August1991 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) WE SHOULDN'T BE BUYING PLANES BECAUSE OUR HELICOPTERS SUCK!I wondered about this. Why don't we spend $9 billion on helicopters? We could use them on our coasts for rescue operations, and use them abroad for counter insurgency in places like Afghanistan.To be honest, I don't know much about military matters and equipment but with a PM/Finance Minister who approve spending $1 billion on a three day summit, I'm now forced to consider whatever they propose. These guys apparently cannot be trusted with my tax dollars. If they buy military equipment the way they hold international parties for politicians, I think we should second guess their choices until we can replace them with a new crew. Edited June 8, 2010 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 I wondered about this. Why don't we spend $9 billion on helicopters? We could use them on our coasts for rescue operations, and use them abroad for counter insurgency in places like Afghanistan. We are getting new helicopters. Not spending 9 billion on them though My link it's a little bit old but still good. * Lease six Russian-made commercial helicopters for up to $36 million. The helicopters, which can transport troops and supplies, will be in service later this summer. * Purchase six used U.S.-made Boeing D-model Chinook helicopters with medium-lift capabilities from the United States, to be in use by February 2009. The helicopters, and the training and support needs associated with them, will cost up to $292 million. * Purchase 16 new F-model Chinook helicopters Boeing for medium and heavy lifting, to be in service by 2013. The deal has been cited at $4.2 billion. Some of them should already be in service. Though it's not quite enough IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 The reason we haven't used them that often (and the last two times have been pretty recent) is that most of the people we fight don't have airforces so should we really stop getting planes on the assumption we won't have to fight anyone that has them? Even if we fought a country with an "airforce" no one dog fights anymore. The last time that happened was in 1992 and guess what it wasn't even great then. Out of Iraq's 200 planes 20 were shot down and those weren't even by other planes. The only reason to have fighter plans is to have something fast enough to get in get out to drop bombs. Again that is still 20 years in the past. Missiles and UAV's have became so much better there is no point any more in sending in the fighter jets unless you are sure they wont be shot down. So spare me please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 So spare me please. Again I should trust you as a military expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) Again I should trust you as a military expert. Ok then please trust "the air force report on future airpower" which states, in the next 20 years Canada will no longer need manned fighter jets. We are actually buying these at time in the next 20 years there will no longer be the need for these things. If we have only used our fighter jets over the period of 1 year in the last 30 I am sure we can take that 9 billion hold on it and spend it in 10 years on the newest and best tech in the world. I keep saying this Canada buys crap at the worst time to buy it. Right now the CF-18s which were upgraded for just that will be fine for our purpose (which is escorting planes in our air space to the ground). They are expected to last over the next 10 years at least when we can actually buy and invest in the cutting edge of this type of tech. It is a bad plan. I think our military deserves the best but I also think with a limited budget this is a waste of our money. Even the armed forces think in the next 20 years these will be obsolete. They say in "the air force report on future airpower" report. Alan Williams, DND's former deputy minister for materiel, says that, before purchasing new fighter aircraft, the air force needs to consider the future role UAVs will play. I think it is you who is not an expert my friend. I am not either but that doesn't mean their aren't plenty of them in Canada who say spend right and look at the future. Edited June 8, 2010 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why does any country need fighter plans anymore? Honestly? Because in modern warfare,an airforce is almost a important as armoured infantry and artillery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Because in modern warfare,an airforce is almost a important as armoured infantry and artillery? Again I am not saying we don't need and airforce, I am saying in this day and age fighter jets aren't a good use of our money. We don't have 9 billion to through around because we want a bunch of toys which are not functional in todays military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Fighter jets aren't just used to fight abroad. We use our fighter jets all of the time to patrol Canada's airspace and to turn away threats, mostly from Russia. We also have NORAD obligations. Oh, and our 2 large helicopter contracts are also worth many billions. It isn't as if we're only buying fighter jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why does any country need fighter plans anymore? Honestly? those darned Taliban are planning to upgrade to Cessnas we got to be prepared...usless planes for enemies we don't have...politcal showmanship that plays well to the slack-jawed yokels who think registering a gun is a commie plot... who the hell are we going to do battle with that we need to spend stupid amounts of cash for planes of this quality? the only opponent that we need this type of plane to combat can nuke us off the map if they chose to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Fighter jets aren't just used to fight abroad. We use our fighter jets all of the time to patrol Canada's airspace and to turn away threats, mostly from Russia. We also have NORAD obligations. Oh, and our 2 large helicopter contracts are also worth many billions. It isn't as if we're only buying fighter jets. Russia isn't a threat and has never been a threat...we are totally incapble even with this plane of deterring any Russia aggression should they chose to do so...all this talk of external threats is pure paranoia...the only threat to our country always has been and always will be from our immediate south...Russia recognizes our territorial claims the USA does not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 We are getting new helicopters. Not spending 9 billion on them thoughMy link it's a little bit old but still good. Thanks for that link, TM.This is the big ticket item: Purchase 16 new F-model Chinook helicopters Boeing for medium and heavy lifting, to be in service by 2013. The deal has been cited at $4.2 billion. Maybe we should spend $9 billion on helicopters and $4 billion on fighters. ---- I simply don't trust Stephen Harper to spend my tax money any more. If he can approve spending $2 million on a fake lake, and $1 billion on a three day summit for politicians/bureaucrats, then his judgment is seriously out of whack. He should not be in a position to make choices of how to spend Canadian taxpayers' money for fighters, helicopters or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) Russia isn't a threat and has never been a threat...we are totally incapble even with this plane of deterring any Russia aggression should they chose to do so... Well, that's yet to be determined. To not have the ability to turn away their probes at our border would be rather embarrassing. all this talk of external threats is pure paranoia...the only threat to our country always has been and always will be from our immediate south...Russia recognizes our territorial claims the USA does not... The US and Canada are trying to make deals on at least 1 and possibly 2 of our 4 border disputes.....don't be so sure about what Russia thinks. In order to claim sovereignty, you need at least the ability to be able to project an image of defence. Fighter aircraft are important for that (as are many other things). Edited June 8, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 I simply don't trust Stephen Harper to spend my tax money any more. If he can approve spending $2 million on a fake lake, and $1 billion on a three day summit for politicians/bureaucrats, then his judgment is seriously out of whack. He should not be in a position to make choices of how to spend Canadian taxpayers' money for fighters, helicopters or anything. Wow, it sure doesn't take much for you to jump ship. I'm actually becoming more impressed with Harper as time goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Ok then please trust "the air force report on future airpower" which states, in the next 20 years Canada will no longer need manned fighter jets. We are actually buying these at time in the next 20 years there will no longer be the need for these things. Googled it and found nothing on Canada. Actually found nothing say manned fighter jets are obsolete at all. Found some thing saying UAV's will be used more often. Though it not like we are buying a lot of these things. We're buying 65 the U.S. is buying over 2000. We're also putting more into UAV's so we aren't neglecting the other areas. August1991 He should not be in a position to make choices of how to spend Canadian taxpayers' money for fighters, helicopters or anything. I agree unfortunately I don't trust any of the other parties to spend the neccessary amount on our military, I'm anticipating budget cuts from any other party. Not a great choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Well, that's yet to be determined. To not have the ability to turn away their probes at our border would be rather embarrassing. the Russians make patrols all the time as do the americans...whn Captian Canada(Harper) made a big show of scrambling the jets as a response to Russian flights the Russians were bemused as they had informed the US of the flights ahead of time...it was pure politcal showmanship on Harpers part no different than stunts pulled by third world dictators...The US and Canada are trying to make deals on at least 1 and possibly two of our 4 border disputes.....don't be so sure about what Russia thinks. Russians are quite clear they support our claims...In order to claim sovereignty, you need at least the ability to be able to project an image of defence. Fighter aircraft are important for that (as are many other things). talk to any smart military dude and they'll tell you the same thing airpower does not control territory, for that you need boots on the ground...or as the Russians do it civilian development, towns, cities.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Well, that's yet to be determined. To not have the ability to turn away their probes at our border would be rather embarrassing. OTOH we could show a lot of chutzpah by shrugging off and laughing at their ridiculous little probes. What on Earth are they going to see that they can't pull off Google Earth anyway? If we're really serious about defending ourselves all we need do is build a few really nasty nukes. Besides there's only one country in the world we need to worry about being invaded by and it ain't Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 those darned Taliban are planning to upgrade to Cessnas we got to be prepared... usless planes for enemies we don't have...politcal showmanship that plays well to the slack-jawed yokels who think registering a gun is a commie plot... who the hell are we going to do battle with that we need to spend stupid amounts of cash for planes of this quality? the only opponent that we need this type of plane to combat can nuke us off the map if they chose to... Jesus Christ he's making the exact argument I dealt with a little while ago. Let's make something clear just because we don't need something now doesn't mean we won't need it. FYI these aren't just fighters they're multirole aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 OTOH we could show a lot of chutzpah by shrugging off and laughing at their ridiculous little probes. What on Earth are they going to see that they can't pull off Google Earth anyway? If we're really serious about defending ourselves all we need do is build a few really nasty nukes. Besides there's only one country in the world we need to worry about being invaded by and it ain't Russia. Really? With a potential border dispute with Russia about resources in the Arctic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) OTOH we could show a lot of chutzpah by shrugging off and laughing at their ridiculous little probes. What on Earth are they going to see that they can't pull off Google Earth anyway? If we're really serious about defending ourselves all we need do is build a few really nasty nukes. Besides there's only one country in the world we need to worry about being invaded by and it ain't Russia. yup and I'd be ok with spending some cash on nukes serious defence for serious enemies...jets for conventional warfare with who? North Korea? if they improve their IBM's in 10 years we can't even match them... we have to look at potential enemies...Russia for what reason? they have more resources of their own more they can develop right now....who else has desires for access to our resources? look south...and those few planes will do us no good, they'll be taken out in less an hour, two tops if they had a mind to... Edited June 8, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Jesus Christ he's making the exact argument I dealt with a little while ago. Let's make something clear just because we don't need something now doesn't mean we won't need it. FYI these aren't just fighters they're multirole aircraft. we don't need it and we won't need it in the future...we have no enemies we can't handle with much less sophisticated and less costly options...the only countries capable of threatening our territory all have nukes and unless we have nukes we have no viable defense...spending billions on high tech wonder planes that can bomb a few insurgents running about in a desert on the other side of the globe is just stupid, use a drone...today's fighter planes are the equivalent of the Man-O-War ships of centuries past, battleships were phallic symbols showing everyone how big and tough you were, give the military or conservative gun strokers unlimited cash and they'll buy the biggest most useless equipment(mine is bigger than yours) possible just to show off to their international military friends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Really? With a potential border dispute with Russia about resources in the Arctic? We and the Russian people will be facing a far more real threat from the BP's of the world that are exploiting those resources than we'll ever face fighting over them. That said maybe fighting over the Arctic will prevent it from be exploited. I changed my mind...order another couple hundred fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Im having a really hard time seeing how spending 10 billion dollars worth of borrowed money on this is going to improve the lives of Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) Wow, it sure doesn't take much for you to jump ship. I'm actually becoming more impressed with Harper as time goes on.A billion dollars is a heck of a lot of money. 9 billion even moreso.My fear is that politically, Harper has now lost all credibility. He cannot go into church basements and explain why the federal government is no longer giving $30,000 to the local Kiwanis Club for its annual paper drive. If harper tries that, voters in rural Alberta/Ontario/Quebec will ask why he spent $1 billion on a three day summit of politicians and bureaucrats in Toronto. Courtesy of Tony Clement, Stephen Harper is now damaged goods. If he doesn't know it now, he will soon know it through the polls. Careful spending of taxpayer money was Harper's calling card, his claim to fame. That reputation is now destroyed. Edited June 8, 2010 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 I'm sorry, but Harper has always been a big spender. It isn't something new, it's just that you were slow to catch on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 OTOH, you have the right idea. The optics here are terrible. If I were Ignatieff, I would get a non-confidence motion before the House as quickly as possible. The Liberals should vote down the budget bill and force an election. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of the EH-101 contract when you mentioned turning this into a political issue. Wasn't it great how Chretien convinced voters that we could save money by not buying those "Cadillac" helicopters and just using those trusty Sea Kings for a little longer? How much did "saving money" on that contract ultimately cost this country? The English have a phrase that goes "Penny smart, pound foolish." WE SHOULDN'T BE BUYING PLANES BECAUSE OUR HELICOPTERS SUCK! The EH-101 fiasco was mentioned not as a rationale for buying F-35s, but to point out that "saving money" can turn out to be awfully expensive. I wondered about this. Why don't we spend $9 billion on helicopters? We could use them on our coasts for rescue operations, and use them abroad for counter insurgency in places like Afghanistan. Those must be those new rescue/assault helicopters I've been hearing so much about. They also double as air-ambulances and traffic helicopters, I hear. -k 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.