Moonbox
-
Posts
8,707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
It's interesting how things change when those people have to start looking after themselves and paying taxes.
-
Interesting that you think you are "most people" or that you represent anyone here....You opinion is worth nothing and it has been pointed out on many occasions that you are incapable of backing up any of your arguments with references.
What's even more interesting is how many people you've presented that point to before. You ARE a joke. You're regularly and mercilessly mocked and ridiculed for your COMPLETE inability to form anything even RESEMBLING a logical thought (see my signature). Your pathetic lack of perspective also allows you an unparallelled talent for hypocrisy (and inability to realize it).
My favorite part of this whole thread was:
Ah....more ad hominem...
And not even inventive stuff.... Your level of debate rivals Mr. Canada. Are you his bum buddy by any chance?
Are you not seeing how stupid your posts are? Do you see the irony? No????
This was all after you posted:
I wish you wouldn't waste my time, it is true. But you are like a lice infestation and you draw me in to scratch now and then. I will keep scratching and you can keep your blood-sucking on someone else's ass for a while, k?
I normally try to keep my rudeness down to simple mockery, but you're literally retarded.
-
no it doesn't, it's advantage will be lost very quickly it gave up superior flight technology for stealth which will be overcome sooner than later...
Every technology is overcome sooner or later. What's your point? The F-35 is still hugely more agile than the F-18E that you advocate, and current and future fighter doctrine emphasizes BVR (beyond visual range) advantages. No fighters out there right now can outmaneuver the best AA missiles, so first detection is critical.
I found this on a technical assesment on the F22
Ahh...This should be good...another one of your deeply researched "technical assessments".
"Stealth was not fully achieved because in being the largest fighter in the sky it is the most visible. It is visible to infrared sensors and identifiable by its sound. Its radar can be sensed by high-tech Russian sensors. Its radar signature is admittedly small in the forward quarter but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based radars." low-frquency, L band radar which is now in the newest Russian planes SU T50 and the L-Band upgrade cost for existing planes is expected only to cost 1-2 million per plane...
As expected, you haven't referenced this. Second, do you know what L-Band radar even means? Look it up. It's a giant wavelength and it's so imprecise you'd practically need a nuke to hit a fighter guided by L-Band. Infrared has better chances, but at present there's not enough range on them to matter.
Finally, you do realize that the T50 is also a stealth craft right? I mean, if they had tech that can make stealth obsolete, why are they building stealth planes?
Chew on that for a minute.
-
Marble (F-22) and golfball (F-35) actually.
Haha thanks. There you go. Fighter doctrine today stresses the importance of first detection, meaning whoever sees who first wins. Who is going to see who first? The fighter with the 45ft radar signature, or the one with the golfball radar signature? Hmmmm....
That's exactly what Canada did in the two World Wars and our troops did pay dearly for it until we got our act together.
We entered WW2 with WW1 rifles and tanks that couldn't punch through their opposing tank's armor. It cost us not just lives, but tons of money too having to rapidly procure acceptable equipment at the last minute.
-
my research tells me OLS with IR on the Su 35's has an estimated range of detection of 150Km and has no issues detecting stealth planes...effective range of F22 missiles 30-45km...the stealth planes will be detected well before they are within range...stealth will be useless unless it's used against third world countries with old equipment,
Your 'research' is pure balogna and you've shown dozens of times in this thread that you don't know anything about what you're talking about. The ranges you offer above are complete bull****, as are your evaluations of stealth technology. Stealth planes aren't invincible, or undetectable, but reducing your radar signature down to the size of a baseball has enormous advantages. There's a reason both the Russians and the US are investing heavily in stealth technology, and that's because by THEIR evaluations (and they're the most advanced in the world with this stuff) it WORKS.
it'll be a colossal waste of money...the Typhoon for the same money would be a better choice than the F35, if you're going to be seen anyways at least have a better plane...but as we'll never be battling the chinese, indians or russians save a lot of money and buy a super hornet...
The Typhoon is completely outclassed by the F-22 and the F-35 by nearly all accounts. If you're going to have the better plane, yes, you should have the better plane.
if you tell yourself that a thousand times may will start to believe it, no doubt you already have...history is full military leaders who made the fatal error of underestimating the opponent and believing their own hype...
Actually, history is full of morons who go to war with outdated/obsolete equipment and end up paying for it. (Check out operation Barbarossa)
-
August while you seem to hit many of the primary points dead on, but Trudeau raised taxes throughout his term, raised program expenses even faster (even outside of recessions) and left massive deficits for Mulroney to finance at unheard of inflation rates. Mulroney did an aweful job fixing the problem, but blame him for not doing enough to fix it, not for creating the problem. Trudeau's responsible for not only all of the debt in the late 60's, 70's and up to 1982, but much of what was accumulated under Mulroney as well, given the debt servicing costs.
If it weren't for Trudeau, Mulroney would have ran mostly balanced budgets and we wouldn't be paying the taxes we do today.
-
that's all been pointed out on this forum, much if not all of it in this thread...I beginning to suspect journalists are coming here to steal our opinions...the conservative spin is childishly obvious except to the conservative masses that just eat that crap up...russian invasion of two bombers driven off by Dear Leader Captian Canada and his sidekick Peter MacKay
...Haha wyly. Here you are, months later, still repeating this over and over and over. Russian Bears are one of the more minor of a PLENTITUDE of reasons for purchasing this plane.
Broken record broken record broken record broken record...
-
Harper by far. Trudeau was PM through many years of difficult times much more difficult then anything Harper will likely face. Harper is really just an American patsy. Harper has even bragged about watching American news rather than Canadian news. Harper is like a dog on a leash beside his American master.
I guess you missed the whole 2008/2009 recession. I'm pretty sure Trudeau never had to deal with anything close to as rough as that. Nonetheless, he still managed to take Canada from deficit-free to practically broke in a decade, paving the way for the next idiot (and the one who should join Trudeau on this poll instead of Harper).
Think about it. Trudeau made Western Canada a toxic wasteland for the Liberal party, from which it has never recovered. He inspired 30+ years of anti-Liberal party sentiment in the west. Not only that, but along with Mulroney he paved the way for the BQ and PQ to run things for the next 30 years in Quebec as well.
Harper is LEAGUES behind Trudeau and Mulroney on divisiveness. I don't even understand how he can be compared.
-
What is the meaning of Freedom? Is that means strong people can bully weak people freely, but weak people have no right to talk about that?
In Red China, General Secretary tell people what to think and speak.
-
The seperatist threat is dead for all reasonable purposes. Montreal makes it impossible. Montreal wouldn't want to go and Quebec is nothing without it.
-
So you think that when NATO leaves Afghanistan, that the laws there will be more like Western laws, and women will have the same rights as over here?
That's the idea. It probably won't work but that's the idea.
Do you remember when the government over there wanted to kill the Afghan that practice Christianity? GW had to step in and stop it. The Middle-East will never be like the West and freedoms will not change because it so joined to their religion.
Not too long ago that's how Western civilization acted as well. Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Salem witch hunts? WWII?
Oh right.
Afghanistan is probably the most ass-backwards country in the world, but it's only a few centuries behind us and that can change quickly with the right people leading the way.
Also, Topaz, to suggest that Khadr is the fall guy for 911 is just ridiculous. You're better than that.
-
In these times one should think about ...the time it takes to pay for ONE jet VS the time its takes to destroy ONE.
Alright tell us how many F-18's have been destroyed thus far compared to how long it took to pay for them...
There's your answer there.
-
Super Hornet is an excellent plane there are no third world countries flying anything significantly better....
but there are 3rd world countries flying better planes. The Su-30 is a better plane and check the list of who is flying those. Are we going to aspire to flying lesser aircraft to them???
which again brings up the point of which country are we going to war with India? Columbia? Brazil?...the F35 is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle to fight an imaginary war with an imaginary enemy for reasons you can't explain
We have explained. The DND has explained and so have most 1st world governments who are also choosing to buy the plane. Instead of listening, however, you've chosen to wet yourself over the issue and insist we don't need the plane because it's unlikely we'll ever go to war. I'd certainly hope we don't, but not only does it act as somewhat of a deterrant, it's also useful to be prepared should the worst happen.
Ever heard of Game Theory? Probably not...
and you're full of paranoid self-delusional ignorace...it'll be obsolete long before it's life expectancy is reached...battleships were the pride of every navy, they'd never be obsoltete but they were obsolete long before WW2 but it took the japanese carriers to drive that lesson home...
The battleship was known to be obsolete as a primary naval asset well before WW2 started. That's why the Americans and Japanese were building their fleets around carriers well before war broke out between them. That being said, 70 years later the role of the battleship is still being fulfilled by cruisers today.
to bully under-equiped third world countries surface fleets are fine but vs a modern military force, carrier and surface fleets are now obsolete cruise missle technology is supreme all that is needed is real war with equals to drive that fact home...cruise missles have already demonstrated the weakness of surface ships the industrial military complex perpetuate the myth of naval invincibility...
Cruise missile technology is far from supreme. You don't know what you're talking about and that's pretty clear. The fastest cruise missile in the world still can't outrun the American PAC-3 nor can it escape detection from hundreds of miles away. I'll repeat again, you don't understand the tech AT ALL.
ya you're the world expert on technology
Definetly not an expert but at least I understand some of the basics. You're not even that far along.
-
our purposes are no different now than in the past; arctic sovereignty, check...shoot down civilian airliners, check...bomb the crap out insurgents, check...no one has presented an argument for a F35 role that can't be done by a Hornet or a Super Hornet, the duties to be met have not changed...
Okay sure. The F-18 will do the job for another few years yes. The Super Hornet, however, is going to start being retired in the US armed forces in 2025. Spending money on the Super Hornet IMO is worse than spending no money at all. It's heavily outclassed by already existing Russian and European technology and it will go obsolete so fast that we'd be in the same situation 10 years from now that we're in today. Third world countries are flying better planes than the Super Hornet.
our purposes now are well served by the Hornet, an argument can be made that the Hornet is aging and needs to be replaced but there is no threat that requires us spending 2 or 3 times as much than if a Super Hornet were chosen...spending that kind on cash on a plane that is doomed to obsolescence by unmanned craft in 10-15 yrs is insane...
It's planned to be an effective weapon for the next 40 years. You're so full of ***t it hurts. According to you the aircraft carrier and surface fleets are also obsolete, which coincidentally is also complete and utter nonsense.
If you knew anything about how the equipment operated maybe you'd be able to make a valid point, but you clearly don't. I'm willing to go into great detail with you on how you're wrong if you like, but first tell me how this stuff is going obsolete technically.
-
doubt we'll get any, there will be an election before contract day
There will be an election yes. It probably won't turn out the way you want it to though.
I can almost guarantee that if we don't buy the F-35, we'll buy the equally expensive Eurofighter.
Which would be a giant mistake.
-
Nothing I have seen says we will be getting the A variant. I imagine the tender will be put out for the Naval variant. It has a larger wing area to allow it to take off at lower speeds and will have a tail hook allowing it to operate from our forward operating bases.
I doubt we'll buy 65 naval variants. We'd never have anywhere to use them all. I could possibly see a fraction of them being naval variants but the majority I'm sure will be standard models.
-
and you believe the americans are ahead of the russians in missile technology is even more amazing...the delusion continues...
I don't think you understand the tech very well.
The Russians have invested more heavily in missile technology but that's simply because they were so far behind NATO in air power.
Also, it's pretty clear you THINK you know more about it than you actually do.
-
Ignatieff has all the style and demeanour of an intellectual; his problem is that he just isn't that smart.
You almost wonder don't you?
-
I dont doubt the plane is good, I just doubt we have much in the way of missions that require such a plane.
A Ferrari F40 is a way better car than my Toyota Echo. So I must have been CRAZY not to go deep into debt and buy an F40 right? Well... not really. See the only driving I need to do on a regular basis is to go to the store and back. Theres no need to purchase an F40 for that, and if I did my runs to the store would cost WAY MORE in fuel, depreciation, and maintenance.
The same analogy holds true with the Canadian airforce. 90% of what our planes do is fly routine patrols, and go zooming over the Olympic Venue to give people a sense of security, and be ready to shoot down a rogue civilian airliner.
It's a terrible analogy and it's evidence of how weak your argument is. The analogy would maybe hold true if you were talking about whether or not you needed a Concorde or a 747 to cross the ocean, but it has absolutely ZERO relation to military equipment.
Here, let me try an equally stupid analogy:
Why do we need to equip our soldiers with M16's? A Lee-Enfield WW1 rifle will kill someone just as well!
Why do we need modern destroyers and frigates? Our WW2 ships did a fine job patrolling our seas!
-
when dealing with the dimwitted a repeat over and over approach is called for...
Like dogs do right? The solution to getting caught on your leash is to just keep pulling right? It's GOT to work eventually!!!
Maybe if you keep saying the exact same stupid thing over again it will eventually be less stupid right?
oh really... that's exactly what has been repeated here over and over and over, the Russians are flying to close to our airspace we need to protect our sovereignty
No. That's not what's being said. What's been said is that this is ONE of the missions that this aircraft would be expected to undertake for the next 40 years. Think about that number again. 40 years. What will a CF-18 or Super Hornet look like in 20 years even? Garbage is what they'll be.
it's you living in a cold war fantasy world that's without a clue, no one here including you has yet to name an enemy that is going to attack us or why they would do so......
and again...like a dumb animal...we seem the same dumb argument repeated.
One last time, just in case there's even a spark of understanding in there: We aren't buying the F-35 in anticpation of an invasion so your question is totally irrelevant. We're buying it to ensure that Canada has a relevant platform for the next 40 years for its airforce. That's all. If you want to argue that we don't need an airforce, go ahead, but that's similar to saying we don't need a military.
really, the only country ever threaten to attack us and has done so as well is the USA...that's what history shows, that historical tidbit must have gone unnoticed by retards everywhere
Wait...the War of 1812 is proof that we have nothing to fear from potentially hostile foreigners...and that we should instead be worried about the USA??? Bravo my friend. That's truly brain-dead.
brilliantly ignorant moon...we used to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes, today not so much...
Another stunning display of intellectualism. Because we don't sacrifice virgins war is now obsolete as well. Wait...no it isn't. I seem to remember a good number of wars over the last several decades. Some of them we participated in too!
You don't have to land troops on Canadian soil to hurt Canada and when our interests are threatened I'd prefer we were able to act with our allies.
we are a 2 bit country with zero ability to stop any country with the means to invade us if they should want to, we're talking about 5-6 countries tops, the rest don't have the financial means to launch an invasion of that size...the 5-6 that can we have no hope of stopping with 60 odd F35's we are defenceless without nukes, wasting 9 billion on something that will do us no good is retarded...
Yep...there it is again. The dumbass straw-man and the repetition. Why are we talking about invasion again? Why are we talking about nukes? Nukes aren't an option. They never are and anyone who has them knows that. Israel's nukes are really keeping them safe aren't they!?!?
you have lot's of equally deluded dimwitted friends who haven't noticed the Warsaw pact dissappeared sometime ago...
Did Russia disappear as well??
-
you mean unlike your phantom enemy you can't name or give reasons why they would want to invade us????
protect us from who? we do need to project our force to outside of our borders? did the americans project a force on our behest when it invaded Grenada? Vietnam? Iraq? were we in peril of invasion?
what's asinine is spending 16 billion defending against an enemy we don't have, what's asinine is that no one here can name or give reason why this phantom enemy would want to attack us...the most imperialistic country on the planet is right beside us, a country that has openly challenged our sovereignty, which other country has done that?...will we defend our sovereignty against our neighbour? no we will do nothing, can we do anything? no ...so why bother spending 16 billion on a plane that can not defend us against the only threat to us?
we don't need a $16 billion plane to patrol the arctic against an enemy we will not attack and can not defeat... nor do we need such a plane to defend us against hijacked civilian airliners....this is the most retarded waste of money possible....
What's assanine is that you keep bringing straw man into the discussion over and over and over again. Repetition is not a strong argument either.
We are not purchasing these fighters in anticipation of invasion, from overseas or from the USA.
We are not purchasing these fighters solely to protect arctic sovereignty. There are MANY MANY MANY reasons why the DND have chosen these fighters and they are pretty much the same reasons why we have a military in the first place.
I don't think you have a clue what your actual argument is because it seems to be a mess of "We don't have any enemies and thus we don't need a military", along with, "There are cheaper alternatives" and then finally "We're too small to defend against an invasion from the US (or Russia) etc blah blah blah".
All three of these are bad arguments and easily refuted on their own lack of merits but by combining them together you've come up with an incredibly convoluted, nonsensical and contradictory point of view.
If our lack of enemies concludes a lack of need for military equipment (history has shown us that's a retarded position to take) then why are we talking about the Super Hornet? If our biggest threat is the USA (also retarded to think) then why bother with defensive forces at all? We can't contend with them anyways right?
Brilliantly stupid wyly. If we're not going to protect ourselves, then people WILL take advantage of us and there's about 12000 years of history to back that up. If someone were to forcibly claim land or resources from our borders and we were completely unable and unwilling to meet such intrusion with force we'd be at the mercy of whoever would offer us help. The price would be our sovereignty and abilities of self-determination.
Of course, all of this ignores our NORAD and NATO obligations, but that's another matter altogether.
-
I'd prefer it be gone in the next 2 years. Oh well. Nobody is offering that as an alternative.
-
There's saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff" and this applies here, its the BIG lies like the Tories and Harper have told are the most concerning! Until Iggy get into the PMO, then we'll worry about lies, right now its Harper's.
No Topaz it's naive and stupid to think that way. If people are consistently lying about the small stuff you know they'll lie about the big stuff. Why lie if it's a small or non-issue?
-
what I'm saying is we have no enemies...who protects Costa Rica with no armed forces? why haven't they been attacked by their neighbours or the Chinese?...if any country with the ability to invade us wanted to do so we couldn't do a thing about it, we'd be totally neutralized in a matter of days...so why spend billions on something we cannot prevent?...why would a country invade us for resources we're quite willing to sell them(and have)?...the only country likely to attack us is our neighbour and if they decided to our military airports would be neutralized within hours and all 60-70 J35's would be useless junk...
This whole statement is so fallacial and poorly thought out I don't even know what to say.
Our safety in Canada is dependant on US force projection both on our continent and abroad. As they are our closest neighbour and ally, it would stand to reason that we should at least be willing to participate in the defence of the continent and if deemed reasonable, and if requested, outside the continent as well.
We're not buying these planes from the Americans to protect us from the Americans. That whole statement was completely assinine.
or as opposed to comparing an unproven airplane that still has a number of technical issues vs proven technology in planes already out there doing the job...
but won't be able to do the job for the next 30-40 years like the F-35...
Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Truemetis you do realize that last wall of text you quoted completely supported Tim's argument, right? You've just shown us exactly why climate change research is so poorly regarded and not taken seriously.
The science is not exact, it's not reliable and we don't have enough accurate measurements over a long enough time period to really say anything one way or the other. That abstract supports that claim.
What makes everyone so sick of the climate alarmists is how fanatical you get about it. Wild Bill was right. It's faith for you guys. It's religion. If someone disagrees with you, you start frothing at the mouth and getting upset. If you're going to put TimG on ignore, you might as well put me there too. He was being perfectly civil. You took exception to him disagreeing with you. lololololol.