Moonbox Posted September 28, 2010 Report Share Posted September 28, 2010 that's all been pointed out on this forum, much if not all of it in this thread...I beginning to suspect journalists are coming here to steal our opinions...the conservative spin is childishly obvious except to the conservative masses that just eat that crap up...russian invasion of two bombers driven off by Dear Leader Captian Canada and his sidekick Peter MacKay ... Haha wyly. Here you are, months later, still repeating this over and over and over. Russian Bears are one of the more minor of a PLENTITUDE of reasons for purchasing this plane. Broken record broken record broken record broken record... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 28, 2010 Report Share Posted September 28, 2010 do your research....Russia is irrelevant in the matter since Antonov is an Ukranian company... The company is named after Oleg Antonov, its founder and head designer of An-2, An-24, An-22 and other legendary planes. The Antonov company lacks facilities for full construction of some aircraft, a result of Soviet industrial strategy that split military production between different regions of the USSR. This distribution minimized potential war loss risks. As a result, Antonov airplanes were often constructed by aerospace companies in Kharkiv (Ukraine), Novosibirsk (Russia), and Tashkent (Uzbekistan). My linken.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov According to the above link Russia does play a large role in Antonov and the production of the AN-124 As the sole military operator of the AN-124 other than the Ruskies, we would be on our own. Wilber is right the only nation operating a military version of the AN-124 is Russia, all the other nations operate a civilian version. It should also be noted that most of those are in long term storage, or in unflyable condition... The 100 and the 210 versions where produced for civilian companies, and operated around the globe including serveral in Britian.... quoted empty loads for both planes....checking other websites the An 124-100 is nearly double the distance 15,250KM,the C-177, 8,700km, the An 124-210 is better yet...with a full load the C-177 80 tons-4,450km, with a 3/4 load 80 tons the AN124 8,000km...and checking the Canadian forces info the C177 normally flies with a 40ton load, at 40 tons the Antonov 124-100 could fly from Trenton to Kandahar without refueling....the antonov is the better plane... I think this question has already been asked why are we comparing the C-17 with the AN -124...kind of like comparing a pick-up truck with a semi.....perhaps the II-76 would have been a better chioce or if your stuck on the AN-124 perhaps a aircraft atleast in the same class such as the C-5. Atleast with the II-76MF or TF the facts line up alot better....all that being said neither are in production....the AN-124 is being looked at by the Russian Airforce but as of today no contracts have been signed.... how many countries ordered the C5 Galaxy? none...parts are not an issue they can be delivered anywhere in the world in a day.. Perhaps that had alot to do with the US government not willing to export them at the time.... Parts are a big deal, and while it is true you can get parts around the globe in 24 hours....the real question is are they willing to sell them to you, with the political will changing every 5 mins....I'm sure if the the US had made a big deal out of the gorgian conflict do you think Mother Russia would be willing to supply parts to other NATO countries.... Even with the old cold war days long behind us, there still remains the fact that Russia still supplies most of our potential enemies with russia built equipment.....thats a problem when you enter a conflict and everyone has the same toys.....Hence why most western armies tend to stay with western products....to avoid confusion on any battle field....Combine that with the parts issue, then add to the inferior product and workmenship and that pretty much sums up why Russian equipment is avoided..... So that narrows down the field awhole lot when dealing with the C-17 as being the best aircraft on the market , at the time.... What the public sees is what the Media protrays....DND is wasting your tax dollars and purchsing wontonly, equipment that according to you we will never use.....IF you read up on the F-35 purchase and all the process DND went through before a contract was even signed it might put your mind at ease....a lot of these articles are available in the Canadian military journal, which is available on line to everyone.... It's not being purchased solely becuase of those nasty russian bear aircraft....there are many reasons, one of them is the uncertianity of what our government is going to task our military with next, we still have agreements with our allieds that may see Canada in a high intensity war which these aircraft will excell ....and while dropping bombs on a few insurgents seems like a waste of money to you....to a grunt like me having an aircraft that can put wpns down a terrorist pants is well worth the money.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted September 29, 2010 Report Share Posted September 29, 2010 The following is a comparison of the F35 to other fighter by Australian and wha they found. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2010 Report Share Posted September 29, 2010 The following is a comparison of the F35 to other fighter by Australian and wha they found. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html I hope you realize that this is not an Australian government site but just another geek site...in this case, one that sells immigration ads... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted September 29, 2010 Report Share Posted September 29, 2010 (edited) So in the opinion of many here it's a good idea to fund the program to develop one plane to the tune of hundreds of millions then turn around and purchase a different plane. Canada seems to always have sub standard equipment when compared to its allies and for once we'll have decent, up to date equipment instead of some hand me downs or 20 year old stuff. This is just a case of whatever the Tories do is wrong, no matter what it is. Not to mention it was the Liberals who made the decision to fund this program. No need to talk about that though. Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted September 29, 2010 Report Share Posted September 29, 2010 How much did the Liberal's canceling of the helicopter contract end up costing us, including the eventual purchase they were forced into because the existing ones were falling out of the sky? I can see a debate on whether we need fighters at all, though I think we do. But this choice is gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Canada seems to always have sub standard equipment when compared to its allies and for once we'll have decent, up to date equipment instead of some hand me downs or 20 year old stuff. Yeah...like the CH-149, the CC-130J, the CC-177, the Leopard 2A6, and the...need I go on? The story of Canada having substandard equipment is an old and outdated one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Yeah...like the CH-149, the CC-130J, the CC-177, the Leopard 2A6, and the...need I go on? The story of Canada having substandard equipment is an old and outdated one. Our land mines suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Our land mines suck That's really unfortunate, because in my limited military knowledge, aren't they supposed to blow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 That's really unfortunate, because in my limited military knowledge, aren't they supposed to blow? Har! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Is the F-35 the one and only? Maybe not...... http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/09/29/boeing-bets-on-black.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 I'm quite happy with the new fighter jets our National Defence needs after being decimated by Chretein's government. Harper makes sure our North stays ours. Lock stock and barrel. In contrast to waste like couple billion dollar totally useless registration of duck guns, cancelling helicopters, while ordering new Lear jets for Liberal politicians to travel around, bribing Quebec and paying off Liberals sponsors...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Yeah...like the CH-149, the CC-130J, the CC-177, the Leopard 2A6, and the...need I go on? The story of Canada having substandard equipment is an old and outdated one. Yep and if it wasn't for the Tories pushing for upgrades none of these would've happened. The Liberals , BQ and NDP are happy to let our armed forces rust into non existence. They hate the military for the most part, unless it provides them a photo op. Edited September 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Is the F-35 the one and only? Maybe not...... http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/09/29/boeing-bets-on-black.aspx There was a time when the Hawker Hunter was one of the best jet aircraft available. Standing next to one today you'd still be amazed by its good looks and weapons carrying ability. Doesn't mean we should buy them for our air force, though. Edited September 30, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Do you know why we need 65? The minister said for replacements, one shot in the tail and its over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Yep and if it wasn't for the Tories pushing for upgrades none of these would've happened. Actually, most of the current defence budget comes from Martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Do you know why we need 65? The minister said for replacements, one shot in the tail and its over. Do you know how many planes were shot down during the Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission? Sixty-five. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) Haha wyly. Here you are, months later, still repeating this over and over and over. Russian Bears are one of the more minor of a PLENTITUDE of reasons for purchasing this plane. Broken record broken record broken record broken record... here's what I learned working with children, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat and even then some of the more simple minded still won't get it... Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) The company is named after Oleg Antonov, its founder and head designer of An-2, An-24, An-22 and other legendary planes. The Antonov company lacks facilities for full construction of some aircraft, a result of Soviet industrial strategy that split military production between different regions of the USSR. This distribution minimized potential war loss risks. As a result, Antonov airplanes were often constructed by aerospace companies in Kharkiv (Ukraine), Novosibirsk (Russia), and Tashkent (Uzbekistan). My linken.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov According to the above link Russia does play a large role in Antonov and the production of the AN-124 and Canada plays a role in manufacturering american aircraft as do other countries... and since wiki is your fav go to source Antonov, or Antonov Aeronautical Scientist/Technical Complex (Antonov ASTC) (Ukrainian: Авіаційний науково-технічний комплекс імені Антонова, АНТК ім. Антонова), formerly the Antonov Design Bureau, is a Ukrainian aircraft manufacturing and services company with particular expertise in the field of very large aircraft construction. Antonov ASTC is a state-owned commercial company. Wilber is right the only nation operating a military version of the AN-124 is Russia, all the other nations operate a civilian version. It should also be noted that most of those are in long term storage, or in unflyable condition...in soviet design all planes were dual military civilian, the "civilian" version is not inferior to the military version...and the US air force has contracted this civilian/military version until 2016 and it has served the american military as well as most Nato countries...unflyable condition? Libya, UAE are both operating cargo fleets with the An 124...the prime reason Canada bought the C17 was the waiting time for leasing the An124 it's continually in demand, it's hard to do quick disaster relief when there is mutli-week wait for a plane lease...I think this question has already been asked why are we comparing the C-17 with the AN -124...kind of like comparing a pick-up truck with a semi.....perhaps the II-76 would have been a better chioce or if your stuck on the AN-124 perhaps a aircraft atleast in the same class such as the C-5.because the US doesn't even like the C5 that's the reason they built the C17 which production is to stop in 2013...we bought an obsolete plane, wasn't that one of reasons not to consider buying the F18 super Hornet?...which by the way the US Navy has just agreed to buy more of... Atleast with the II-76MF or TF the facts line up alot better....all that being said neither are in production....the AN-124 is being looked at by the Russian Airforce but as of today no contracts have been signed.... as of today Russia and the Ukraine have agreed to build 60 new planes...ya they're so under used they're going to build 60 more at 200mill per just for the hell of it...Perhaps that had alot to do with the US government not willing to export them at the time....Parts are a big deal, and while it is true you can get parts around the globe in 24 hours....the real question is are they willing to sell them to you, with the political will changing every 5 mins....I'm sure if the the US had made a big deal out of the gorgian conflict do you think Mother Russia would be willing to supply parts to other NATO countries... perhaps it's because it was a crap plane that no country not even the USA wants...only in the minds of those who are unaware the cold war is over, Russia is not the enemy..maybe we shouldn't trade with the Japanese, Germans and americans for the same reasons, they used to be our enemies... What the public sees is what the Media protrays....DND is wasting your tax dollars and purchsing wontonly, equipment that according to you we will never use.....IF you read up on the F-35 purchase and all the process DND went through before a contract was even signed it might put your mind at ease....a lot of these articles are available in the Canadian military journal, which is available on line to everyone.... from the DND insider-"The sole-sourcing was stupid. It was in the country's interests to hold an open competition and invite four manufacturers to hawk their wares. We didn't go through this process. [Defence Minister] Peter Mac-Kay says there was a competition, but there was only an internal study. That means we'll never be able to determine how much they would have reduced their price or the scope of industrial benefits they would have offered," said one DND insider."-my mind is not at ease...It's not being purchased solely becuase of those nasty russian bear aircraft....there are many reasons, one of them is the uncertianity of what our government is going to task our military with next, we still have agreements with our allieds that may see Canada in a high intensity war which these aircraft will excell ....and while dropping bombs on a few insurgents seems like a waste of money to you....to a grunt like me having an aircraft that can put wpns down a terrorist pants is well worth the money.... well lets get nuclear subs, balistic missiles and super carriers too we have no idea what our government is going to task us with next...where does it stop?...and dropping bombs omn insurgents is about the most useless thing this plane can do, an A10 would do a far better job and for 120 million less per unit... Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Do you know how many planes were shot down during the Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission? Sixty-five. and these will be eliminated just as as quickly...any enemy that we need these for could eliminate our few air bases in a matter of hours, the planes would never see any action... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 and these will be eliminated just as as quickly...any enemy that we need these for could eliminate our few air bases in a matter of hours, the planes would never see any action... Perhaps...perhaps not. I'm more for fighting for our country rather than letting whatever enemy that comes along roll over us uncontested. As for your assertions that Russia isn't the enemy... Russia will behave as Russia always has and probably always will. If push comes to shove, Russia shoves. Ask Finland and Georgia. If the USA weakens to the point where the Russians get bold, we could well get the Finland treatment in terms of 'our' Arctic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 Perhaps...perhaps not. I'm more for fighting for our country rather than letting whatever enemy that comes along roll over us uncontested. As for your assertions that Russia isn't the enemy... Russia will behave as Russia always has and probably always will. If push comes to shove, Russia shoves. Ask Finland and Georgia. If the USA weakens to the point where the Russians get bold, we could well get the Finland treatment in terms of 'our' Arctic. ya and the Italians could march out of Italy with their legions and take over europe again as could the Germans as that's what the Germans have been doing for 2000years...history is just that history, what my father, grandfather and ancestors did has no relevance in my life today, I can assure you I have no urge to gather my tribal hordes and take over europe...I fear the americans desire for our resources more than the russians...the americans have a past history of doing that as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 ya and the Italians could march out of Italy with their legions and take over europe again as could the Germans as that's what the Germans have been doing for 2000years...history is just that history, what my father, grandfather and ancestors did has no relevance in my life today, I can assure you I have no urge to gather my tribal hordes and take over europe... I fear the americans desire for our resources more than the russians...the americans have a past history of doing that as well... Not 1971...2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) Not 1971...2010. oh please! it was a VE celebration, Brits, french and Americans had troops in the parade as well... the americans can't have a little league game without having a military parade at the ceremonies.... Russian being such an agressive nation as you would have me believe it seems odd that they would release resource rich regions (16?)to become independent nations...why hasn't the USA cut the strings to it's colonies? Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2010 Report Share Posted October 1, 2010 oh please! it was a VE celebration, Brits and french had troops in the parade as well... the americans can't have a little league game without having a military parade at the ceremonies.... Russian being such an agressive nation as you would have me believe it seems odd that they would release resource rich regions (16?)to become independent nations...why hasn't the USA cut the strings to it's colonies? Yeah...America trots out its nuclear weapons for parades all the time. This year's parade reminded all who witnessed it ('cepting u) of the 'good old days'. 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.