bush_cheney2004 Posted October 1, 2010 Report Posted October 1, 2010 ...I fear the americans desire for our resources more than the russians...the americans have a past history of doing that as well... ...but apparently no fear of American and other foreign investment to get those resources to market. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Posted October 1, 2010 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'. oh horrors, a military parade with a weapons display...I recall a military parade of ships in Halifax when I was a kid which included american, french and british ships quite likely some nuclear armed is there a difference? you're being biased in your condemnation... I find the military parading around with weapons at a sports event much more offensive... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2010 Report Posted October 1, 2010 oh horrors, a military parade with a weapons display...I recall a military parade of ships in Halifax when I was a kid which included american, french and british ships quite likely some nuclear armed is there a difference? you're being biased in your condemnation... I find the military parading around with weapons at a sports event much more offensive... Not just 'weapons'...thermonuclear weapons on top of intercontinental ballistic missiles. What part of the War in Russia 1941-45 does that celebrate? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted October 1, 2010 Report Posted October 1, 2010 Not just 'weapons'...thermonuclear weapons on top of intercontinental ballistic missiles. What part of the War in Russia 1941-45 does that celebrate? brainless logic...what war does a marine colour guard at a little league game celebrate... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2010 Report Posted October 1, 2010 brainless logic...what war does a marine colour guard at a little league game celebrate... What colourguard at what game? Post vid. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Topaz Posted October 3, 2010 Report Posted October 3, 2010 No foreign country has bought the F35 but Israel may be the first to do so. The catch is that the US muilitary will ended up paying for them by their military aid to this country. The US taxpayers will be on the hook for 2.75 Bil. and I don't think this will set well for those taxpayers who really having a hard time of it with personal debt and the countries 9+ trillion debt. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000583788&fid=1725 Quote
Topaz Posted October 3, 2010 Report Posted October 3, 2010 Seems to be some problem with this fighter and has be grounded. Who says what you don't know won't hurt you? http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/10/defense-jsf-grounded-100110/ Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 3, 2010 Report Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) No foreign country has bought the F35 but Israel may be the first to do so. The catch is that the US muilitary will ended up paying for them by their military aid to this country. The "US military" does not pay for foreign aid to Israel...in fact, it benefits from close coordination, operations, and field testing with Israel. The US taxpayers will be on the hook for 2.75 Bil. and I don't think this will set well for those taxpayers who really having a hard time of it with personal debt and the countries 9+ trillion debt. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000583788&fid=1725 Some US taxpayers don't want to pay for NORAD or NATO either. Or selling C-17's to Canada jumping in line. Too bad. Edited October 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 3, 2010 Report Posted October 3, 2010 Seems to be some problem with this fighter and has be grounded. Who says what you don't know won't hurt you? http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/10/defense-jsf-grounded-100110/ A normal and expected event in the development of any new type. Also happens after deployment. See B-52. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted October 3, 2010 Report Posted October 3, 2010 A normal and expected event in the development of any new type. Also happens after deployment. See B-52. Or the first B-36 Peacemakers with the massive single tire main gear that used to crack concrete. B-36A All others Oooooops...our bad. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) and Canada plays a role in manufacturering american aircraft as do other countries... and since wiki is your fav go to sourceAntonov, 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. OK we all get it is a Ukrainian owns the company....One that is still dependant on a decision made long ago ......During the cold war Soviet industrial strategy that split military production between different regions of the USSR. This distribution minimized potential war loss risks. The Antonov company lacks facilities for full construction of some aircraft, As a result, Antonov airplanes were often constructed by aerospace companies in Kharkiv (Ukraine), Novosibirsk (Russia), and Tashkent (Uzbekistan). All this was in reply to your comment do your research....Russia is irrelevant in the matter since Antonov is an Ukranian company... When in fact Russia plays a large part in the production of AN-124. infact they can not produce them without Russia's involvement... 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... They are totally different aircraft, with different specs, ratings, and operational focus, the civilian versions are export versions.....Funney how you forgot to mention that Russia has a long practice of producing 2 versions of everything, one for mother Russia, and a dumbed down version or export version.... the Orginal AN-124 was designed for the Russian military any Aircraft produced after this ARE civilian versions, those that the US airforce has contracted out have been civilian versions.... unflyable condition? Libya, UAE are both operating cargo fleets with the An 124.. Perhaps you should read my quote again....The only nation operating the military version of the AN-124 is Russia...And most of those are in long term storage or in unflyable condition.....I made no mention of the Civilain versions like those operating in Libya or UAE, or even the UK. 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 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... Acually that reason is number 3 on the list, check out the link below, (not from WIKKI) you'll find it in ANN A Page 10/20 Para 2 System operation,missions and Scenarios DND orginal SOA My linkhttp://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/documents/acps-sor-eng.pdf I think you find that limk above the DND statement of operational requirement will also answer some of these statements you've made as well. you haven't made a single point mr "expert", the CC-177 was the only plane available at the time not the best...and despite all your twisting and ducking and you haven't justified a no-bid contract... but the entire point of my posts is excluding competitors from the bidding process, "a no-bid contract" based on past political disputes and false information and assumptions...it's our tax dollars being spent irresponsibly ... 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 I'd need to see a link that says the US airforce does not like the C-5, when in fact they are doing a mid life rebuild on most of them now as we speak, or why they are going to be in service for the next 15 to 20 years....for something they count on to move bulk equipment and the time they plan on keeping them around how could they not like them.... The reason they built the C-17....come on cut us some slack....perhaps it's time you did some research...the orginal designs for the C-17 was born out of the need to replace the C-141, and to replace some of the capibilities lost with the retirement of some of the first C-5's.....in fact the Airforce has a project looking at finding a C-5 replacement but it is not a priority project. As for the C-17 being obsolete, your crazy...production lines will stay open until there is no further orders...rumours about closure having been going on for years...and just before the deadline hits more orders come in....the US airforce is not done with this aircraft just yet.... 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... Yes they did, to replace their older F-18's and thier EA-6B aircraft ( which are close to 30 years old) that and the fact that the F-35N ( navy) has not gone into production, what else were they suppose to do....Unlike Canada they the US Navy has the funds to purchase multi airframes we don't instead we crunch as many types into one airframe as we can, every 20 to 25 years.... 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... Could you please provide a link, becuae Janes which is a pretty reliable military intel source still is reporting that Russia is looking at a new purchase of updated AN-124 but has yet to sign any contracts, and it also stated it was looking at 24 aircraft not 60. To replace it's existing fleet of An-124 which are either in storeage or unserviceable....Not saying your source is incorrect i'd just like to read it. 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... While the west have warmed up to Russia, don't be fooled into think they are our friends....they are still a considered a threat within NATO, or perhaps you can explain why NATO spends so much time and assets keeping an eye on what they are up to... But like i explained to you already Russia tends to sell alot of it's export equipment to other countries that are higher on the threat list, countries like Iran, old Iraq, libya, Syria, most African countries that NATO may or may not have engagements with in the future, western forces are getting better at preventing Blue on Blue engagements but they still happen, now mix in the same type of equipment that our enemies are using and your looking for a an accident waiting to happen.....bad enough you have to worry about the bad guys but when you have to watch out for the good guys as well...that one fact only is worth purchasing western made equipment only.... 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... One source, i'm sure you could find many more that don't agree with everything about this contract, shit within every large organization you'll find alot of people who disagree with the policies or decisions that are made....but what you've been unable to do is provide a aircraft that is a gen 5 aircraft that meets all the specs DND has laided down....Sure you've laid out many gen 3 aircraft, even some gen 2 aircraft like the A-10....which is not even the same type we need or want, but they do not meet the specs.....and in 25 years (because historically thats how long we keep them )what will we have....another aircraft that can not do it's primary function....Shit in kosvo (and that was how long ago)it was restricted to providing CAP, because we lacked the ability to drop smart wpns....yes we could drop dumb bombs but really so can a herc.... 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?... It stops when our government decides to stop sending us on missions that we are not prepared for...it stops when Canadian soldiers stop coming home in bags due to old, or useless equipment, something the Canadian government and it's people have control over.... 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... Really you mean the same aircraft type that nearly destroyed 2 full companies of RCR's in a freindly fire incident....had this aircraft had all the bells and whistles of a newer generation aircraft,with Friend or foe ground capability this may of never happened..... If it's money your interested in shit why not just stick to the herc like the argies did in the falklands kicking bombs out the back ....it's cheaper, and is multi purpose.... A f-35 can drop a smaller but more acurate wpn, which translate into more enemy dead, less colateral damage, less friendly fire incidents..... Edited October 4, 2010 by Army Guy 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 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Blue on blue is a horrific reality in warfare. Reducing the potential means a lot to our citizens under arms. The US has perfected a system for use with armour, and has carried it forward to some degree with its future warrior program. Nice toys, actually worth what they cost for a change! At any rate I must agree that the mission determines the hardware and old shit is bad shit within those confines. Quote
Topaz Posted October 6, 2010 Report Posted October 6, 2010 It appears Lockheed has it own problems with the US government concerns over expenses of the F-35. Maybe the opposition parties are right about this being too expensive. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/lockheed-loses-pentagon-certification-of-f-35-cost-system-on-deficiencies.html Quote
Topaz Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 The "US military" does not pay for foreign aid to Israel...in fact, it benefits from close coordination, operations, and field testing with Israel. Some US taxpayers don't want to pay for NORAD or NATO either. Or selling C-17's to Canada jumping in line. Too bad. US government or military its comes from the same source the tax payer! http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html Quote
Topaz Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 And the problems keep mounting and the Canadian government would be really stupid to not look further into this fighter BEFORE signing any contracts. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Turbulence+dogs+stealth+fighter+plane/3634741/story.html Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 And the problems keep mounting and the Canadian government would be really stupid to not look further into this fighter BEFORE signing any contracts. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Turbulence+dogs+stealth+fighter+plane/3634741/story.html Really? Why bother? You and I as well as most citizens know that this kind of crap is pure vanilla for politicians. Billions of tax dollars at stake and simply no way not to spend them all! We would have been further ahead paying Bombardier to build a next generation Arrow and keep all the tax dollars in Canada, not just some of them. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 And the problems keep mounting and the Canadian government would be really stupid to not look further into this fighter BEFORE signing any contracts. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Turbulence+dogs+stealth+fighter+plane/3634741/story.html Accordingly, the Americans (and their Canadian helpers) should have never went to the Moon as the Saturn V/Apollo was a known death trap that suffered from a rushed production schedule and nearly a complete lack of full-up testing. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 Accordingly, the Americans (and their Canadian helpers) should have never went to the Moon as the Saturn V/Apollo was a known death trap that suffered from a rushed production schedule and nearly a complete lack of full-up testing. NASA has a reasonable track record, volunteer employees to do the risky stuff, and all in all a fair to middling operation. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 NASA has a reasonable track record, volunteer employees to do the risky stuff, and all in all a fair to middling operation. Lockheed has an excellent track record. One of many... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 Lockheed has an excellent track record. One of many... One of my fav aircraft of all time! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 7, 2010 Report Posted October 7, 2010 One of my fav aircraft of all time! Mine too. Had the privilege of flying in several as a youngin'. Another great Lockheed machine...Kelly Johnson's SR-71. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Mine too. Had the privilege of flying in several as a youngin'. Another great Lockheed machine...Kelly Johnson's SR-71. Now there was a bird that could do stuff! No good as a fighter, but gads the thing had balls! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) Now there was a bird that could do stuff! No good as a fighter, but gads the thing had balls! Purely recon...still the fastest jet aircraft ever if I'm not mistaken. The MiG-25A could hit mach 3 for short periods but the SR-71 could maintain that speed for most of its mission. Canada has bought Lockheed aircraft in the past...the zippy F-104 Starfighter. Its single J-79 could send it to 100,000 feet unloaded. Edited October 8, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Purely recon...still the fastest jet aircraft ever if I'm not mistaken. The MiG-25A could hit mach 3 for short periods but the SR-71 could maintain that speed for most of its mission. Canada has bought Lockheed aircraft in the past...the zippy F-104 Starfighter. Its single J-79 could send it to 100,000 feet unloaded. Good bird, yet too many issue for my likes. Wings too short, small combat radius, single engine, bad stall speeds, low weapons payload etc. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 I was never an F18 fan. I prefer the F15 or even the F16 to it. The F20 was damned interesting, yet not good enough. As it stands I would rather a couple of squadrons of F22's but that isn't going to happen. The F35 is about right for us, even if I am not a fan. Quote
.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.