bush_cheney2004 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Isn't the US and AUS getting these a full 3 years before us? I wonder if we can just hold off and wait and see if they are lemons? God I am so out of element when it comes to aircraft. Don't worry...Canada is not even officially in line for the F-35 strike fighters yet. Just like other previous procurements, Canada will waver and wobble over the decision while other nations move ahead and place firm orders. Just don't expect to butt in line as before to get on the schedule ahead of others (e.g C-17). And watch out for those very stiff cancellation fees! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Don't worry...Canada is not even officially in line for the F-35 strike fighters yet. Just like other previous procurements, Canada will waver and wobble over the decision while other nations move ahead and place firm orders. Just don't expect to butt in line as before to get on the schedule ahead of others (e.g C-17). And watch out for those very stiff cancellation fees! Canadian governments are rarely seen doing what is right. This is just another business deal with another foreign nation thats all that it is, nobody should forget that. Its the governments responsibility to provide for national defense. Its our tax dollars that pay for all this crap anyway. WE, the tax payers need to grow a pair and become far more vocal and active within the political landscape. Only the people, in their vast numbers, can really implement true change. Its not the politicians that really count, its the folks providing voices to the arguments from any side of an equation. This is scary stuff for the politicians folks. Democracy and its power is fully capable of providing a fear of consequences attitude to its elected representatives. Having said all of this, the folks in this nation do not at this point in time perceive any kind of viable threat let alone a potential or non-visible threat to our sovereignty and citizenry. Their is in short, no political will to fund an arms buildup without sufficient cause. To the hawks I suggest that you keep circling, and have an eye out for the sheeple that wander away from the herd. For the fellowship of citizens I suggest we venture forward in great numbers in many directions at the same time. That is how we will find our freedom and security, by looking for friends and helping strangers. Our dollars could be better spent on trade agreements and funding humanitarian efforts. From my perspective, I see citizens chained to their opinions by their own political leadership. I see a general malaise with respect to the public opinion of politics in general and politicians in particular. We have been devoid of the kind of political leadership necessary to effect true progress in the evolution of this society we call Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 ...WE, the tax payers need to grow a pair and become far more vocal and active within the political landscape. Only the people, in their vast numbers, can really implement true change. Its not the politicians that really count, its the folks providing voices to the arguments from any side of an equation. This is scary stuff for the politicians folks. Democracy and its power is fully capable of providing a fear of consequences attitude to its elected representatives. That's all well and good, but it's the elected politicians that have made commitments for Canadian Forces while underfunding the DND for decades now. Canada will talk a good game for a "seat at the table", but when it comes time to deliver it often comes up short because of shortsighted decisions...or no decision at all. Then there is a mad scramble to try and fill the gaps in real time when a commitment must be honored....checks written by Ottawa's mouth can't always be cashed. So allowances will be made just to get Canada the kit it should have planned better for in the first place. Frankly, I think you are seeing "democracy" in action, and it isn't always very efficient. Far beyond there being no "visible threat", certain elements want Canadian Forces hobbled to the point of complete inadequacy and disengagement from any possible future military deployments. In the case of tactical aircraft in Afghanistan, they got their wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Well said BC.... I think it is time for the Tax payers to grow a set, and decide once and for all what it is they want in regards to defence, and stop whinning about the consquences.....either we leave it up to the US and live by their rules or we pay our own way and make our own rules....either way stop leading our military by acting like we do care....and let them get on with their lifes....i think we owe them atleast that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Don't worry...Canada is not even officially in line for the F-35 strike fighters yet. Just like other previous procurements, Canada will waver and wobble over the decision while other nations move ahead and place firm orders. Just don't expect to butt in line as before to get on the schedule ahead of others (e.g C-17). And watch out for those very stiff cancellation fees! Ummm, not in line and cancellation fees?!?! What's wrong with that picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Ummm, not in line and cancellation fees?!?! What's wrong with that picture? He is saying we will get in line, Canadians will lose it because we are in line your guys will get in and cost a billion dollars to keep a promise then we will end up at the back of the line for more money and the samething as before. It is what happened last time we had an argument like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Canadian governments are rarely seen doing what is right. This is just another business deal with another foreign nation thats all that it is, nobody should forget that. Its the governments responsibility to provide for national defense. Its our tax dollars that pay for all this crap anyway. WE, the tax payers need to grow a pair and become far more vocal and active within the political landscape. Only the people, in their vast numbers, can really implement true change. Its not the politicians that really count, its the folks providing voices to the arguments from any side of an equation. This is scary stuff for the politicians folks. Democracy and its power is fully capable of providing a fear of consequences attitude to its elected representatives. Having said all of this, the folks in this nation do not at this point in time perceive any kind of viable threat let alone a potential or non-visible threat to our sovereignty and citizenry. Their is in short, no political will to fund an arms buildup without sufficient cause. To the hawks I suggest that you keep circling, and have an eye out for the sheeple that wander away from the herd. For the fellowship of citizens I suggest we venture forward in great numbers in many directions at the same time. That is how we will find our freedom and security, by looking for friends and helping strangers. Our dollars could be better spent on trade agreements and funding humanitarian efforts. From my perspective, I see citizens chained to their opinions by their own political leadership. I see a general malaise with respect to the public opinion of politics in general and politicians in particular. We have been devoid of the kind of political leadership necessary to effect true progress in the evolution of this society we call Canada. AMEN! I second that emotion... EXCELLENT POST! Write your MP today (I have, but being it's a CON in my riding I've sent it to ALL the parties including the Bloc)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Ummm, not in line and cancellation fees?!?! What's wrong with that picture? Not really cancellation fees. Just lost discounts! This started some years ago. The Liberals signed us up for the program, with the initial commitment to buy the 65 planes we keep talking about. This earned us more favourable pricing and a better place in the line. It also guaranteed a few billions for our Aerospace companies, who would get contracts to build some of the pieces. If we renege then we don't get our deposit back and although I don't know the exact figure apparently it was considerable. If we bail out, argue our faces off at home and then decide that there's no other plane for us we start from square one. Full price, we wait our turn and screw Canada for those billion dollar contracts. Then we can all sit around and smugly tell ourselves that we don't need to spend any money on our military 'cuz the Yanks have to protect us anyways. We'll keep sending our boys overseas on peacekeeping missions in the wrong colour of camo gear, with obsolete bows and arrows to fight against countries like Serbia that have us outgunned! Of course, we'll get very indignant when the US doesn't bother to take us seriously, since we are essentially freeloaders. And we'll all take off our hats as the bodies are transported down the Highway of Heroes. Many of those boys would be still alive if we had have had the helicopter support Chretien torpedoed years ago, just out of petty spite for Mulroney! The bastard should have been forced to commute daily in a Sea King! Oh dear! I can feel my blood pressure going up! Time for a cuppa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I perfer to have then and not use then instead of needing them and not having them. This world is only going to get worse and it is about time people realize that, the days of appeasement are over ,it has never worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Not really cancellation fees. Just lost discounts! This started some years ago. The Liberals signed us up for the program, with the initial commitment to buy the 65 planes we keep talking about. This earned us more favourable pricing and a better place in the line. It also guaranteed a few billions for our Aerospace companies, who would get contracts to build some of the pieces. If we renege then we don't get our deposit back and although I don't know the exact figure apparently it was considerable. If we bail out, argue our faces off at home and then decide that there's no other plane for us we start from square one. Full price, we wait our turn and screw Canada for those billion dollar contracts. Then we can all sit around and smugly tell ourselves that we don't need to spend any money on our military 'cuz the Yanks have to protect us anyways. We'll keep sending our boys overseas on peacekeeping missions in the wrong colour of camo gear, with obsolete bows and arrows to fight against countries like Serbia that have us outgunned! Of course, we'll get very indignant when the US doesn't bother to take us seriously, since we are essentially freeloaders. And we'll all take off our hats as the bodies are transported down the Highway of Heroes. Many of those boys would be still alive if we had have had the helicopter support Chretien torpedoed years ago, just out of petty spite for Mulroney! The bastard should have been forced to commute daily in a Sea King! Oh dear! I can feel my blood pressure going up! Time for a cuppa... No matter how one tries one can't make a purse out of a pigs ear... But everyone knows that pigs can't fly... Now - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621061 Future - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621074 Edited February 11, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Ucav's today.... Advantages of Future UCAVs over Manned Aircraft Vehicle Cost Cheaper to build since pilot requirements such as cockpit controls and gauges, ejection seat, oxygen, canopy, and pressurization are unnecessary. Saves about 10 percent on overall vehicle cost, including remote-control equipment. Some advantages negated by remote ground-station costs. One of the big factors quoted by the pro UCAV crowd, however taking the pilot out of the plane only sees a 10 % saving.... Range and Endurance Longer flight times and ranges due to less drag and better engine placement without the canopy and cockpit. No human limits on flight-endurance time. Some UCAVs may fly for days over enemy territory. The UCAV that have the endurence are prop driven....those that have jet engines may have a small advantage over manned fighters but will will still need to refuel when making long range missions....but will still have a major advantage in regards to pilot fatigue No Crew Risk No political risk from casualties or POWs. Can employ nonlethal weapons to put an enemy to sleep such as acoustic or brain-wave manipulation. Can operate in a nuclear, biological,or chemical environment with no risk to the pilot. Survivability Unmanned design without a canopy makes aircraft smaller and lowers radar cross section. Absence of humans permits high 10G-plus turns to avoid enemy missiles. Training Most training for UCAV operators is in simulators. No dependence on weather or maintenance-ready aircraft. Periodic exercise participation such as Red Flags to test doctrine and manned-flight interface. Training and Support Costs With only periodic flight training and little to no maintenance on the majority of "stored" UCAVs, there is a large reduction in peacetime training, fuel, and maintenance support costs. This is a major cost savings area, and may be a major piont that sees more nations using UCAV's... Personnel Fewer pilots and support personnel are needed. UCAV operators can fly numerous UCAV sorties sequentially or at the same time. With few training flights, fewer maintenance personnel and less equipment are required. Some of the problems that come with operating UCAV's Datalink Communications- 1. Loss of control due to enemy jamming or signal manipulation, this is a major concern right now, and one that could result in some major investments, and R&D costs.... 2. Long connectivity lapses due to distance, satellite location, or friendly mutual interference, once again to solve this would require more investment into additional Sats, or improved coms stations. 3. Limited amount of frequency bandwidths to accommodate large numbers of secure links for multiple UCAV operations This factor really limits the amount and use of UCAV of the future in combat...to solve this issue new harden sat tech will have to be developed and will add to the costs of the UCAV program....and will limit the amount of UCAV that can fly , which means they will have to be augmented by Manned fighters .... Air Refueling 1. Transoceanic deployment distances and communications 2. Risk to KC-135 or KC-10 high-value assets 3. Tanker joinup and multiaircraft air refueling Currently there is no automated program to ensure the safety of refueling assets...I'm sure this is a minor problem but it still an obsticle. Operator Situational Awareness 1. Number of aircraft per operator or operators per aircraft 2. Air traffic control (ATC) and enemy airspace deconfliction from other aircraft 3. Threat reactions for visual antiaircraft artillery, infrared surface-to-air missiles, or enemy aircraft Emergencies 1. Less capability to rapidly assess and correct aircraft problems 2. Unable to see damage, feel small vibrations, or smell smoke 3. UAV-capable alternate airfield recovery due to fuel or weather My link Although the link is to another board the and the article is about turning the F-16 into UCAV it does talk alot about future UCAV's. Other problems currently the US airfoce is struggling with some minor issues regarding the Conventions and rules of engagement....which are limiting the use of Armed UAVs in operations today.The below link explains it all Rules of war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 He is saying we will get in line, Canadians will lose it because we are in line your guys will get in and cost a billion dollars to keep a promise then we will end up at the back of the line for more money and the samething as before. It is what happened last time we had an argument like this. So don't get back in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 No matter how one tries one can't make a purse out of a pigs ear... But everyone knows that pigs can't fly... NOW - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621061 FUTURE - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621074 I don't know if it's you or me but so far out of all the links you've put up NONE of them will work for me! Does anyone else have this problem with GWiz's links? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 I don't know if it's you or me but so far out of all the links you've put up NONE of them will work for me! Does anyone else have this problem with GWiz's links? No problem for me...I'm glad the links don't work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I don't know if it's you or me but so far out of all the links you've put up NONE of them will work for me! Does anyone else have this problem with GWiz's links? yup, none have worked for me either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Again, the Liberals are NOT saying this isn't the jet, they are saying we NEED an open bid, especially now when there are problems with the F-35 starting to surf and other countries are not now thinking twice about the jet. Would you buy a house without a hoouse inspection? You deserve everything you find wrong with that house, after you buy it without one. Canada needs this open bid and there is still time before the order has to be signed but the Tories are on a one-track mind on this. The money for this jet, is it new money that he Tories like to print? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 The money for this jet, is it new money that he Tories like to print? Again (for something like the third time), no. This was budgeted for way back in 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Some of the problems that come with operating UCAV's Datalink Communications- 1. Loss of control due to enemy jamming or signal manipulation, this is a major concern right now, and one that could result in some major investments, and R&D costs.... So don't require the use of a datalink. Use AI. For example preprogam missions and plan contigency responses. This can even be hardprogrammed and reinitializable if there is partial system failure with each --- if --- x occurence then initiate y program. 2. Long connectivity lapses due to distance, satellite location, or friendly mutual interference, once again to solve this would require more investment into additional Sats, or improved coms stations. So don't require the use of a datalink. Use AI. For example preprogam missions and plan contigency responses. For example preprogrammed terrain mapping such as used by cruise missles, to have mission milestones, and terrain awareness for mission execution. 3. Limited amount of frequency bandwidths to accommodate large numbers of secure links for multiple UCAV operations This factor really limits the amount and use of UCAV of the future in combat...to solve this issue new harden sat tech will have to be developed and will add to the costs of the UCAV program....and will limit the amount of UCAV that can fly , which means they will have to be augmented by Manned fighters .... so don't use frequencies. Air Refueling 1. Transoceanic deployment distances and communications 2. Risk to KC-135 or KC-10 high-value assets 3. Tanker joinup and multiaircraft air refueling So don't use jet fuel, refuel from the air by use of existing energy sources such as micron filtering, gravity, free floating photons or photon striping, air currents etc.. Currently there is no automated program to ensure the safety of refueling assets...I'm sure this is a minor problem but it still an obsticle. don't use jet fuel as a sole fuel source. --- use a rail gun to fire fuel (for example transfer of kinetic energy or kinetic energy to potential energy storage and so on through various means of energy transfer. or use a long distance or space based energy beam to refuel. Operator Situational Awareness 1. Number of aircraft per operator or operators per aircraft 2. Air traffic control (ATC) and enemy airspace deconfliction from other aircraft 3. Threat reactions for visual antiaircraft artillery, infrared surface-to-air missiles, or enemy aircraft So use AI. - this doesn't mean it cannot be augmented by human control. Emergencies 1. Less capability to rapidly assess and correct aircraft problems Completely untrue. 2. Unable to see damage, feel small vibrations, or smell smoke Ever heard of a sensor... machines are even more capable of these things through vibration analysis, chemical analysis and apparatus state monitoring. 3. UAV-capable alternate airfield recovery due to fuel or weather there is no reasoning for this. My link Although the link is to another board the and the article is about turning the F-16 into UCAV it does talk alot about future UCAV's. Other problems currently the US airfoce is struggling with some minor issues regarding the Conventions and rules of engagement....which are limiting the use of Armed UAVs in operations today.The below link explains it all Rules of war This is just nonsense talk in not understanding the capabilities of current technology. Edited February 11, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) I don't know if it's you or me but so far out of all the links you've put up NONE of them will work for me! Does anyone else have this problem with GWiz's links? Try again Bill Now - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621061 Future - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621074 Edited February 11, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) No problem for me...I'm glad the links don't work! Thanks... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621061 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621074 Edited February 11, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Again (for something like the third time), no. This was budgeted for way back in 2007. So you mean BEFORE the resession hit, gottcha... Surplus money vs borrowed money, quite the change if you ask me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) So you mean BEFORE the resession hit, gottcha... Surplus money vs borrowed money, quite the change if you ask me... The point is that it has already been budgeted. This isn't new spending. Edited February 11, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) The point is that it has already been budgeted. This isn't new spending. here is a novle idea, don't budget money you don't have. It is not a very good budget if you are budgeting money you don't have. Edited February 11, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 The point is that it has already been budgeted. This isn't new spending. It's totally NEW spending... It hasn't been allocated which is different than a "budget proposal" by a country mile... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 It's totally NEW spending... It hasn't been allocated which is different than a "budget proposal" by a country mile... Government budgets aren't proposals. The money HAS been allocated for defence going forward until 2030. That doesn't mean future government won't change the allocation, but as of current, this is part of the $3 - 4B per year for defence equipment. 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.