segnosaur

accepting to your own 'UCAV a decade away' time frame, how does that align with anyone making highly presumptive suggestion that the F-35 will be flown by countries, by Canada, well into the 50s? Why, it was MLW member D2.0 who just a few short posts back even dropped the 2060s into that mix! Something seems quite amiss here, yes?First of all, remember I said the technology needed would be "a decade or two" away. i.e. it is a very rough guess, but it is likely more than 10 years away. Secondly, I didn't say that a UCAV could be deployed in that time. I said the technology would be available. Once the technology exists, then it can be put into a plane. But even then, you're probably talking about another decade of development time. (The Typhoon, Gripen, and F35 all took roughly a decade from initial prototypes to actual introduction into air forces.) Then, once you actually have a marketable plane, it usually takes time from the initial purchase until the plane is in full service. (The decision to purchase the CF18 was made in 1980, and the last plane was delivered in 1988, roughly another decade.) So, lets say we decided we wanted an all-drone airforce. Overall you have: ~10/20 years to develop the technology ~10 years to turn the technology into functional product ~10 years for the actual procurement process (buying the plane, having them manufactured and delivered, and the old product phased out.) So, you're probably looking at 3-4 decades. If its 2015 now, in 3-4 decades it will be ~2050.

And multiple probes have also been lost... Mars Observer, Mars Polar Lander, etc. Probably 1/3 of them have failed. And, I should point out, the technological challenges in both cases are quite different... Space probes have to deal with an environment that is relatively predictable. (We pretty much knew where Pluto was going to be...). Military drones have to deal with situations that are much more dynamic... targets move, hostile planes may appear. This requires a significantly different set of controls. And, I should point out... if a space probe fails, NASA gets embarrassed. If a drone fails, it could kill many innocent people.

Not sure how serious you are about that. But, it is common for opponents of the F35 to suggest we go with unmanned drones. While drones may eventually replace manned fighters/bombers, the technology to make that possible probably won't be around for a decade or two. The main problem I see is one of situational awareness... we don't yet have the ability to make the pilots feel as if they are in complete control. (Vision is limited to only part of the sky, and motion senses are not present at all.) Designers will have to figure out how to provide a 360 degree view of the sky, with no lag time and a completely secure data link, before drones would be feasible.

In some aspects........but, the current pinnacle of aerial warfare, the F-22 raptor, is itself starting to be dated in some respects...as its entire avionics architecture is built around 3 intel 80386 microprocessors........or better put, it has the computing power of three computers that you might have owned in the late 1980s.......This might sound bad on the surface, but legacy aircraft like the Super Hornet/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen etc are even further, a decade+, behind..... Hey, if a 386 was good enough for me to play Doom on a decade ago, its good enough to fly a plane! Yes, I do recognize that the computing technology in the F35 is superior to the F22. (Other things on the F35 also beat the F22, like its targeting abilities and the ease of maintenance of its stealth coding.) But, I do think the F22 would have an edge in air-to-air combat (based on things like its vectored thrust and greater speed.)

That's over a year old. Actually its only a few months old. But, I doubt its a serious issue. Its a new plane, on its first deployment. Its not surprising if there are a few little glitches to work out as the technicians learn how to deal with the plane. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't have problems at first. (When Canada first started flying the CH-149 Cormorant, there were significant problems with maintenance, requiring many more hours of maintenance than initially predicted. Better experience by the maintenance crews has reduced that. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/47347/cracks-ground-canadian-eh_101-helos-%28oct.-20%29.html)

Except planes don't always return to base with no weapons. Often missions are called off (e.g. bombing runs when there are possible civilian casualties.) Or not all weapons are used. I didn't make that assumption, I merely said that it seemed risky to trade away speed, agility and weapons loading for one trait which has yet to be proven in air to air combat and which could be defeated by technological advances. In other words, you DID make that assumption. A plane is just more than its air frame and a paint coating... we are buying the complete package... air frame, radar, communications equipment, helmet, etc. You can't just assume we're trading away one feature for another... we are receiving a whole range of features. And, of course, as I pointed out, we aren't necessarily risking speed, agility and weapons because the F35 is better in those areas than its detractors claim, based on its ability to carry weapons internally. Yes, an F117 was shot down over Serbia. But, you aren't necessarily dealing with the whole story... First of all, the plane was detected in part when it launched its weapons (opening the bay doors increases radar signature), and partly because the serbs were listening in on Radio transmissions. (Makes it a bit easier to detect a plane if you overhead where the pilot is going...) Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), non-stealth planes were also shot down and/or damaged in the same conflict, including an American F16s. (It should also be noted that, during various conflicts over Iraq, even more non-stealth planes were lost, and not one F117 or B2 was shot down. I wonder why you didn't mention the Iraq war? Nobody claimed that stealth planes guaranteed the plane would not be detected. (Even the stealthiest plane has some radar cross section.) What it does is it improves the odds. Except of course, there are other advantages to the F35 other than stealth. Sure, if you loaded it up externally and trade away stealth, the one advantage you traded away everything else for. Truly a bomb truck at that point. First of all, your argument was that the F35 was trading "weapons for stealth". What I have illustrated is that that particular argument was bunk. The F35 can carry an array of weapons that rivals pretty much any potential competitor. In fact, the F35 can carry a larger diversity of weapons than many of its competitors. Secondly, you are falsely assuming that it has to carry those weapons externally. Many of them fit quite comfortably in its internal weapons bays. i.e. Can carry them without giving up stealth. Even the Meteor missile that you referred to earlier is being modified to be stored internally. Oh, and by the way...Stealth is not an all-or-nothing concept. The object is to minimize the radar cross section. An F35 with a mix of external/internal weapons still has a smaller radar cross section (and this is less detectable) than an F18 or Gripen where all its weapons are carried externally. Ah yes, the old "F35 needs other planes to support it" argument. Which is more bunk. The F22 was designed to be an air superiority fighter... Its got capabilities that no plane can touch, either now, or in the near future. Even if the U.S. decided to scrap the F35, it would not mean that whatever replaced it (F16s or F18s) would somehow become more important or become the dominate air-superiority fighter. Its not that the F35 is a bad plane... its just that the F22 is a better plane (at least in doing what it was designed to do). Rather than comparing the F35 to the F22 or some imaginary alternative, you compare it to the options that we can buy. The whole "you must have a financial interest in the outcome" is tired and lazy. (Heck, how do we know that you don't have Boeing stock, and thus have an interest in trashing the F35? Or maybe you're a sleeper agent for some terrorist organization that doesn't want us to have good weapons.) Of course, in a way I do have a financial interest in the outcome... because our air force is supported by my tax dollars, I want them to get planes that are the best value for the money. Go back and look at the various threads... not only will you find posts talking about the F35's capabilities, you will also find multiple post touting the price of the F35 as a reason to buy it. As other posters have stated, the F35 currently has a lower fly-away costs than some of its competitors (e.g. Typhoon). And while some alternatives appear cheaper (e.g. F18) the long term costs will likely be higher because it will eventually become an orphan plane.(Means spare parts will be harder to come by, and/or we have to purchase more planes up front to make up for the lack of replacements in the future.)

Never forgiven Diefenbaker for that. What a set back to our aerospace industry, and boy those Bomarc's sure came in handy eh. Cost of a Bomarc missile: $1.2 million (http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5715) Cost of an Avro Arrow: $3.5-5 million Given the fact that Soviet bombers were no longer the major threat at the time, I'd much rather see them spend 1/3rd of the amount of money on missiles than on planes that would have had extremely limited use. The fact that you consider the Arrow as such a tragic loss illustrates your rather questionable grasp of military matters.

Its possible that a combination of sattalites and drone technology have eliminated the need for dedicated reconnaissance aircraft.

The U.S. has successfully used stealth in various ground attack roles for over a decade, so its reasonable to assume that it would be useful in an air-to-air role as well. And frankly, it seems rather bizarre to think that being less visible wouldn't provide an advantage in combat. This is typical of the anti-F35 crowd... the issue has been explained to you over and over again, yet you still post the same nonsense over and over again. The F35 has not necessarily sacrificed "speed/agility/flexibility"... The problem is, the Anti-F35 crowd keeps quoting the abilities of the potential competitors in a clean configuration (i.e. not carrying weapons), ignoring the fact that the F35, in many cases, is faster/more agile when in combat because it can carry weapons internally. Without carrying missiles, planes like the Gripen and Super Hornet (in theory) can outrun the F35. Yet that's pretty much a useless comparison, since a fighter plane without weapons is pretty useless. If you start putting missiles/bombs on the Gripen/Super hornet, you introduce drag, which reduces maximum speed, agility and range. On the other hand, the F35 can carry many of its weapons internally. No external weapons means it won't have the same impact on speed or range when in combat. You also make the mistake in assuming stealth is the only single advantageous trait that the F35 has. It is not. The improved avionics (better sensors and communications), and the new helmet (giving better situational awareness) are probably just as important as its stealth capabilities. Oh, and I'm not sure why you think the F35 has "less flexibility to carry weapons". Even if its internal weapons bays may have limited carrying potential, it still has external hardpoints where it can mount weapons, if it really needs to. (Of course, doing so would introduce some drag, but a part internal/part external mix of weapons would still produce less drag than the all-external weapons mounted on a Gripen/Super Hornet. And by the way, I took a look at the weapons each of the planes can carry...According to Wikipedia: Gripen: 9 different missiles/bombs Super Hornet: 16 different missiles/bombs Rafale: 10 different missiles/bombs Eurofighter Typhoon: 16 different missiles/bombs F35: 20 different missiles/bombs Granted, some of those programs are in development, but it certainly does look like the F35 is certainly competitive with the range of weapons it is able to carry. Actually, it was a brilliant decision. The Arrow was not a multi-role fighter... it was an interceptor.... designed to fly very fast in one direction. It was not designed to be a "dog fighter"; it was meant to intercept russian bombers entering our air space. The development of long range missile technology meant that it was no longer needed. The Arrow was not the only plane with similar functionality that was cancelled...the U.S. was developing the XF108 Rapier, a plane that would have had an even higher top speed than the Arrow. Similarly, it was cancelled because the nature of the military threat from the USSR had changed and it was no longer needed.

You're welcome to believe that, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. In fact, I suspect those who hold the same opinion as you are exceptionally rare. Even most of the people in this thread who oppose the F35 don't want to totally disband the military; they just have a different idea of the equipment we should purchase and the missions they should be used for. Except of course most of the arguments here have actually been quite logical and reasonable. We have pointed out simple basic facts, like the need to maintain a military presence to protect our soveriegnty, especially in areas where the U.S. would not act (e.g. in the "turbot war"), not because we're tough macho people but because the cold hard fact is that nations often have competing goals and the military is often needed to resolve things in a manner favorable to us. I have pointed to several scenarios where the U.S. would either be unwilling or unable to "protect" us militarily. No, I want you to answer the same question that I've already asked twice, and you are avoiding... If your goal is that we should concentrate on "enhancing the quality of life for Canadians", then do you think we should be spending Millions and/or billions on things like Foreign Aid and/or maintaining a presence in the U.N. general assembly, when neither one of those goes to enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. See the question in bold text above? That's what I want answered.

Perhaps people are so "hooked on this trinket" because we've learned enough about defense issues to recognize the issues related to the various options for purchasing fighter jets, and recognize that the F35, although not perfect, is the best option. We remember the folly of the EH101 program (i.e. rejecting a purchase not because it was a bad deal, but because of politics) and prefer Canada did not make the same (expensive) mistake again. Right now, the opponents of the F35 seem to be doing the same sorts of things; - Continually chanting "bomb truck", like its some sort of magic talisman, ignoring the fact that all potential CF18 replacements can also be used in an air-to-ground capacity - Pointing to outdated or incorrect information (like harping on an engine problem which has long since been corrected, or claiming that the F35 lost in a 'dogfight' with an F16, when a fully functional F35 was never actually PUT in a dogfight with an F16) - Engaging in hypocracy (like your "technology changes will make stealth irrelevant... but ignoring technology changes that will let the F35 carry the Meteor missile.". Or automatically dismissing anything positive about the F35 because "Oh, the information must have come from Lockheed", while ignoring the fact that much of the information about the alternatives likewise comes from companies who are trying to sell planes.) - Engaging in improper comparisons (like comparing the characteristics an unloaded Gen4 fighter with the F35, when the Gen4 fighter would never go into combat in an 'unloaded' configuration) Perhaps if those opposed to the F35 could come up with valid arguments that didn't do one of those things listed above, their arguments might actually carry some weight.

The current meteor won't fit in the butterball - they "plan" to modify it. So let me get this straight... You hand-wave away the stealth characteristics of the F35, with the argument that it can be nullified by "future technological enhancements" (without giving any sort of time frame or indication of what that will entail), but when it comes to your meteor missle your complaint is that it has to be 'modified' to be carried by the F35. Why are you considering one potential technological change (ability to detect stealth) is somehow more relevant than technological changes needed for the F35 to carry the Meteor? Technological changes to nullify stealth: vague claims, no time frame Technological changes to allow F35 to carry Meteor missile: Active development project; required changes studied, plans made to integrate the missile in future blocks https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-mbda-on-target-for-meteor-introduction-413687/

The impact to non-criminals may be something like: Keyword searches on HTML messages, or voice-to-text messages done by software where 'hits' are sent to a database for cross-referencing against known persons of interest. That, to me, is zero impact. To some it may have an impact, and to others a significant impact. But that is not the only impact. As I suggested before, such a broad law may allow police to (for example) obtain information for personal use. That's far outside the impact of "keyword searches are finding stuff". Plus, such keyword searches are likely to turn up at least a few false positives, meaning innocent people will be targeted by police (perhaps even arrested) because a keyword search turned up something innocuous. And who decides what keywords to search for? And who is a "person of interest"? But I suspect that much of that 'analysis' will be done after the fact, so being "time sensitive" probably won't be an issue.

The point is they CAN take some action - including formalizing "escalating" penalties within the force (if they don't already plan to have that) or amending the actual legislation. If you can't measure abuse, you can't manage it. But not allowing anything because you assume the worst case is not the wisest course of action. Checks and balances. Yes but the action is taken after the damage is done. And lets say there are 100 cases and they check 10 and half of the checks were found to be abusive. What about the remaining 90 cases? Do you now have to check all of them? Or are you assuming just checking the small amount will be enough to prevent police abuse?

Those are both risks, but they are acceptable to me if weighed against the benefits of having more tools to use against criminals. What do you think ? Keep in mind that police actions do not just affect criminals, they can and do affect the average person too. Ideally the goal is to limit the impact to non-criminals; this is why I think warrantless searches are bad. Secondly, remember, the tools themselves already existed... police could already get your ISP records. First, they had to convince a neutral 3rd party (i.e. a judge) that there was a reason. That doesn't seem like a particularly onerous step. That's what I'm talking about in terms of traceability. The fact that we're talking about digital means that there will be these kind of audit trails available. Again though.... checking for police abuses of power after the fact is a case of locking the barn door after the horses have left (and been turned into hamburgers in a European supermarket.) You also have the issue of who does the audit... if its the police, then you have the questionable activity of the police checking up on themselves. And, you're also expecting that whatever audit trails are in place are actually secure, and data doesn't mysteriously go missing. I think that you can have more pervasive and exploratory investigations without those steps in the process. Yes you can. The question is, do we as a society WANT to have such pervasive investigations into (possibly) innocent individuals. After all, we could also have more pervasive and exploratory investigations if we allowed police to search our homes without warrants, or pick up and hold people indefinitely without cause, or listen in to all our phone conversations without a warrant. As a society we've decided that that is giving police too much power. The same should be true with what we think is (relatively) private communication on the internet. It should be the job of the police to convince people that the power to invade privacy is required.

So lets say they do a random check and find that there was no reasonable rationale for obtaining those records in a large number of cases...What happens then? Do they erase the memory of everyone on the police force? Blow up their servers? Performing those checks afterwards is a case of locking the barn door after the horses have run off. Many people would prefer that such checks should be done before the data is collected, as it is now with judges and warrants.

Yes, I don't think those were serious enough for police to pursue it at the time. I think attitudes have changed, though. Markuze was only sentenced less than 6 months ago, and his latest sentence wasn't any more severe than previous sentences (probation, with conditions that he pretty much immediately started to violate). So unless you know of some big change in just the past few months, I'd say no, attitudes haven't really changed much. Uttering death threats is a significant crime, and more than enough non-police people have considered it a significant issue. (And, it should be noted, that particular crime has been dealt with before.) Claiming that the police "just gave it a lower priority" doesn't really help your case. In fact, it pretty much strengthens my argument... cops had a law that they could have used and chose not to, despite many people being negatively affected. For the same reason that we're pursuing these powers for police in the first place: digital is traceable. Digital isn't always traceable... It depends on what type of logging facilities are in place. It is true that the ability to record police can prevent abuses. But I'm not sure how that analogy applies here. I believe the proposed law is that the police can get your records without warrant, and without informing you. Its kind of the opposite of your analogy... you're allowing the police to act as if they had a cloak of invisibility. I'm thinking of other abuses... - A policeman looking for information for their own personal use (e.g. "I wonder if my neighbor uses Ashley Madison? I'll demand the ISP records to find out"). - Police gather information on a wide range of people, but have their own systems hacked (i.e. its another point of vulnerability)

"Privacy" is not a binary concept. It is not an all-or-nothing thing. You definitely do have certain rights with regards to privacy... while the police may watch you in a public area, they don't have the ability to watch you in your own home. (And should it be necessary to do so, the government has to make a case before a judge why its necessary.) Just because some elements of our privacy have been lost, does not mean we should automatically surrender the remainder of our privacy rights. As for things like cell phone pics and hackers... That actually has nothing to do with your 'rights'. Your constitutional rights only define what the government can and can't do. It says nothing about what a private citizen can do to another citizen.

I don't think your example weighs into this. If the crime was serious enough, they would have paid it attention. I'm sorry, but "serious enough"? We're talking death threats. We're talking about a level of action that could best be described as stalking. We're talking about harassment going back decades against multiple people. We're talking about someone who actually showed up at meetings that the targets of his harassment were at. And you honestly don't think that was "serious enough" to act on? Not really sure why you think abuses are "easier to manage in a digital world". Having information transmitted and stored digitally leads to all sorts of problems... law enforcement and criminals can much more easily go on "fishing expaditions", information can be replicated much more easily, breaches can be done even when not in geographic proximity, spoofing becomes much easier. All of those make abuses harder to manage, not easier.

One other thing that can be done: Promote vaccinations. Vaccines work differently than antibiotics (working to prepare the body's defenses, rather than trying to attack the bacteria itself). Now, many of the diseases we use vaccines for are viral (i.e. antibiotics wouldn't work on them anyways).... however, sometimes one illness (e.g influenza, measles) can indirectly cause complications involving secondary infections (e.g. bacterial pneumonia). Stop the first disease, and you don't have to worry about using antibiotics for the secondary diseases. Plus, you reduce the number of people in hospitals and doctor's offices. (One less patient in the hospital being treated for the measles means one less person who can be exposed to people carrying bacteria in the hospitals.)

So why is what you think "enhances the lives of Canadians" more important than what others think "enhances the lives of Canadians"? Actually, no its not. They may be willing to (for example) intercept airliners that are off course, or deal with Russian incurrsans into our airspace, because such things could potentially impact them. They would be less interested in dealing with things like: Small planes gone off course inside Canadian airspace (example: Mattias Rust) or incidents like the Turbot War. In both those cases, the ability to provide a military response is valuable, but because neither of those would impact the U.S., it is unlikely they would be willing to provide military assistance (at least not without some sort of payment). Your world view is overly simplistic and frankly, quite wrong. While there is a certain amount of anti-american sentiment, in many cases conflicts go much deeper than "boo his Americans". So? They're still Syrian refugees. Not Canadian. And your argument was "Don't spend money on the Military; spend it on things that enhances Canadian lives." Since you didn't answer it before, I will ask again: Given the fact that you think the Military should be eliminated so money can be spent on things that "Enhances the lives of Canadians", do you think we should similarly eliminate all foreign aid, and remove our membership from the U.N. general assembly, since both of those costs millions if not billions of dollars, money that could be spent more directly in Canada.

Getting a bit off topic (perhaps a new thread might be in order). But, before we make any claims about generosity, I'd like to see what exactly those church folk are contributing their money to. If they are giving more, but their funds are going towards "mega-churches" and similar things, then perhaps it is more a case of being gullible rather than being generous.

I'm totally against it. First of all, you have the "slippery slope" argument... although the RCMP claims it is for "child predators" and the like, but there is no guarantee that the RCMP won't cast its nets wider in the future. Secondly, I trust the government (and the RCMP) about as far as I can throw it. Data breaches are not unheard of, and there have been cases of data being misused. http://www.databreaches.net/b-c-privacy-breach-lawsuit-against-rcmp-may-expand/ Lastly, and more importantly, I'd actually question the NEED for such laws, given the fact that the police seem to be unwilling to enforce the laws they currently have. Take for example the case of Dennis Markuze/David Mabus.... harassed people on the internet (even issuing death threats) for years, yet the police did nothing, regardless of the number of times it was reported to them. It took a huge online effort by people working world wide to finally get them to act. So why should we trust the police with new powers when they don't seem to be using the powers that they do have?

The fact that it was a broken promise and the fact that it was the "right movie to make" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The liberals did say they would let in 25000 refugees by year's end. It was a foolish promise to make, and they should have considered that perhaps we did not have the logistics to settle that many Syrian refugees that quickly, but it was still a promise. Now, you have labeled the delay as "no big deal". And perhaps it is not. It was however still a broken promise, and one that was seen by MANY people prior to the election as questionable.

I think those $billions spent on a few assault airplanes can be used far more effectively to enhance the quality of life for Canadians. First of all, I notice you ignored one of the key parts of my argument... in that for many Canadians, the pride that we feel in being able to maintain basic defense capabilities enhances their lives more than many domestic spending areas (such as the CBC). Secondly, if your argument is to only spend on things that "enhance the quality of life of Canadians", just how far are you willing to take that logic? For example, should we cancel all foreign aid? After all, we are spending roughly 5 times the amount on foreign aid (on a yearly basis) than we would on new fighter jets. And what about the U.N.? We may get some benefit from some organizations like the WHO, but why bother with things like the General Assembly? If we get rid of our ambassador there (plus all the staff) we would save millions, and that money could be spent "enhancing the quality of life for Canadians". No it wouldn't. But military equipment can be dual purpose. Actually no, they wouldn't. While a Canadian military would never win a shooting war with the U.S.,, the ability to detect U.S. (and other foreign countries) ships/planes, and deploy forces in the same area is enough to make our sovereignty be recognized.