wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) So you can see in the future can you, do you see what happens when countries need water and oil and we are sitting on most of it, we should just give up our claim on the arctic? One F-18 just crashed , russian bombers testing our airforce again yesterday. Chretien cancelled the helicopters and servicemen died in those old helicopters.General Hillier said we did'nt need tanks ever again,tell that to the boys in afghanistan, which hillier admitted to being wrong. You have no idea what the future holds, so lets not get caught with our pants down again, because we think we know what the future holds. and americans continually fly near Russian airspace so?...when has a Russian bomber entered our airspace? and if they did what is going to happen?... is they world as we know it going to end? are they going land and steal a piece of our frozen wasteland and take it back to Russia?...was this bomber on a bomb run?...really this kind of logic is like my kids in the back seat whining about the other putting their little finger into others half of the car...Russia needs our water really? they have more than enough of their own... our oil? they have more than we do...the Russians accept our soverignty claims it's the americans who do not...it's the americans who say they can sail super tankers laden with oil through our waters if they wish and do not need our permission, the Russians happen to agree with us and demands all nations sailing through it's waters request permission...if it's any country who we need fear that may take our resources it's the USA and it won't be over oil it'll be water... hmmm those old dangerous helicopters, the newer F-18s have a higher fatality rate...helicopters have a larger crew so multiple deaths are normal, considering the number of hours flown the Sea Kings were a very safe aircraft, the death toll over 50 years has been very low.... considering the very nature of the job done by Sea Kings are high risk ventures their record was excellent.... Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 So you can see in the future can you, do you see what happens when countries need water and oil and we are sitting on most of it, we should just give up our claim on the arctic? One F-18 just crashed , russian bombers testing our airforce again yesterday. Chretien cancelled the helicopters and servicemen died in those old helicopters.General Hillier said we did'nt need tanks ever again,tell that to the boys in afghanistan, which hillier admitted to being wrong. You have no idea what the future holds, so lets not get caught with our pants down again, because we think we know what the future holds. You have no idea what the future holds, so lets not get caught with our pants down again, because we think we know what the future holds. You could use that little piece of logical fallacy to justify virtually anything. Maybe the future holds a foreign nuclear strike on Canada. So we better build nuclear ICBMS. Maybe the future holds a large Naval attack on Canada. So we better build a fleet of ships and submarines. The reality is though that we dont have the resources to purchase insurance against every remotely possible potential threat, so when we are talking about spending billions of dollars on the military we need to decide which activities are the most likely and insure against those. What we know is that most of what our airforce does is fly routine patrol missions over Canadian soil, and maintain a state of readiness to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/russian-jet-confrontation-a-close-one-defence-official-says/article1657338/ Convenient timing over the release of this information, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 You could use that little piece of logical fallacy to justify virtually anything. Maybe the future holds a foreign nuclear strike on Canada. So we better build nuclear ICBMS. Maybe the future holds a large Naval attack on Canada. So we better build a fleet of ships and submarines. if we were serious about defending our country we'd have nuclear weapons and we don't so we're wasting our time and money...and I'd support that vs the F35 purchase... The reality is though that we dont have the resources to purchase insurance against every remotely possible potential threat, so when we are talking about spending billions of dollars on the military we need to decide which activities are the most likely and insure against those. What we know is that most of what our airforce does is fly routine patrol missions over Canadian soil, and maintain a state of readiness to shoot down rogue civilian airliners.and we can buy a significantly cheaper means of shooting down a civilian airliner...and significantly cheaper planes to do do patrol duty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Might have to deal with a critter like this...try catching that in yer Piper Aztec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Here's a question for someone in the know. How old are Canada's Sparrow/Sidewinder/etc missiles? Will they work in the F-35's internal bay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 It may be that the seemingly high price comes from us needing new missiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 It may be that the seemingly high price comes from us needing new missiles. No, missiles are a seperate contract entirely. They're generally different company. I'm not sure if Lockheed Martin designs missiles or not. Raytheon I think is the biggest player in the game. As for the sparrow, the military updated to the AMRAAM about a decade ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 WE don't know exactly what the $9B is for, since the contract hasn't yet been signed and won't be for two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 WE don't know exactly what the $9B is for, since the contract hasn't yet been signed and won't be for two years. And not knowing anything about the contract is good for everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 And not knowing anything about the contract is good for everyone! There's no contract to know about. We've signalled our intent and put a price tag on things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 look up India's reason for doing so, they refer to it as heavy and light fighters...India is similar in size to Canada so similar requirements... Canada is close to 10 million square kilometers. India is about 1/3 of that. The climate range in Canada is much more varied than in India. So no, not the same requirements at all. and an all-around do everything plane has never worked in the the past and this one won't either, it'll do many things ok but be great at none of them...replace the A-10 as a close ground support weapon? it'll never match the A-10's ability... Well, Canada has not ever had any A-10s. Either way, money is going to be spent and people are going to be pissed about it. Can't please all of them all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 There's no contract to know about. We've signalled our intent and put a price tag on things. The contract is there, ready to sign. We just don't have to. There's a difference between that and there being no contract at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) I didnt demand they do jack shit. How about the chicken hawks that are always dying to get us into non-defensive wars pay for the fuckin planes? Good so you won't bitch when they aren't there to help during a natural disaster. You won't bitch when Europe annexes our northern territories and their resource wealth, when they fish our shores dry. When our allies fail to help us because we failed to live up to our NATO obligations. Yep to an idiot like you our forces and their equipment is a useless expense. Unlike you the majority of Canadians want the security of sovereignty that our forces provide, and a flimsy piece of paper not fit for wiping you a$$ is not going to protect our sovereignty and Canadians from jack shit. Edited July 30, 2010 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 The contract is there, ready to sign. We just don't have to. There's a difference between that and there being no contract at all. There are still things to be worked out. What we know is that we're buying 65 jets, and the total cost is $9B. We also know that there is no jet like the F-35. That's really what we need to know right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 The contract is there, ready to sign. We just don't have to. There's a difference between that and there being no contract at all. we can bail out right up to 2013 so we're not commited...with a little luck the Harper government will be gone and the contract along with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) we can bail out right up to 2013 so we're not commited...with a little luck the Harper government will be gone and the contract along with it... HAHAHAHAHA who's going to lead it the smiling nitwit or the count? Being the global bologna person you are you probably think it will be the screeching greenie. Edited July 30, 2010 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Canada is close to 10 million square kilometers. India is about 1/3 of that. The climate range in Canada is much more varied than in India. So no, not the same requirements at all. india is still a very big country and no the climate range is not more varied, India gets much hotter and in the North the winter temps are very very cold....and at 30,000 ft where the planes operate the temp is the same everywhere, very cold... India's planes are designed in Russia for Russians which has the same climate as us and is nearly twice as big as Canada to do the same job...so ya the requirements are identical ... Well, Canada has not ever had any A-10s.and how smart was that? ask Army Guy if he and the boys wouldn't appreciate having a few A10's flying low speed, low level close support vs a F35 at a Km zipping by above the battlefield....go to any US army/marine forum and ask what they would prefer...Either way, money is going to be spent and people are going to be pissed about it. Can't please all of them all of the time.there will be an election long before there is contract to sign... once this plane has balloned in price to 150 mill per unit will see if even the conservatives have the balls to sign that contract.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 and how smart was that? ask Army Guy if he and the boys wouldn't appreciate having a few A10's flying low speed, low level close support vs a F35 at a Km zipping by above the battlefield....go to any US army/marine forum and ask what they would prefer... It still doesn't change the fact that the F-35 is set to replace the A-10 in less than 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 India's planes are designed in Russia for Russians which has the same climate as us and is nearly twice as big as Canada to do the same job...so ya the requirements are identical ... I doubt that, Russia's been designing planes specifically to sell, and they rarely sell the ones they've designed for their own military use. and how smart was that? ask Army Guy if he and the boys wouldn't appreciate having a few A10's flying low speed, low level close support vs a F35 at a Km zipping by above the battlefield....go to any US army/marine forum and ask what they would prefer... The F35 has the ability to fly low speed low level. Army Guy has been advocating for the F35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 No, missiles are a seperate contract entirely. They're generally different company. I'm not sure if Lockheed Martin designs missiles or not. Raytheon I think is the biggest player in the game. As for the sparrow, the military updated to the AMRAAM about a decade ago. Yes, I know. Heat seeker...Radar/etc guided. But I'm wondering if we're planning on putting old missiles with new planes...or if that's even possible. Knowing Canada's thrift-ability...you have to wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 you mean unlike your phantom enemy you can't name or give reasons why they would want to invade us???? protect us from who? we do need to project our force to outside of our borders? did the americans project a force on our behest when it invaded Grenada? Vietnam? Iraq? were we in peril of invasion? what's asinine is spending 16 billion defending against an enemy we don't have, what's asinine is that no one here can name or give reason why this phantom enemy would want to attack us...the most imperialistic country on the planet is right beside us, a country that has openly challenged our sovereignty, which other country has done that?...will we defend our sovereignty against our neighbour? no we will do nothing, can we do anything? no ...so why bother spending 16 billion on a plane that can not defend us against the only threat to us? we don't need a $16 billion plane to patrol the arctic against an enemy we will not attack and can not defeat... nor do we need such a plane to defend us against hijacked civilian airliners....this is the most retarded waste of money possible.... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 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. More and more, I'm liking the cut of your jib. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Yes, I know. Heat seeker...Radar/etc guided. But I'm wondering if we're planning on putting old missiles with new planes...or if that's even possible. Knowing Canada's thrift-ability...you have to wonder. If we can manage you can bet we'll do it. How big a difference would that make I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 If we can manage you can bet we'll do it. How big a difference would that make I wonder. Hey, we bought those subs the Brits were planning to use as flower planters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.