M.Dancer Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 We are not in the same league BC, Canada has no business with nukes, none at all. Well...i don't know...nuclear depth charges...torpedoes...artillery...there are plenty of tactical applications I wouldn't rule out categorically.. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 ....The British don't own the Trident missiles their subs carry.... Oh contrare...yes they do..via the original Polaris Sales Agreement. The UK owns their Trident SLBMs and provide their own warheads. However, testing and maintenance is heavily integrated with American facilities and contractors. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 We are not in the same league BC, Canada has no business with nukes, none at all. Ahem....Canada helped to develop the very first nuclear weapons, and provided the uranium to build the US and UK thermonuclear stockpile. But Canada "has no business"....LOFL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 They are testing readiness and making a statement about their ability to project power, there is no other reason for them to be there with military aircraft. that's naive they know exactly Norad's capability it has nothing to do with testing us...We don't stop the Russians either. Do you seriously believe they've never had subs operating in Arctic waters that Canada considers to be its territory? how do you prove an unknown? there is zero evidence...Except for the Iraq Iran war all those wars involved at least one country that had nukes, sometimes more than one. Israel had nukes in 1973, it didn't stop them from being invaded. the countries doing the evading had the nukes, Falkland's being an exception but then there was zero chance of nukes being used as the UK itself wasn't threatened...and no one knew Israel had nukes in 73 and if defeat was imminent they would've been used there no doubt about that......Good luck trying to buy Minutemen from the US or a delivery system from any other country that would let you land a bomb on their heads. Not unless they maintained ultimate control over the warheads and how they are used. The British don't own the Trident missiles their subs carry.It kills me how many of you peace nicks think we should join the nuclear weapons club for no other reason than you believe it is cheap. everything is for sale what kind of delusional world are you in....nukes are cheap, it's the technology that's difficult to attain and we have no shortage of that....can't help but notice you didn't answer the definitive question Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 I think WW III will be about Siberia and China, that is my guess. okay, but why? for what reason are two nuclear powers going to annihilate themselves for? and why would it become ww3? why would anyone else want to be involved in that suicidal venture? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wilber Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 Oh contrare...yes they do..via the original Polaris Sales Agreement. The UK owns their Trident SLBMs and provide their own warheads. However, testing and maintenance is heavily integrated with American facilities and contractors. It was my understanding that warheads aside, they are pooled missiles out of Georgia that may be used in either nations subs. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 that's naive they know exactly Norad's capability it has nothing to do with testing us... The know Norad's capability because they continually test it, just as the US continually tests Russian capability. how do you prove an unknown? there is zero evidence... Delusional, what do you think the Cold War and the DEW Line were all about? the countries doing the evading had the nukes, Falkland's being an exception but then there was zero chance of nukes being used as the UK itself wasn't threatened...and no one knew Israel had nukes in 73 and if defeat was imminent they would've been used there no doubt about that...... And what do you think might have happened if the Israelis had used nukes in 73? Something good it would seem. Point is, nukes are useless if you can't inflict at least as much damage as the country you might use them on. If not, you might just as well use them on yourself because the end result will be the same. can't help but notice you didn't answer the definitive question What question was that? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 It was my understanding that warheads aside, they are pooled missiles out of Georgia that may be used in either nations subs. True, but the UK has "title" to about 60 D-5 missiles, and does not enjoy all benefits of some of the upgraded American weapons system attributes. The UK has a limited number of operational warheads and requires more weapons handling to keep one boomer on patrol. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 so now I'll ask again the dreaded question that all the war lovers avoid...why are russians our enemies? for what reason would they start ww3 over canada?... They won't as long as the US is around to stop them. Without, our lives would be far more interesting. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
PIK Posted October 20, 2010 Report Posted October 20, 2010 an attack of two bombers with cruise missiles really? you think that'll happen...our armed neighbour Russia never enters our territory without permission, our armed neighbour to the south does enter our territorial limits without permission and ignores our claim to the NWP, the Russians do not.. we don't take it seriously if we did we'd stop the americans from entering the NWP without permission... Korea had nukes? Viet Nam had nukes? Afghanistan? Falklands? Iran? Iraq? nope...countries with nukes don't get invaded...you could make the arguement Falklands is British but Argentina sees it as theirs and the Brits weren't under threat so didn't need to use nukes... a Minuteman 3 costs about $8 million per unit and another 3 mill per warhead...it's relatively inexpensive to develop the delivery for nukes we have all the technology we need, we need nothing from any other country but there are plenty that would sell us the completed missile for cheap, China, France, India, USA, Russia and a number of other countries are all willing to sell us delivery systems....we are the most nuclear capable country on the planet that does not have nukes... if need be we could have bomb and the delivery system in 6-12 months if the situation was expedited...we don't have to match any other countries nuke arsenal even a few mirv's would be enough to deter attack, no country will risk having it's capital erased from the map... so now I'll ask again the dreaded question that all the war lovers avoid...why are russians our enemies? for what reason would they start ww3 over canada?... I really don't expect an answer because no one can think of any... it's a ludicrous idea, it will never happen but admitting that would shatter the myth and destroy the argument for spending stupid amounts of money for useless military toys... Countries with nukes do not get invaded, tell that to the americans since they have been invaded by mexico. Anyways we need these planes for china, they are not building ice breakers to cruise around china. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Army Guy Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 Would there be a plan in place to keep some of the F-18's flying with the F-35's? The plan currently is to phase themout when the new F-35 arrive on a one for basis. 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.
Topaz Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 Today there another story about Britain down-sizing the F-35. IF there is a global recession, how can any country spend billions on war toys? http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/19/2560372/britain-to-delay-trim-f-35-orders.html Quote
PIK Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 The plan currently is to phase themout when the new F-35 arrive on a one for basis. To bad that we could not keep some going by stripping others, we can use them for fly byes for the grey cup, would that not be cheaper.lol Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 Today there another story about Britain down-sizing the F-35. IF there is a global recession, how can any country spend billions on war toys? http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/19/2560372/britain-to-delay-trim-f-35-orders.html Because WW2 spending brought "us" out of the Great Depression! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 that's naive they know exactly Norad's capability it has nothing to do with testing us... Then expalin what id does have to do with , so we can understand the piont your trying to make. how do you prove an unknown? there is zero evidence... Realy every hear of SOSUS Sensors, and the fact that Norad also tracks maritime traffic, as well as does the Canadian military... It was not so long ago Canadian rangers /military artic patrol found hard evidence of Russia equipment and rations left on Canadian soil...it even made the media...Canada knows about submerged traffic, and tracks it all the time, shit Canadians soldiers work in the same Norad office, who could they not..... 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.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 okay, but why? for what reason are two nuclear powers going to annihilate themselves for? and why would it become ww3? why would anyone else want to be involved in that suicidal venture? Dial forward a decade and tell me that you understand what double digit growth really means in China. Tell me that they will not be seeking more resources and where better to get them? Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 As for the number 65 where did it come from, not DND which has serveral articles published on 80 not being enough, one of which i've provided you...It may have come from the government which has said here is the the amount we accepted on , buy what you can...after all something is better than nothing....Can we all imgine the price tag of 80 or more aircraft....Canadians would have a heart attack....there pissing themselfs now... and cost considerations must be part of every purchase. For what we can afford, we're getting more capability than we have. We'll have sixty five fighters, each of which that are four times as good as each of the 80 that we have now. We're not losing capability, we're gaining it. There is no massive threat to Canadian interest now or in the foreseeable future that justifies spending a similar amount to the US (something that would see us getting about 200 aircraft). Quote
PIK Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) Today there another story about Britain down-sizing the F-35. IF there is a global recession, how can any country spend billions on war toys? http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/10/19/2560372/britain-to-delay-trim-f-35-orders.html Britian is in alot worse trouble then we are, and spend alot more then we do. The world is not geting any better and we are sitting on more resourses then anyone and if people can't see that is going to be a problem in the future, then we are screwed. The strong will take over the weak ,when the fight for resourses start and we better be in the strong section. Edited October 21, 2010 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
nicky10013 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Report Posted October 21, 2010 Pick up your phone and give boeing a call and asked them if it was sole sourse. But why all of a sudden liberals are against this, what don't you understand that chretien, canadian PM and leader of the liberal party was the one that started this process ,had 2 companies bid on it and both built prototypes and then PICKED THE F-35 (X-35). All harper has done is agree with him. So what are we seeing here, the libs are going to cancell this and spend tons of money starting over again ,only to find out that is the one to go with, we are still waiting for new helecopters to replace the seas kings thanks to the liberals. Chretien never made the committment to buy the planes. The JSF program wasn't our own. If two or more Canadian or even international aerospace companies came to the Canadian government with specific airplanes that meet our operational needs, that would be an open bidding process. That didn't happen. They went to the US government with those options, the Americans, without us, chose which one was best for them. The US government along with Lockheed went to other countries for them to invest in return for contracts and buy planes in order to bring the overall cost down for everyone. Just because we've been involved in trying to get contracts for our aerospace programme in no way cements us to the F-35. The Canadian government just buying a plane with absolutely no other bids presented to the Canadian Government is a sole sourced bid. If other companies, such as Boeing or Dassault or Saab or whatever also were able to present a bid on providing aircraft, that would be open sourced. Citing someone else's open sourced competition doesn't make up for it. Not even in the same ball park. Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 Another trick is calling the total price of $16 Billion while the aircraft cost only 9 Billion. Actually, the aircraft costs only $5B. The other $4B is for project related infrastructure. Quote
nicky10013 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Report Posted October 21, 2010 nicky, Why cannot you understand that neither EADS, SAAB, Russians, nor anyone else can produce the aircraft for the future wars or conflicts? Neither you or I, or even the military for that matter, can say that for sure precisely because there was no bid. If there was an open bid process and it was clear which plane best suits our needs for the next 30-40 years, I'd believe it. There wasn't however. Quote
Wilber Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) Countries with nukes do not get invaded, tell that to the americans since they have been invaded by mexico. Anyways we need these planes for china, they are not building ice breakers to cruise around china. Good point. linky Edited October 21, 2010 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
wyly Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 Dial forward a decade and tell me that you understand what double digit growth really means in China. Tell me that they will not be seeking more resources and where better to get them? china's population growth is falling...china is buying what it needs there is no reason to go to war for resources that others are very willing to sell, they have a piece of our tar sands, they have agricultural deals in africa...wars are horrifically expensive and damaging to any economy it's far more practical and much less expensive buying what you need...and the russians are only to happy to sell to anyone... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
YEGmann Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) nicky, Why cannot you understand that neither EADS, SAAB, Russians, nor anyone else can produce the aircraft for the future wars or conflicts? Boeing (read McDonnel) can, but its X-32 has been found inferior to the Lockheed-M/N-G/BAe X-35 by the best military experts. As has been its YF-23 inferior to LM's F-22. F-22 has set a standard for a new generation fighters. Actually, F-117 and B-2 forged the requirements too. Right now only F-35 can qualify. Any other aircraft on the market will be rejected by the very first criterion, i.e., RCS. Are you able to understand this? The claim, that the F-35 may not meet some specific (no one can tell which) Canadian requirements is just ridiculous. The F-35 is the most versatile aircraft in the world ever built. You (nobobody) can present an example of similar versatility. Your only claim can be the price. It is again interesting how liberals blaim $100-million tag on F-35 and do not mention that inferior options cost close to that. Another trick is calling the total price of $16 Billion while the aircraft cost only 9 Billion. The rest $5 - 7 Billion is a maintenance contract. This money have to be spent regadless what type of aircraft we buy. By the way, why the only complaints about this so called "sole-source" bid come from the opposition and not from the industry? We can see how fierce are demands to be in a tender right now: JSF design, C-130J maintenace, SAR aircraft, KC-X and so on. In this case there is no single voice from manufactures to present an alternative. The answer is there is no alternative for the first-class players. Our soldiers must have the best weapon available. It can easily be an election item. Edited October 21, 2010 by YEGmann Quote
wyly Posted October 21, 2010 Report Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) nicky, Why cannot you understand that neither EADS, SAAB, Russians, nor anyone else can produce the aircraft for the future wars or conflicts? Boeing (read McDonnel) can, but its X-32 has been found inferior to the Lockheed-M/N-G/BAe X-35 by the best military experts. As has been its YF-23 inferior to LM's F-22. F-22 has set a standard for a new generation fighters. Actually, F-117 and B-2 forged the requirements too. Right now only F-35 can qualify. Any other aircraft on the market will be rejected by the very first criterion, i.e., RCS. a lot of countries have RCS to varying degrees, the europeans, chinese, India, russia and the russians newest planes have L-band radar which eliminates the RCS advantage, RCS works on x-band., and the planes will be operational before the first F35 is even delivered to canada, so what we'll have is a ridiculously expensive plane that has ineffective stealth ability...might as well buy a superhornet The claim, that the F-35 may not meet some specific (no one can tell which) Canadian requirements is just ridiculous. The F-35 is the most versatile aircraft in the world ever built. You (nobobody) can present an example of similar versatility. ya it will do nothing exceptionally well...Your only claim can be the price. It is again interesting how liberals blaim $100-million tag on F-35 and do not mention that inferior options cost close to that.Another trick is calling the total price of $16 Billion while the aircraft cost only 9 Billion. The rest $5 - 7 Billion is a maintenance contract. This money have to be spent regadless what type of aircraft we buy. the USA DOD is saying it will cost 118-130 million but you know more than they do right? a super hornet is about 60-80 mill, a rafale anbout 60-70 millOur soldiers must have the best weapon available. It can easily be an election item.yup, forget the expensive war toys... Edited October 21, 2010 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
.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.