy but in smaller numbers (only about 20), likewise the rafale would act as a transition force to insure operability while waiting for f35 numbers to increase. Since the f35 is "so vastly superior" smaller initial numbers are ok, for its strike operations, since Canada really doesn't have a big war to fight, and strategic strike operations on command and control by 20 f35's should be more than sufficient. Especially if Canada were to upgrade its non conventional strike capabilities such as with nuetron bomb type systems, or low yeild mass EPM burst high alt operations. I'm sure by 2024, air war will be totally different with more modern ground and (space) based Energy weapons moving at the speed of light, and super fast railguns that can fire half way around the world to negate the need for aircraft except for super precise strike. Missile defences will give way to ballistic defences from "railgun SAM" systems (in scifi they are called railguns - boom guns etc..) While energy based defences will need to be "sheild based" which will require high energy batteries to be mounted to the systems instead of bombs, to provide an energy field, or distort based on magnetic properties etc.. but how to attract light or just "super hard carbon sheilds that will absorb the energy and disipate it... The f35 doesn't offer those kinds of defences so it won't be usable in 10 years (except agianst 3rd world nations). because it will not have "full stealth to new sensor systems", nor "defensive sheilding" for HEWS, and rail SAM ballistics. Procurement needs to be done on a yearly basis not a 40 year plan, it is absurd. People in the Pentagon are smarter than that. This stuff is for the war that will be in the next 10 years. 20 years from now these things will be fit for a museum and little more. If you are supporting the purchase atleast tell the bloody truth. Stuff coming out of Lockheed Martin is sounding like desperation based on the level of fallacy involved with their statements. It is sad to say the F35 has turned into a stop loss program instead of the NEXT GEN fighter.. they don't want it to be the end.. that is the end of their business. So the timeline gets pushed further and further back as they cling to life and profits. Sure throw the dog a bone but don't feed him your leg.

So why is GDP only growing 2% if inflation accounts for a 150% price increase? It seems Canada's GDP growth is entirely based on money it is borrowing for the f35 program. Something doesn't add up. Either the Canadian economy astronomically shrank, as the CAD is on par with the USD, last year or there is some major price jacking going on. Based on CPI, only food gained more than 2% on the year with most others falling in 1 to 2% gains. What was the increase in cost to the F35 program. It seems you arn't disputing the increase but placing a 50% increase on inflation is absurd.

An atleast average IQ.

We'll just have to wait until after Christmas when the legislature opens again to see if a confidence motion pops up.

Just a sales punch. sales. The Chinese also need to keep pushing their capabilities to show they can do it. the J-20 is a boat. Pod. The ECM capabilities of the f35 are limited and non finite in terms of performance. The same sort of system can easily be incorporated into other jets. It isn't. It is a strike bomber. Its range is limited. Although well designed for an Israeli attack on Iran ? The technological innovations except for internal baying can all be done by upgrades on other jets. It isn't that impressive based on the price haul. If you can have 10 jets hauling 10x the amount of ordinance or 4 jets what packs a bigger punch? I will not doubt a claim the jet is an improvement on the F16, but all its bells and whistles can be done through much less expensive modifications on other systems. The edge it has is its stealth but that stealth is not absolute, and will become dated very quickly. From reports it is already obsolete. Name any system on the jet that for technical reasons cannot be reproduced on another jet other than the unique stealth and baying.

never heard of a stump fee and something called the paper bill and/or cheque. Just because things switched over to plastic doesn't mean a special addition environmental series can't be run on paper. They could be called the save the trees addition, running only on $100, $500 and $1000 bills.

1 Billion sounds like an underestimate. I don't think this includes veterans costs, disability costs, ptsd costs, combat pay, lost materials, the current operations, associated domestic security needs due to being involved in the war, new procurements required for afganistan etc.. Also what is the cost of a life pegged at, a body bag and the flight home? Some operations and air evacs easily cost multi millions of dollars.

They should tell americans crossing the borders in their cars that when they get levied the $2.50 or a tree tax. You know, Joe, that when you fill up your tank and drive around in Canada you actually add 50kg of toxic gases to our air supply up here.

http://www.scienceda...90508135020.htm Hopefully you can understand that you can pay a lot or you can pay less for the same capabilities. computational capacities, and energy, sensors which are based upon bidirectional quantum photonic properties is another hole in f35 stealth, much like localized mass sensors. Light is faster than mach 2, and high energy can pass through solid objects. Much like radiowaves started as a communication device later employed in radar applications, it is only a matter of time before quantum communications facilitates mass roll out of quatum detection technologies. I'm someone who still supports acquistion for NORAD purposes, but I think that the deal needs to be on some basic principles. 1. It comes out of the existing defence budget. 2. It doesn't bank on future budgets for paying out its future costs. 3. The money in the defence budget doesn't come from a deficit based budget paid for with borrowed money that needs to be paid back in the future.

The point is, it is mission capable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zUYztyJTtc&feature=related The future... The F35's are not dependable as a sole source platform because they are foreign controlled, how can you commit to buy an aircraft that isn't even battle tested? Why is canada unable to leverage Canadian aerospace companies into creation of similiar products for domestic use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWnjpw1jBE Now ask, why is Canada not capable of this?

http://rafalenews.bl...and-behong.html f3 is only a few years out now 2008. Only France uses these things. Note to derek on his earlier comments about joint targetting. Damocles-XF also these things have beyond visual targetting that only the mig 29/30 uses target "Virtualization" is not difficult to emulate.

Its good to hear there are sane minds around here other than myself

several pages and forescore 7 years before? What is 9000000000 / 65? is it > or < 70? What is 300 * 30? Now what is 18 000 000 000 / 65? That looks like 275+ million/plane. Do I need to teach you elementary school again young Derek? Your logic seems to be from the same Flaherty school of We are viciously reducing that deficit. We'll have that deficit paid off in a few years. From the book called: Budgetting for the day you leave office. A credible government will not sign a 30 year deal without the money. It is misappropriation. These goons that do this term in and term out should be hanged.

We could charge them for that too. Now I bet you are thinking that 50 cents ain't a whole lot for letting people throw garbage on our beaches, but say 10,000 people enter Canada on a given day, that is $5000. multiply that by 365 it turns out to about 73 beach cleaning jobs, there probably arn't many more beaches than that in Canada.. We could tack on, foreigner littering "general" 25 cents another 35 jobs. I'm sure there are other things we could hit them for too. They pee and poo too, that must make stuff dirty like 50 cents there to use our rivers. Foreigner Estrogen pollution levy for women 25 cents. Why hasn't anyone taken this angle before, how can Canadians oppose levies for foreigners despoiling the world. It is genius. Carbon is just the tip of the iceberg.

No what else makes C02. Humans. No one has brought that obvious fact up. with all the hot air being typed around here I can only imagine how much this forum alone contributes to global warming. Can't we just Tax China and the US instead? Call it the foreign carbon tax? Anyone from those countries enter canada needs to plant a tree or pay $2.50 It will likely be much more accepted by Canadians at large if we just implement that measure for the time being. People out in onadogin country will love their new forests. You know $2.50 or a tree isn't a whole lot.. to apply to everyone.. its a way of putting blame and guilt on the world instead of just Canadians. HERE HERE who is with me.

*looks around* You are monetizing it again, you fail. No it doesn't the printer needs to make money. Although an efficient model that feeds into itself to provide demands does. You are monetizing it again, you fail. Under your logic it would pay just to ship people off to china to work in their factories. Well guess what they'd face competition there too. Why buy burgers and fries when you can grow potatoes and eat for free. Make your own sandwich.

Is that like how paying became outdated when people determined they could keep their wallet in their pocket? Is this before or after the contract price is agreed on? Why is that? No they don't. You are reading figures that don't represent the costs. Educate yourself, it is nonsense for you to be saying these planes are costing under 100 million when they simply arn't. You are wrong, your figures are wrong, and you arn't with the times on the f35, you are quoting year 2005 costs when it is nearly 2015 and the costs have more than doubled. as I was saying...