DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 You're right Peter, the Aurora/Orion was the replacement for the Argus. But even it needs replacing (1962). I think its future is up in the air. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of the Bear...only modern and Canadian...loaded with cruise missiles. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Well, first off, there's gotta be somebody to appease in order to appease. As it is nobody is now, nor has ever,cchallenged Canada's claim over the arctic islands ...ceptin Denmark re Hans Island. A logical fallacy. Alert, by the way, is of no practical importance to anyone. The Evil [enter favoured nationality here] could sieze Alert and, for that matter, all of Ellesmere Island, and the only actual loss we would suffer is loss of our stinkin pride. There are absolutely no resources in the high Arctic? There is no requirement/need to blow billions on Carrier Groups or Naval Bases in the Arctic Archapeligo. We're just kicking around ideas. You're welcome to join. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 You're right Peter, the Aurora/Orion was the replacement for the Argus. But even it needs replacing (1962). I think its future is up in the air. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of the Bear...only modern and Canadian...loaded with cruise missiles. Sure! A Bear would be great. Load em up with LRASM's and make any future invader pay a hefty price in lost shipping for their aggressive ways. Be a hellofalot cheaper than Carrier Air Groups and the carriers to carry them and the escort groups to escort them and the thousands of sailors needed to man and support them. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Sure! A Bear would be great. Load em up with LRASM's and make any future invader pay a hefty price in lost shipping for their aggressive ways. Be a hellofalot cheaper than Carrier Air Groups and the carriers to carry them and the escort groups to escort them and the thousands of sailors needed to man and support them. We really don't know WHAT the planet will be like in 10 years let alone 50. I don't think we're entering an age where we're all dancing in the fields quite yet. Canada might have to make a choice re: it's defensive as well as offensive capabilities if America for whatever reason doesn't want to protect us anymore....or gets pissy about water...or gets taken over by Mexican drug gangs...etc. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 That picture you paint is the most optimistic scenario possible. A more likely scenario would have been, after finding no foreign buyers for an aircraft whose mission was obsolete and whose unit cost was far greater than any other craft, and after pouring in 100s of millions of 1960s dollars to rejig the arrow for a new mission, the goverment could no longer defend the drain on the public purse and the project was cancelled.... Yeah and then presumably we'd do the same thing the US does when they decide some particular aircraft is no longer of use to further develop or produce - move on to another project, rather than scrapping the entire aerospace industry. At least we would already have had the facilities and expertise to produce one advanced combat aircraft. They could then be more easily adapted to another. Whether we wanted a fighter-bomber, or an aircraft that we could launch from our carriers, a stealth fighter, etc, we would have been in a much better position to actually develop those technologies ourselves. I'm not talking about the Arrow as some crowning all-purpose achievement that would be the end-all of our aerospace industry. I'm talking about it as a stepping stone to a viable and permanent aerospace industry that would eventually have produced a variety of different aircraft as our nation's needs evolved, just like the US aerospace industry, except of course on a somewhat smaller scale. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Yeah and then presumably we'd do the same thing the US does when they decide some particular aircraft is no longer of use to further develop or produce - move on to another project, rather than scrapping the entire aerospace industry. At least we would already have had the facilities and expertise to produce one advanced combat aircraft. They could then be more easily adapted to another. Whether we wanted a fighter-bomber, or an aircraft that we could launch from our carriers, a stealth fighter, etc, we would have been in a much better position to actually develop those technologies ourselves. I'm not talking about the Arrow as some crowning all-purpose achievement that would be the end-all of our aerospace industry. I'm talking about it as a stepping stone to a viable and permanent aerospace industry that would eventually have produced a variety of different aircraft as our nation's needs evolved, just like the US aerospace industry, except of course on a somewhat smaller scale. Oh yeah...100% agreement. Much like SAAB. We do have our snowmobile turned aircraft maker, mind-you. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 We really don't know WHAT the planet will be like in 10 years let alone 50. I don't think we're entering an age where we're all dancing in the fields quite yet. Canada might have to make a choice re: it's defensive as well as offensive capabilities if America for whatever reason doesn't want to protect us anymore....or gets pissy about water...or gets taken over by Mexican drug gangs...etc. Well, if the USofA ever gets pissy then the jigs up. Our real concern is keeping the US from getting pissy (at us, anyways), not how big of an army we need to stop a pissy USofA. As for other future possible threats. Well, outside of Martians, there is no future threat, and thus no one for the USofA to protect us from. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
M.Dancer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Yeah and then presumably we'd do the same thing the US does when they decide some particular aircraft is no longer of use to further develop or produce - move on to another project, rather than scrapping the entire aerospace industry. We didn't. Canadair and De haviland still made planes....allbeit not fighters. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Bonam Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 We didn't. Canadair and De haviland still made planes....allbeit not fighters. What you mean like Beavers and such? Come on now. They may be solid, useful planes for certain applications, but this is not the kind of stuff that stimulates high tech industry, engenders university research programs and national laboratories, and retains the brightest minds. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Well, if the USofA ever gets pissy then the jigs up. Our real concern is keeping the US from getting pissy (at us, anyways), not how big of an army we need to stop a pissy USofA. I said pissy, not out-right aggressive. As for other future possible threats. Well, outside of Martians, there is no future threat, and thus no one for the USofA to protect us from. You're so sure...pretty cool to be that sure of the future. No other country or corporation or terrorist group on the planet will ever take the boots to good ol' Canada. We're so nice...we'll just smile our way out of any future troubles. Edited July 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 What you mean like Beavers and such? Come on now. They may be solid, useful planes for certain applications, but this is not the kind of stuff that stimulates high tech industry, engenders university research programs and national laboratories, and retains the brightest minds. ...or the Sabre, Starfighter, CF 5, Challenger, Argus....tutur... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 What you mean like Beavers and such? Come on now. They may be solid, useful planes for certain applications, but this is not the kind of stuff that stimulates high tech industry, engenders university research programs and national laboratories, and retains the brightest minds. Ok, how about Bombardier, or Boeing Canada, or Magellan Aerospace? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 ...or the Sabre, Starfighter, CF 5, Challenger, Argus....tutur... To be fair...most if not all those are Canadian modifications to existing designs. The Argus used to be a British airliner. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 To be fair...most if not all those are Canadian modifications to existing designs. The Argus used to be a British airliner. Yes some built under license, some complete re-tooled and some built from scratch. Which ainlt bad if yoiu believe we didn't have an aerospace industry....and then there's RollRoyce and Bristol....which didn't get told we didn't have an aerospace industry. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Yes some built under license, some complete re-tooled and some built from scratch. Which ainlt bad if yoiu believe we didn't have an aerospace industry....and then there's RollRoyce and Bristol....which didn't get told we didn't have an aerospace industry. Well, we were actually part of British aviation as per WW2. Many a Lancaster/Mosquito/Halifax rolled off the line in Canada. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Well, we were actually part of British aviation as per WW2. Many a Lancaster/Mosquito/Halifax rolled off the line in Canada. The first military drones were produced and sold Canadair...not to mention the first purpose built water bombers, which if HRW and AI had their way would be the sole attack plane of the Israeli airforce... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 We have people on this board who would simply allow our citizens to die, an expendable piece of trash thats only purpose is to defend the nation. Alert, by the way, is of no practical importance to anyone. The Evil [enter favoured nationality here] could sieze Alert and, for that matter, all of Ellesmere Island, and the only actual loss we would suffer is loss of our stinkin pride. A citizen that says things like that has not legitimate point of view in my opinion relevant to this discussion. Quote
Peter F Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 We have people on this board who would simply allow our citizens to die, an expendable piece of trash thats only purpose is to defend the nation. A citizen that says things like that has not legitimate point of view in my opinion relevant to this discussion. Thats ok, Jerry. Anyone who seriously thinks we absolutley must spend billions to defend the north agianst - well, we're not sure who, at least not now nor in the foreseeable future - is pretty much on the edge of insanity. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Peter F Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 I said pissy, not out-right aggressive. Oh. Well sure, if a pissy US wants to buy our water, we'll sell - if we have any brains... You're so sure...pretty cool to be that sure of the future. No other country or corporation or terrorist group on the planet will ever take the boots to good ol' Canada. We're so nice...we'll just smile our way out of any future troubles. Kumbaya, brother!. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Oh. Well sure, if a pissy US wants to buy our water, we'll sell - if we have any brains...Kumbaya, brother!. You'll make an ideal foward scout. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Scene: Ardennes Forest, December 1944. Malarkey: Keep your head down! Buck Compton: Don't be a fool; it's certain death! Skip Muck: Holy crap! He's gonna do it. Lt Winters: Everyone else stay put! Pvt Peter F: I'll be right back...just checking with the Germans to see if they're coming to the movie tonight. Edited July 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Thats ok, Jerry. Anyone who seriously thinks we absolutley must spend billions to defend the north agianst - well, we're not sure who, at least not now nor in the foreseeable future - is pretty much on the edge of insanity. It isn't just the north, but the north is our focus. That is where we are the weakest, and that is where we can expect growth in the coming years. Its time to start taking a longer view and doing some forward planning. Who are we defending against now dude? What of the billions spent protecting against nothing now? We just funded a brand new company that makes cars for billions of dollars but the trillions of dollars of revenues to be realized in northern Canada mean nothing? What is your agenda Peter....... Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 But...no Moon Landings. Maybe not. History might have followed a different path. Von Braun wanted to build infrastructure for sustained moon and space colonization. Instead, we went to the moon, lofted a couple of golf balls, brought back a few rocks... And for the next 40 years or so we never went back! We just built some shuttles to buzz around close to the earth so we could do "weightlessness experiments" over and over and over again. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 The HMCS bonaventure wasn't a force projection carrier but light carrier used primarily as a platform for anti submarine warfare. Like the Arrow, it became a victim of modernization and was easily and economically replaced by ship borne helicopters. Are you saying we scrapped the 'Bonnie' so we could replace it with Sea Kings??? At least the Bonnie didn't sink, unlike the Sea Kings which keep falling out of the sky! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
M.Dancer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Are you saying we scrapped the 'Bonnie' so we could replace it with Sea Kings???At least the Bonnie didn't sink, unlike the Sea Kings which keep falling out of the sky! umm...the sea kings were new back then... A squadron of 3 destroyers makes a more effective and economical sub hunting platform than a very large target like an aircraft carrier. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.