Shakeyhands Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Good to see, it's about time...... I'd agree that it was necessary to get something in place. Not sure how i feel about the maintenance piece being defered. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I'd agree that it was necessary to get something in place. Not sure how i feel about the maintenance piece being defered. They most likely have not worked out which company is getting what maint contract. We needed these planes 10 years ago, so there will be follow on issues. Quote
james rahn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Here we go, the myth of the "US military industrial complex" again. Yes , the USA military that freed millions from Hiltler's grip, saved the world from Communisim and are standing up to the Islamic nuts of the world. They have fought and died for the safety & freedom of millions. The "US military industrial complex" has kept the democracies of the world free. Socialist hate the US, because the US defeated them in the Cold War. The world voted with it's feet, and socialism failed!!! Yes, the "US military industrial complex" destroyed the socialist empire, and thank God for that!! I would hate them too if I were a socialist!! Don't get me wrong, I think the only reason there is a semblance of peace in the world is because of the United States Department of Defense, and not because of NATO or the UN. True the United States has stood up to tyranny, but there are still over 30,000 children in the world who starve to death everyday, there are still 40 million Americans (including children) without any health coverage; it's still the low income Americans who fight and die at a disproportionate rate when the US engages in any military conflict, regardless of its justification. I do believe most times the US is justified when it acts militarily. As the only superpower, they occupy a unique position in the world as the biggest target. I think they should have the right to act against a perceived threat whether the UN or anyone else in the free world agrees with them. But for crying out loud, we are well into the 21st century here. Somehow the USandA has got to stop starving their own children and denying them health coverage just so they can spend more on the military, and the US (along with China and India) have got to stop being the world's biggest polluters. We are running out of time. Physicist Stephen Hawking gives the world less than 500 years before it becomes completely inhabitable, things have got to start changing soon, and like it or not, the US will to have to lead the way or it's just not going to happen. Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn Quote ...now available at WALMART!!!
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Don't get me wrong, I think the only reason there is a semblance of peace in the world is because of the United States Department of Defense, and not because of NATO or the UN. True the United States has stood up to tyranny in the world, but there are still over 30,000 children in the world that starve to death everyday, there are still 40 million Americans (some of whom are children) without any health coverage, and it's still the low income Americans who fight and die at a disproportionate rate when the US engages in any military conflict, regardless of its justification. I do believe most times when the US acts militarily, it is justified. As the only superpower, they occupy a unique position in the world; they are the biggest target. I think they should have the right to act against a perceived threat whether the UN or anyone else in the free world agrees with them. But for crying out loud, we are well into the 21st century here. Somehow the USandA has got to stop starving their own children and denying them health coverage just so they can spend more on the military, and the US (and China and India) have got to stop being the world's biggest polluters. We are running out of time. Physicist Stephen Hawking gives the world less than 500 years before it becomes completely inhabitable, things have got to change and fast, and like it or not, the US is going to have to lead the way, or I don't think it's going to happen. I agree, however; Those countries with starving children have a responsibility too. Everyone blames the USA because it is easy, you do not have to take responsibility. As for folks without healtcare in the US, I lived there for 4 years. Most people do not have healtcare because they choose not to. They say they cannot afford it, but they drive a new SUV. They have medicare in the States, like we do, for the poor. But yes, they do spend a lot on their military, perhaps too much. I was stationed on a USAF base in Oklahoma, they had more planes there than Canada has in it's whole Air Force, more planes than Air Canada flies. They have reserve & national guard units everywhere, it's a lot. They have realized this, and if you look at the BRAC website, they are trying to downsize, close some facilities.... Edited January 17, 2008 by weaponeer Quote
james rahn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Most people do not have healtcare because they choose not to. They say they cannot afford it, but they drive a new SUV. I think you make an excellent point here. Quote ...now available at WALMART!!!
james rahn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Good to see, it's about time...... I have to admit, as a former AME, I like many of the aircraft produced from former Soviet Bloc nations. I think instead of the C-17 and the HercJ the miltary should've gone with some Antonov AN-70s. I know there are some ICAO certification issues with many Eastern Bloc aircraft, but they're trying to hard to get the details hammered out. Looks right now like the AN-70's gone down the flusher because Russia elected for more IL-76's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70 Quote ...now available at WALMART!!!
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) I have to admit, as a former AME, I like many of the aircraft produced from former Soviet Bloc nations. I think instead of the C-17 and the HercJ the miltary should've gone with some Antonov AN-70s. I know there are some ICAO certification issues with many Eastern Bloc aircraft, but they're trying to hard to get the details hammered out. Looks right now like the AN-70's gone down the flusher because Russia elected for more IL-76's.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70 As an AME I am sure you are aware of commonality of parts, logistical support. Russian planes are a no go for Canada. We have to have the same equipment, compatable with out allies. This is not a civilian organization. We have common aircraft to our allies for a reason, we share spare parts manit crew etc on operations. Canda shows up with an plane no one else uses we have to provide 100% support, our spares inventory has to go all the way back to Canada, perhaps Russia. As well, there is not way that US companies will allow their comms & data link equipment in a Russian plane, will not happen. We get our planes for the most part from the USA. It is the only choice we have. Despite what people precieve, we get a great deal, good support and can train effectively with the US militray. People who do not like the USA thimk we get a raw deal. We will be purchasing the C130J, and I can predict we will also purchase about the same number of C27J's for the SAR role. They have a huge % commonality of parts, menas cheaper to fly, maint, and train with. We might be purchasing some new maritime patrol planes, we are looking at the Bioeing P8. If we buy soem of those we may get a few wedgetail AWACS type plane to go along as they are the same airframes. canada will need a new fighter fleet here in about 10 years, we are looking hard at the F35 JSF. Other options are the F18 Super Hornet. We work daily with the USAF in NORAD, we need common planes.... Edited January 17, 2008 by weaponeer Quote
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 here's hoping they go with the F35 and maybe a squadron of F22's if the US will ever decide to allow it. Not juiced up 40 year old technology. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 here's hoping they go with the F35 and maybe a squadron of F22's if the US will ever decide to allow it.Not juiced up 40 year old technology. Eurofighter.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Eurofighter.... F22 is better than anythign Europe will be putting out. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
james rahn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) We will be purchasing the C130J, and I can predict we will also purchase about the same number of C27J's for the SAR role. They have a huge % commonality of parts, menas cheaper to fly, maint, and train with. We might be purchasing some new maritime patrol planes, we are looking at the Bioeing P8. If we buy soem of those we may get a few wedgetail AWACS type plane to go along as they are the same airframes. canada will need a new fighter fleet here in about 10 years, we are looking hard at the F35 JSF. Other options are the F18 Super Hornet. We work daily with the USAF in NORAD, we need common planes.... Sounds like a Christmas wish list... I agree with what you're saying, I just think it's kind of a pity and I hope the situation changes. When the CF replaces the Hercs and the Buffalos I hope they go with the C295 instead of the C27 though, but I'm sure here as well the commonality of parts with the Hercs will be a big factor. (Umm, I'm not too sure about this, but I thought Lockheed pulled out of the C-27 thing.) As far as fighters, I'd like to see them go with the Super Hornet, nice to have a spare engine over the arctic. Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn Quote ...now available at WALMART!!!
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 The F22 would be the ideal jet for Canada. It has the speed and range to cover the country, has the EW equipment and can provide CAS, however it's pricetag is impossible to overlook. We would not be able to afford many, that would not be good. As it stands now with the CF18 we have trouble in NORAD with continental defence. You cannot move them anywhere, do any air defence with an F18 unless they are dragging a tanker around with them. The Super Hornet would be good as it has the range and two engines to operate in the arctic, it can provide CAS, EW etc. I reserve judgment on the F35 JSF as I do not know its range. The Eurofighter is another option, I like the Swedish Gripon too, we could afford more of them. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 The F22 would be the ideal jet for Canada. It has the speed and range to cover the country, has the EW equipment and can provide CAS, however it's pricetag is impossible to overlook. We would not be able to afford many, that would not be good.As it stands now with the CF18 we have trouble in NORAD with continental defence. You cannot move them anywhere, do any air defence with an F18 unless they are dragging a tanker around with them. The Super Hornet would be good as it has the range and two engines to operate in the arctic, it can provide CAS, EW etc. I reserve judgment on the F35 JSF as I do not know its range. The Eurofighter is another option, I like the Swedish Gripon too, we could afford more of them. The F22 might be on the pricey side. I would prefer we have more than enough workhorses than to few thoroughbreds.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) As more F22's are produced, their prices will come down. They are primarily an air-air fighter though, so would need the flexibility of the F35 as well I think. 12 F22's and 60-80 F35's would be pretty good I think. edit to add: The F22 and F35's would also share alot of parts. Edited January 17, 2008 by White Doors Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Sounds like a Christmas wish list...I agree with what you're saying, I just think it's kind of a pity and I hope the situation changes. When the CF replaces the Hercs and the Buffalos I hope they go with the C295 instead of the C27 though, but I'm sure here as well the commonality of parts with the Hercs will be a big factor. (Umm, I'm not too sure about this, but I thought Lockheed pulled out of the C-27 thing.) As far as I know they are still involved with the C-27. things may have changed, I will have to get on my aviation sites. The AF recently discussed re-engining the Buffalo. Apparently the main issue with them is their engines. The airframes themselves are not too bad off. We hosted the AF general here at the base in NB a few weeks before Xmas. He discussed the future of the AF, several issues were talked about. They are looking at helo gunships to work with the Chinooks, as well as a SAR plane, Aurora replacement, UAVs etc... Quote
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 got to love Wiki! F22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor F35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II Most current customers for US fighters are either acquiring earlier designs like the F-15, or F-16 or are waiting to acquire the F-35, which contains much of the F-22's technology but is designed to be cheaper and more flexible. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) As more F22's are produced, their prices will come down. They are primarily an air-air fighter though, so would need the flexibility of the F35 as well I think.12 F22's and 60-80 F35's would be pretty good I think. edit to add: The F22 and F35's would also share alot of parts. Currently we have 77 CF18's. Three squadrons, two in Cold Lake AB, and 1 in Bagotville QB. We are lucky to have 20 of the 77 servicable each day Canada wide. Those are the facts. We have some on NORAD alert and some for training with the army, navy and the USA. All that out of 20 a day avail. You have to remember, with 12 F22, you would have 6 flying each day at best. Not enough. If we were serious then you would have a F22 sqadron in Cold Lake & another in Bagotville for air defence, and an F35 squadron at each locations for CAS, BAI & TASMO. You would then stand up a third fighter wing with the same equipment/roles somewhere in Ontario, North Bay, Trenton etc... but that will not happen. A single airframe fleet is more cost effective. Only one plane to train pilots & ground crews for, one plane to hold spare parts for etc... Not too many NATO countries operate more than one fighter type anymore. The future of the CF, have a look at the Australian military modernization. It is the model we are following..... Edited January 17, 2008 by weaponeer Quote
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Good info - thanks. Well then I'm afraid it will be the F-35 then. We didn't sink 500 million into R&D on it to then go and get the Eurofighter. Got any info on the Australian plan? I googled and couldn't find anything specific. Edited January 17, 2008 by White Doors Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 What about a mix of juiced up tech such as F-15E, for strike missions and F-22 for CAP...and while were at it... get the ARMY a half decent attack helo.... Hey i'm an army guy, what do i know about airplanes.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Hey i'm an army guy, what do i know about airplanes.... You can jump out of perfectly good ones? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 What about a mix of juiced up tech such as F-15E, for strike missions and F-22 for CAP...and while were at it...get the ARMY a half decent attack helo.... Hey i'm an army guy, what do i know about airplanes.... I'm no expert but I think the intent of the F22 is to replace the F15 and the F35 to replace the F16 & F18. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Actually i think the are still producing the E (strike versions) models or production stopped not that long ago Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 You can jump out of perfectly good ones? theres something i hav'nt done in awhile... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
james rahn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) As far as I know they are still involved with the C-27. things may have changed, I will have to get on my aviation sites. The AF recently discussed re-engining the Buffalo. Apparently the main issue with them is their engines. The airframes themselves are not too bad off. We hosted the AF general here at the base in NB a few weeks before Xmas. He discussed the future of the AF, several issues were talked about. They are looking at helo gunships to work with the Chinooks, as well as a SAR plane, Aurora replacement, UAVs etc... I'm not in the CF (not even in the CG anymore), so I'm not certain about this, but Canada has only about five or six buffalos based in Comox right? I thought they were using Hercs for SAR out of Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood, so wouldn't the CF still need to purchase a new fixed-wing SAR platform even if it retains the Buffalos? I've never worked with the DHC-5, but some of my experience is on the Twin Otter. Viking Air in Victoria purchased the type certificates for everything from the Otter right up to the Dash7, and apparently they're putting the DHC 6 back into production with a 400 hundred series (more capable engines and some avionics updates, I think). I think they have about three dozen firm orders right now. Wonder how many orders they'd need to put the Buffalo back into production. Pressurization (or lack of) is an issue with the Buffalo too, isn't it? Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn Quote ...now available at WALMART!!!
eyeball Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 A new crisis is emerging, a global food catastrophe that will reach further and be more crippling than anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in comparison to what is about to transpire, Donald Coxe, global portfolio strategist at BMO Financial Group said at the Empire Club's 14th annual investment outlook in Toronto on Thursday."It's not a matter of if, but when," he warned investors. "It's going to hit this year hard." Story Socialist worry-wart, what could he possibly know about reality? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.