Moonbox

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.... 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.

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. 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. Actually, history is full of morons who go to war with outdated/obsolete equipment and end up paying for it.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.

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...

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.

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.

That's the idea. It probably won't work but that's the idea. 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.

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.

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??? 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... 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. 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. Definetly not an expert but at least I understand some of the basics. You're not even that far along.

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. 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.

There will be an election yes. It probably won't turn out the way you want it to though. Which would be a giant mistake.

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.

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.

You almost wonder don't you?

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!

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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!?!? Did Russia disappear as well??

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.

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?

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. but won't be able to do the job for the next 30-40 years like the F-35...

Well we already knew that. Even most Liberal supporters know that and are disgusted with the guy. It's like beating a dead horse now. Pretty much. I'm certainly no friend of the Liberals, but attack him on his flip flopping, integrity and his blatant opportunism. What schools he went to growing up don't matter at all.

Really? Is that why you think that STATS Canada wants a mandatory long form census? It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with them wanting to keep their golden ticket jobs???

This is kind of a dumb thread.

Yep. Nothing to see here.