GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Leaving aside for the moment that you are effectively asking Harper to throw all the money the Liberals spent to get us into the program down the nearest rathole, how can we get competitive bids when there is no other fighter being made or even in development of the specs of the F-35? For that matter, we can be confident the Liberals would already have done their due diligence and investigated if there was another aircraft that would have better suited our needs. The fact that cancellation charges would cost likely a billion or so dollars in themselves would've ensured that the Liberals made a thoughtful, well-considered decision to enrol us in the program! Why, if that were not true then the Liberals would have learned nothing from their cancellation of the EH-101 and the decades-long fiasco of finding replacements for our killer SeaKing helicopters! I've been assured by a few present day Liberals that those were a different crew way back then and besides, any Liberals still left in the party today long ago learned their lesson. For that reason they tell me I should have no qualms about voting Liberal next election. Any comparisons between their idea to cancel the F-35 and Dief's cancellation of the Arrow are false and just mean-spirited, they tell me! As for your link, I decide already to follow your advice and not pay any attention to that "buck rogers" stuff. Go to the link I gave you, really read it (including the link there) that's the alternative in my opinion... As BC said, the US Navy and Australia are hedging their bets on the F-35, so should we, and save some money in the process... GB is hedging it's bets too but with their own planes, I'm betting ALL the purchaser/prospective purchasers are, 'cept us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Why, if that were not true then the Liberals would have learned nothing from their cancellation of the EH-101 and the decades-long fiasco of finding replacements for our killer SeaKing helicopters! wanna back that up?... the Sea King isn't a killer it's safety record is very good, equal if not better than the CF-18 and it's been around a 10-15yrs longer than the CF-18...the issue with the sea king is the amount of hours required for servicing per hour flown not safety, it's not a killer...many countries still fly sea kings, but they have newer updated versions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 wanna back that up?... the Sea King isn't a killer it's safety record is very good, equal if not better than the CF-18 and it's been around a 10-15yrs longer than the CF-18...the issue with the sea king is the amount of hours required for servicing per hour flown not safety, it's not a killer...many countries still fly sea kings, but they have newer updated versions... That is correct... I second that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 wanna back that up?... the Sea King isn't a killer it's safety record is very good, equal if not better than the CF-18 and it's been around a 10-15yrs longer than the CF-18...the issue with the sea king is the amount of hours required for servicing per hour flown not safety, it's not a killer...many countries still fly sea kings, but they have newer updated versions... I'm just not interested in being diverted into defending my model and not my point. What our soldiers and airmen who have direct experience with the aircraft feel about it is proven: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm just not interested in being diverted into defending my model and not my point. What our soldiers and airmen who have direct experience with the aircraft feel about it is proven: your model is wrong so your point is not valid....the video is pointless as well as most of the helicopters aren't even sea kings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 your model is wrong so your point is not valid....the video is pointless as well as most of the helicopters aren't even sea kings... Talk about your forest and your trees... The point should be flippin' obvious! It's the fact that the servicemen charged with flying, maintaining and being transported in our old Canadian fleet of SeaKings came up with such a damning parody to show their true feelings about the aircraft! Christ, you'll be writing 3 or 4 paragraphs about the rivets next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 wanna back that up?... the Sea King isn't a killer it's safety record is very good, equal if not better than the CF-18 and it's been around a 10-15yrs longer than the CF-18...the issue with the sea king is the amount of hours required for servicing per hour flown not safety, it's not a killer...many countries still fly sea kings, but they have newer updated versions... I think 6-8 hele people have died since when the new ones would have been there to fly. And thank god for the service people that do keep them in the air, nobody else could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm just not interested in being diverted into defending my model and not my point. What our soldiers and airmen who have direct experience with the aircraft feel about it is proven: Stick to FACTS Bill, FACTS make you stronger, ignoring them weakens you AND any arguement you make... youtube indeed... I'd rather watch the cat play the piano... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Stick to FACTS Bill, FACTS make you stronger, ignoring them weakens you AND any arguement you make... youtube indeed... I'd rather watch the cat play the piano... So the very people that have to fly in the damn things have no confidence in their safety. Yet you just blow them off as "cats playing the piano" in some youtube clip. Apparently, we each have a world view so different that I see little or no possibility of agreement. Plus, I find your debating tone strongly reminiscent of Mr. Canada and also "rubble.com". I'll just put you on 'ignore' and I'm sure we will get along better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) The US Navy already has deployed squadrons of F/A-18 E/F aircraft. Like Australia, the Americans will continue to hedge their F-35 bet (naval variant) with continued F/A-18 procurements. Canada has not taken this approach, preferring to extend older CF-188 airframe hours and capabilities until the F-35 delivers in numbers. Good luck with that. Exactly right, as I've said before... It's got a lot to do with timeframes, ordering too far in advance of delivery of an unproven airframe at astronomical expense can certainly be a recipe for a whole LOT of BAD things to happen... "preferring to extend older CF-188 airframe hours and capabilities until the F-35 delivers in numbers" Not good, not good at all... 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 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) So the very people that have to fly in the damn things have no confidence in their safety. Yet you just blow them off as "cats playing the piano" in some youtube clip. Apparently, we each have a world view so different that I see little or no possibility of agreement. Plus, I find your debating tone strongly reminiscent of Mr. Canada and also "rubble.com". I'll just put you on 'ignore' and I'm sure we will get along better. Suit yourself Bill... For some ignorance is bliss... or 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...
wyly Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I think 6-8 hele people have died since when the new ones would have been there to fly. And thank god for the service people that do keep them in the air, nobody else could. The crash of a Sea King onto the deck of a Canadian destroyer had nothing to do with the helicopter's age, the head of Canada's air force said on Friday."Regardless of the age of these things, we fly safe airplanes," said Lt.-Gen. Lloyd Campbell. this particular crash was due to human error the mechanic/s had not properly adjusted the new engines... Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/02/28/seaking_reax030228.html#ixzz1CkDVYbGn One retired colonel, who flew the chopper for 21 years, told CTV the Sea Kings were overhauled just a few years ago and have new engines. "I would not associate this with the age of the aircraft at all," he said. from what I can find there have been only four fatal Sea King crashes, on average one every 11 years or one death on average every four years...for the amount of hours flow and in dangerous conditions they must fly in that's good safety record... feel free to criticize the sea king for it's hours of maintenance but let's not exaggerate it's safety record and use that as an excuse to score debate points... as of 2009 the CF-18 in it's 30 year history has had 8 fatal accidents, compared to the Sea kings 4 fatal crashes in nearly 50 years...but yet no one is saying the CF-18 is a killer and needs to be replaced because of that, only that it's outdated...equipment lost due to crashes, sea kings-29 in 50 years, CF-18s 16 crashes in 30 years...the Sea King has a better safety record.... Edited February 1, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 this particular crash was due to human error the mechanic/s had not properly adjusted the new engines... Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/02/28/seaking_reax030228.html#ixzz1CkDVYbGn from what I can find there have been only four fatal Sea King crashes, on average one every 11 years or one death on average every four years...for the amount of hours flow and in dangerous conditions they must fly in that's good safety record... feel free to criticize the sea king for it's hours of maintenance but let's not exaggerate it's safety record and use that as an excuse to score debate points... as of 2009 the CF-18 in it's 30 year history has had 8 fatal accidents, compared to the Sea kings 4 fatal crashes in nearly 50 years...but yet no one is saying the CF-18 is a killer and needs to be replaced because of that, only that it's outdated...equipment lost due to crashes, sea kings-29 in 50 years, CF-18s 16 crashes in 30 years...the Sea King has a better safety record.... Bottom line though being they BOTH still need to be replaced at some point, considering the age, better sooner than later... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Bottom line though being they BOTH still need to be replaced at some point, considering the age, better sooner than later... sure but let's be honest about the reasons for it, and be practical in our choices for replacement... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) sure but let's be honest about the reasons for it, and be practical in our choices for replacement... That's exactly what I've been saying and why I posted the links to, in my view, 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 better, cheaper, more practical, available, alternatives, both for NOW, and into the future... Edited February 11, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Okay, I'm totally not for this anymore. It's one thing to have to buy, say, 5 A-330 MRTTs to replace our 5 A-310s, but it's another thing entirely if the plane requires a bandaid solution to land in the arctic. IMO, based on this, the Super Hornet becomes the only viable contender. Alternatively, despite increased cost, would it maybe be better to buy the F-35C instead of the F-35A as it should be able to perform all of the same functions as the F/A-18E/F. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/canadian-military-unable-to-refuel-new-jets-in-mid-air/ Edited February 2, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Okay, I'm totally not for this anymore. It's one thing to have to buy, say, 5 A-330 MRTTs to replace our 5 A-310s, but it's another thing entirely if the plane requires a bandaid solution to land in the arctic. IMO, based on this, the Super Hornet becomes the only viable contender. Alternatively, despite increased cost, would it maybe be better to buy the F-35C instead of the F-35A as it should be able to perform all of the same functions as the F/A-18E/F. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/canadian-military-unable-to-refuel-new-jets-in-mid-air/ congrats smallc a rare moment on the forum where someone changes his/her view and admits it, my respect for you has grown... we agree but for different reasons, I think the super hornet is a better choice until unmanned planes rule the skies in the not too distant future... Edited February 2, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 congrats smallc a rare moment on the forum where someone changes his/her view and admits it, my respect for you has grown... we agree but for different reasons, I think the super hornet is a better choice until unmanned planes rule the skies in the not too distant future... If we can't land it in the north in even a bit of wind, it's a useless show piece.....although, as I said, I wouldn't complain if we bought 5 A330 MRTTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we can't land it in the north in even a bit of wind, it's a useless show piece.....although, as I said, I wouldn't complain if we bought 5 A330 MRTTs. boots on the ground(in the north), a good local search and rescue, armed coast guard and a missile defense would do more to protect out sovereignty in the north than a 1000 F-35's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 boots on the ground(in the north), a good local search and rescue, armed coast guard and a missile defense would do more to protect out sovereignty in the north than a 1000 F-35's... Well, I disagree there. Other than a submarine, nothing can outrun a fighter jet. The thing is though, it actually has to get there in order to be able to pose a threat to any potential (and unlikely) aggressor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I stand by the opinion I posted over a year ago. We should look and see if in 10 years these will be obsolete as unmanned planes are the way of the future. Maybe I am wrong what do I know about this stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Well, I disagree there. Other than a submarine, nothing can outrun a fighter jet. The thing is though, it actually has to get there in order to be able to pose a threat to any potential (and unlikely) aggressor. if planes were useful in that respect there would be no troops on the ground in afghanistan...planes have no presence, they're there for a few seconds and gone, same for any country that would send a plane in our direction...planes can't hold territory, totally useless in that regard... Edited February 3, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I stand by the opinion I posted over a year ago. We should look and see if in 10 years these will be obsolete as unmanned planes are the way of the future. Maybe I am wrong what do I know about this stuff? I'd agree, 10-20yrs and the F35 will be obsolete... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 if planes were useful in that respect there would be no troops on the ground in afghanistan... planes have no presence, they're there for a few seconds and gone, same for any country that would send a plane in our direction...planes can't hold territory, totally useless in that regard... I'm talking about eliminating clear enemy threats in the arctic. A fighter can sink a ship, for example. The likelihood though of that happening is very small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm talking about eliminating clear enemy threats in the arctic. A fighter can sink a ship, for example. The likelihood though of that happening is very small. a foreign ship is going to do what steal an ice flow, really what is the threat people see here?...controlling shipping requires ships/ice breakers/coast guard, not stealth attack fighters...on the west and east coasts unarmed patrol planes are used for spotting illegal shipping and fishing but ships do the actual interception/policing...we don't need multi billion stealth technology to spot illegal shipping and fishing...the entire point of fighter planes in the arctic was to intercept Soviet nuclear bombers and that threat is long gone...any nuclear attack will come from submarines or space, F-35's are useless for preventing either... 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.