Handsome Rob

Contrails are Cirro-stratus clouds. Burning a hydrocarbon (HC) + Oxygen (O2) leaves behind, H20, which can condense into visible form when the temperature is cold enough.

I would argue, that their is a very strong argument, on a very strong inverse correlation between crime rate and mode wealth. Talk about America all you want, but compare Abbotsford/Mission BC (Murder Capital of Canada) to Omaha Nebraska, or in the opposite of Detroit compared to York Ontario. Crime statistics are a measure of how the society as a whole is functioning, not the justice system.

They plan for the future, not the past. It's more than just a "Stealth" (Fancy) airframe. Their is communications technology, surveillance, data links, etc, etc, etc. There are requirements to participate in NATO/NORAD, we just spent $2.6 billion (17.5% of F-35 cost) to upgrade the CF-188's for this for the remainder of their operational life. Gives this nasty feeling that were we to go with a Super Hornet, etc...we'd more than likely be traveling this road again. But forget about NATO and Kosovo, our commitment to NORAD. If we can't demonstrate the capability to defend the artic's sovereignty, the Yanks will be more than happy to do it for us. Personally I consider $350 Million (Low) to $500 Million (High) [Cost of the program amortized] to be a drop in the bucket to protect Canadian sovereignty from the yanks.

Figured it worth sharing, some comments from an active CF-18 pilot, somebody that very much has an interest, but doesn't write the budget: Q: Is the F-35 really the best choice for this country? As it is with the aircraft available, I believe that yes. Q: There is a lot of talk about what might be needed in what country in the future. If we bought a slightly less stealthy airplane and deployed it overseas in the future - then it would be used on missions where it fit. You wouldn't send it into the most heavilly defended areas - the USAF stleath bombers would do that - just like desert storm. Stealth doesn't mean completely invisible to radars. It means less visible to radars. It's a feature you want, regardless of the mission you do. Q: We have to factor a number of things - including cost. IMHO the JSF is WAY overpriced and it gets more expensive every week. We are only getting 65 planes. Not a whole lot is it? When considering some will be lost operationally and some will be assigined to training squadrons. The JSF is not overpriced. It will be relevant on the world scene for 30 years. The Super Hornet won't and is as expensive as the JSF. Regardless of what we get, we will get 65 aircraft or at least it is my understanding. FWIW, we will GAIN capability by getting 65 aircraft (vice our current 80, 79, 78 aircraft we currently have. Just a guess but I think the OTU will be done in the US. Q: When the F-18 was chosen some of the factors were: "Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols) and overall cost. We bought 125 (i think) aircraft - others like the F-14 and F-15 were concidered but ultimatly rejected due to cost. That was with 1970s engine. The JSF engines (F135 and F136) are more reliable. If you look at the stats of catastrophic engine failures during a mission, it's pretty low. Most engine shut downs I have heard of were preventive. Q: Does any CF pilot here think we short changed our air force because we didn't buy F-15's - arguably the best fighter in the world at the time (and still holds it's own today). What's so bad about the super hornet? Almost as cabable (as in it doesn't have stealth) and we could buy a few more of them for the same price. Or any of the others for that matter (Typhoon, Gripen........) No we did not get shortchanged, because we needed a multi-role fighter. In 1980, the F-15s were purely an Air Superiority fighter with no Air to Ground capabilities at all. The F-15E came later and added the A-G capabilities. This whole quote juste shows you don't know much. What the JSF offers, no other aircraft can offer. Some of the technology offered by some other 4.5 generation aircraft is similar but the overall package is nowhere near what the JSF offers. Even the F-22 (F-22 lacks A-G). The JSF is very much a completely integrated aircraft, both its sensors and other platforms sensors. Stealth airframe isn't the only difference in capability between the JSF and the Super Hornet. It's much much deeper than that. Q: i've met one fighter pilot and he's had an engine failure in the CF18. with a single engined plane he'd have been forced to scrap it. as it is he flew it roughly 100 miles on the other one and landed safely. Well, two points to pounder... 1- The engine failure you are talking about (probably between Greenwood and Bagotville, turbine disk departed the left engine, leaving the flight controls in a mechanical/electrical back up mode). He elected to land in Bagotville for various reasons, mainly because it's a CF-18 base and there are cables there. If that happened in a single engine aircraft, you don't need to make that decision. You go to the nearest airfield. Period dot. Saying that he would have had to eject is not quite accurate. 2- The Hornet's engines (F404) are 1970s technology. The JSF Engine (F135) is 2000s technology. It is much more reliable than the Hornet's engine. No, it is not perfect, however given the stats on catastrophic engine failures of the Hornet (which is minimal), it's safe to say that odds are that engine failures will be rare on the JSF. 65 F-35's should protect Alberta's Oil for awhile but I don't know what the rest of you guys are going to do. BC can gettem stoned and MB can maybe give'm TB. PS Super Hornet is based on a 40 year old design, sorta like putting a hemi and navigation computer in a Ford Pinto and calling it "NEW"....."your turn is coming in 500 feet" You are aware we have 79 Hornets right now and some of them are used for training? If we contract flight training on the JSF, we would have a greater capability than we have now. As far as buying the SH, my analogy would be that were are buying a 2010 Ford F150, vice a 1983 Ford F150. Similar design, totally different plane. However, the price of a SH is not as low as some tend to think here. --------------------------------------------------- Pulled off a Canadian Aviation forum, he is without question very referential and very conscious of what he will and will not say. Far superior real world commentary to politicized columns from both camps or spun propaganda. For what it's worth, take what you will.

Not many fliers can do this: In an aero commander with engines off to boot.

772 runs YYZ-YVR-SYD. It's routine to see the 763's running YUL-YVR & YVR-YYZ. For the most part, it's the bus though. The E-Jet's take the bulk of the TransBorder flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA

Next step, I think, loitering platform with guided submuntions.

Cops don't need guns, your car doesn't need seatbelts or an air bag, and heaven forbid, you certainly do not require insurance.

BOMARC's, right?

It's misleading. You see top speed for a fighter advertised, say Mach 1.8 for CF-188, Mach 2 for Eurofighter, Mac 1.6 for F-35... This speed is at altitude, in thin air, with burners lit and a fuel flow in excess of 20,000 PPH. Such activity yields a net endurance of what, 45 minutes with external tanks? Such practice just isn't common. The F-22 is the only common fighter I'm aware of that has the capability of breaking the sound barrier without lighting the burner or diving, in just about any configuration. The Typhoon can only do it at altitude in Maximum Slick without the burner, no combat load. When you include maneuvering capability, and maximum G-loads at speed, the overwhelming majority of a fighters time is spent subsonic/transonic. I gawked at the F-35's price tag too, but what of: -Larger combat radius. -Thrust vectoring. -Stealth platform. -Ship 1 rolls off the line after a decade of Eurofighter service. -Excellent maintenance capacity with our neighbor next door. -Better multi-role capacity, Euro is still struggling to catch up, it's an AA platform(The same reason we got 18's instead of 15 Charlies or 14's) All that for a current price tag of $138 Million flyaway VS $111 Million for the Tycoon? I'll stomach it.

A Hijab is a tradional Islamic veil. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/17/article-1027300-01A5CADA00000578-892_468x656.jpg

Corrected. Wasn't aware they varied the F135.

Yes, it does.

Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. All F-35's carry this.

What an incredibly ignorant statement. I can produce a newspaper article that claims mock combat netted victory of the 4.5 gen fighter against greater numbers of 4th gen fighters, therefore, it is without question more capable than a 5th generation fighter that hasn't seen deployment yet. Beyond that, the ability to defeat 4th generation aircraft is clearly more than enough, because obviously in the next 30 years Canada will only ever encounter the need to engange in combat with 50 year old airplanes. Look, Eurofighters slaughtered by rebuilt SU-27's flown by India. No, it wasn't. The Joint Strike Fighter. The Eurofighter was designed as an air to air platform, and is still being updated today, to meet AGM capabilities. Yes, their are European NATO members. It has greater ferry range, F-35 combat radius is 610 NM against Eurofighter's 325 NM, with both aircraft carrying PGM's. It's propaganda, ferry range is meaningless, that's why we have 130J's. Nobody else matches the competition. Would you tender a bid for a bicycle when you needed a car?

-They use arresting gear during mechanical failures, IE hydraulics & brakes. -They use arresting gear when their are geographical restrictions on the location of the airfield, permissible approaches, runway lengths. -They are used for carrier qualification, many of our pilots do fly off carriers. It's not dodging the question, it's a stupid question.

Your article: The F-35 is a stealth fighter designed to penetrate radar defences on the first day of a war. It's the sort of plane you would use to create “shock and awe” in Baghdad or Tehran. Rubbish. Stealh increases survivability, period. It can be used to penetrate, it can be used to defend. By the same notion, we should take the, 'armored,' out of our personnel carriers as they're obviously never going to be sent into hostile enemy territory fighting 'American' wars. Unless Canada is planning on being the sharp end of the American spear, we don't need stealth technology. The F-35 is designed for short takeoff and landing, with two of the three versions destined for aircraft carriers. Canada, of course, doesn't have aircraft carriers. Nope but we sure do have many STOL airfields when used by turbines. Many, many uses for such capabilities. And all that stealth technology and short takeoff and landing capacity comes at a cost. In addition to the price tag of about $135 million per plane, Right on price point with Eurofighter, for newer technology, commonality, and greater capabilities? the F-35 has a relatively short range. Key word being relative, because it has a greater combat radius than Eurofighter. Red star indeed, if the Liberals tendered this would it be an issue? I'm starting to doubt it.

R U Serious??? This thread is getting silly.

I remain convinced that we will see F-35's landing in Canada at some point between 2017 & 2025. How much time we spend pissing upwind & tying our shoelaces together remains to be seen. The amount of money wasted on infighting & fees will probably more than make up for an disparity between final bill & original price.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/17/salon-scarf.html When "Multi-culturalism" gets turned into, 'free money.'

So you're suggesting somebody that owns a salon shouldn't be able to prevent an Islamic woman from concealing her face, or not be able to turn down the the employment application without fear of reprisal for 'discrimination?'

Canadians don't care because the only thing they see are the BB douche's on TV. No sympathy from me either, I've been on the receiving end of having my rights violated too, I deserved and am better off. Have we no empathy for the position of the cops? Field 10,000 officers and it's unacceptable for a few dozen officers to lose it. But of course the equivalent in the crowd is not only perfectly acceptable, but expected? Cops are robots now? They're put out there to try and secure this thing, and by default are either to harsh or not doing enough....never the correct way. Talk about a thankless job, wasn't too pleased with the whole prisoner thing, but compared to some of the summits down south with the barrage of tear gas, rubber bullets & sound cannons, over all I'd say they did a pretty good job. Probably a few hundred people got what they didn't deserve and hopefully they'll be compensated, but I don't really know what else we can expect? Perhaps next time appeal to the media not to showcase the BB like they so obviously crave, marginalise them and show the real protesters, and real rights violations rather than saving it for after the show.

If it's contrary to laws of the land, such as preventing Identification when voting, entering the country, youngster's ID'd for booze, etc. Beyond that, what's the point in caring what other people do when it doesn't harm us? -Do we have a massive problem with the entire nation 'having the gay gene' and getting married? No, why care about gay marriage? -Do we have a gun control problem? No, why care about useless firearms regs? -Does Canada face a problem of imminent Islamic theocracy? No, why care about this? -Does fast food have negative effects on the financial stability of the health care industry? Yes, those that choose to partake, should pay for it in the same manner of smokers and drinkers. -Does wearing a turban on a motorcycle represent undue risk to the health care industry? Yes, they should be treated as people that choose not to wear protective equipment, or the beanie 'helmet.' I don't understand this line of thinking, having to manage other peoples affairs that have nothing to do with one. Can somebody explain it to me? Perhaps one day it will be an issue, to date I've seen perhaps 4 dozen veil's, burqa's, niqab's & otherwise. Religious practices should be, below the rule of law, and their to stay. Under all circumstances. Beyond that, who cares?