Topaz Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Defence Depart. has bought the new US jet than Canada wants to replace our older jets with. Apparently, the codes to upgrade the computers don't come with it. That has to be done in the US and the US won't share the codes with the other 7 ocuntries that have bought these jets. England has been trying and trying to get the codes under Blair but no deal has been made. Why would any country buy jets that don't come with their codes? Canada and the US are friendly now and may always be BUT we can always have a falling out in the future and what good are the jets if the country you may be at war with or indifferent with has control over your jets? I do believe O'Connor was at the head of this too, just like the prisoner abusing and it was he that changes the transfers from the US to Afghanis. He knows he did do a very good job and tha tis why Harper replaced him. just watch his face in Question Period. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/denies+Canada+info+needed+maintain+jets/2262650/story.html Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 I do believe O'Connor was at the head of this too, just like the prisoner abusing and it was he that changes the transfers from the US to Afghanis. He knows he did do a very good job and tha tis why Harper replaced him. just watch his face in Question Period. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/denies+Canada+info+needed+maintain+jets/2262650/story.html Your record of being wrong is untarnished. It was the liberals who changed the policy in 2005. Paul Chapin told Maclean’s that as director general of the Department of Foreign Affairs international security bureau from 2003 to the fall of 2006, he worked at a senior level on the 2005 agreement under which Canadian troops turned over detainees to Afghan authorities. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/23/colvins-toughest-critic-was-an-architect-of-afghan-detainee-tranfer-policy/ Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moonbox Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Dancer don't tell him. It's much more fun to watch Topaz flounder... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Wilber Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Canada hasn't bought anything yet. It is investing a total of 650M in the F-35's developement. Two reasons. 1: We will need a replacement for the F-18. 2: Lockheed Martin vice president Tom Burbage has said the program has strong industrial benefits for Canadian firms. Defence Department officials have pointed out that Canadian companies have received around 150 Joint Strike Fighter contracts so far. Government officials have noted that Canadian industrial opportunities are expected to total more than $5 billion U.S. over the life of the program, but others have suggested that work will only come to domestic firms if Canada buys the JSF. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Defence Depart. has bought the new US jet than Canada wants to replace our older jets with. Apparently, the codes to upgrade the computers don't come with it. That has to be done in the US and the US won't share the codes with the other 7 ocuntries that have bought these jets. England has been trying and trying to get the codes under Blair but no deal has been made. Why would any country buy jets that don't come with their codes? Canada and the US are friendly now and may always be BUT we can always have a falling out in the future and what good are the jets if the country you may be at war with or indifferent with has control over your jets? I do believe O'Connor was at the head of this too, just like the prisoner abusing and it was he that changes the transfers from the US to Afghanis. He knows he did do a very good job and tha tis why Harper replaced him. just watch his face in Question Period. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/denies+Canada+info+needed+maintain+jets/2262650/story.html According to the article we have NOT bought the new jets and are just investing in the development of the JSF project. A decision in the summer of 2010 is expected by Lockheed Martin as to whether or not Canada does buy the planes. Quote
Army Guy Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Defence Depart. has bought the new US jet than Canada wants to replace our older jets with. Apparently, the codes to upgrade the computers don't come with it. That has to be done in the US and the US won't share the codes with the other 7 ocuntries that have bought these jets. England has been trying and trying to get the codes under Blair but no deal has been made. Why would any country buy jets that don't come with their codes? Canada and the US are friendly now and may always be BUT we can always have a falling out in the future and what good are the jets if the country you may be at war with or indifferent with has control over your jets? I do believe O'Connor was at the head of this too, just like the prisoner abusing and it was he that changes the transfers from the US to Afghanis. He knows he did do a very good job and tha tis why Harper replaced him. just watch his face in Question Period. So you purchased the maint codes for your veh when you purchased it, Want to upgrade your computer codes buy the upgraded computer oh wait they'll do that.......This has more to do with the US protecting the tech already in the flight computers, Taking control over in flight controls of jets now your reaching.but might make a great movie....And the war with the US comment, come on...where is my tin foil hat again... 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.
Smallc Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) I don't like this and reading between the lines, it seems the Government of Canada doesn't either. The Government of the UK most certainly doesn't. I don't really blame them, because it prevents their industry from having a part in much of the maintenance. When you buy a car, you haven't usually helped to pay for the engineering of that car, and you aren't usually planning to keep it for 30 years. Edited November 25, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Wilber Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 I'll ask an obvious question. If the US did indeed supply upgrade codes to Canada and we did have a falling out at some point, does anyone expect that they would continue to supply them? Canada is a minor partner in this project, the Brits have a much bigger beef. BAE is a major contributer to the project. Link Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The UK does have much more reason to complain. It still doesn't mean that we don't have reason to complain. Quote
Army Guy Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 I don't like this and reading between the lines, it seems the Government of Canada doesn't either. The Government of the UK most certainly doesn't. I don't really blame them, because it prevents their industry from having a part in much of the maintenance. You mean maint on the computers themselfs, because the Military does not really repair much , what it does is replace parts until the fault is fixed...broken the computer replace it with a new one....I think there is more to this problem than what has been reported, there must be a way to maintain the aircraft, unless a US maint crew comes with each aircraft.... 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.
Wilber Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) The UK does have much more reason to complain. It still doesn't mean that we don't have reason to complain. Perhaps, but I am not sure exactly what we are complaining about. When you think about it, software upgrades are no different from hardware upgrades. If you don't build the part yourself, you depend on someone else to provide it. As Army Guy has suggested, there may well be more to this story than we have been told. Edited November 25, 2009 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Well, I'm thinking that it might mean that no Canadians firms can fix anything electronic on the aircraft. Quote
wyly Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 if I buy a car I'll take it where ever I want to get it serviced, it may nullify my warranty but that's my choice...I'd look elsewhere for new plane... the manufacturers count on foreign sales to make a profit, if all foreign buyers balked at agreeing to the deal it would have an effect...fewer foreign sales drives up cost for domestic consumption.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wilber Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Well, I'm thinking that it might mean that no Canadians firms can fix anything electronic on the aircraft. Maybe, who knows, there are a lot of things on all kinds of aircraft that Canadian firms don't fix. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Perhaps, but i don't like the way this is going overall. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The UK does have much more reason to complain. It still doesn't mean that we don't have reason to complain. True....but more importantly, it's a lot cheaper to complain than actually conduct the R&D and build your own "jets". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 It is. It's also cheaper to conduct R and D when your allies help to foot the bill. Quote
wyly Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 True....but more importantly, it's a lot cheaper to complain than actually conduct the R&D and build your own "jets". but why do we need jets of that quality anyways? to defend us from who? the Taliban?...we're no match for any country that can take us now even with these wonder jets... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest American Woman Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 It's also cheaper to conduct R and D when your allies help to foot the bill. Agreed. I don't understand why our allies are helping foot the bill when they aren't even sure they'll be buying the planes. Maybe so we'll at least have them if/when we are engaged in war together? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 but why do we need jets of that quality anyways? to defend us from who? the Taliban?...we're no match for any country that can take us now even with these wonder jets... .....seems that even rotary winged aircraft procurements vex Canada so...let alone multi-role strike fighters. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 I think we're more vexed by rotary wing procurement. We haven't tried to replace fighter jets recently, and we've not ha as much problem with that in the past. Quote
Wilber Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 if I buy a car I'll take it where ever I want to get it serviced, it may nullify my warranty but that's my choice...I'd look elsewhere for new plane... the manufacturers count on foreign sales to make a profit, if all foreign buyers balked at agreeing to the deal it would have an effect...fewer foreign sales drives up cost for domestic consumption.... Problem is, this aircraft has no competitors in some fields, among other things, it is the long awaited Harrier successor. Britain, Italy and Spain are building new carriers and although they might find some kind of alternative, this aircraft was a major consideration in their design. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
wyly Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Problem is, this aircraft has no competitors in some fields, among other things, it is the long awaited Harrier successor. Britain, Italy and Spain are building new carriers and although they might find some kind of alternative, this aircraft was a major consideration in their design. still, why do we need it, we don't have carriers, we don't have any enemies that we need anything this sophisticated to deter... and from some research I've done fighters could be going the way of the battleship(and carriers soon to join them)...missile technology is advancing so quickly that fighters will be redundant... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Topaz Posted November 25, 2009 Author Report Posted November 25, 2009 Your record of being wrong is untarnished. It was the liberals who changed the policy in 2005. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/23/colvins-toughest-critic-was-an-architect-of-afghan-detainee-tranfer-policy/ WellDancer, you and I are both wrong and right. It was started under Martin in Dec. 2005 in the MIDST of an election, but it didn't come into law until March of 2006 when O'Connor was minister of Defence! He refused to change it. Try to be a liitle nicer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_abuse_scandal Quote
Wilber Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 and from some research I've done fighters could be going the way of the battleship(and carriers soon to join them)...missile technology is advancing so quickly that fighters will be redundant... That's what they said in the sixties. They were so sure of it the USAF didn't install a gun on their F-4 Phantoms. Guess what? They weren't long in Vietnam before they designed a 20MM Vulcan pod they could hang on it. Every fighter since has had a gun, regardless of how much better missles have become. After the F-4, their next fighter was the F-15, not an interceptor but an air superiority fighter designed to fight other fighters. Even if it were true, there will be times when aircraft are needed to carry the missles and carriers to carry the aircraft. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.