wyly Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 - The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle vision is an affordable weapon system that expands tactical mission options for revolutionary new air power as an integrated part of a system of systems solution. The UCAV weapon system will exploit the design and operational freedoms of relocating the pilot outside of the vehicle to enable a new paradigm in aircraft affordability while maintaining the rationale, judgment, and moral qualities of the human operator. In our vision, this weapon system will require minimal maintenance, can be stored for extended periods of time, and is capable of dynamic mission control while engaging multiple targets in a single mission under minimal human supervision. The UCAV will conduct missions from ordinary airfields as part of an integrated force package complementary to manned tactical and support assets. UCAV controllers will observe rules of engagement and make the critical decisions to use or refrain from using force. ----- ---- The DARPA/Air Force/Boeing X-45A technology demonstration aircraft completed its first flight on 22 May 2002. Multi-aircraft testing will begin in 2003 when a second X-45A becomes operational, leading to joint UCAV and manned exercises in FY 2006. - http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/x-45_ucav.html Perhaps closer than you think? Also see my thoughts on this, go to - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621074 More importantly, with the probable cost of the F-35 now projected to increase (easily) to $21 BILLION with the first delivery in 8 years (vs NOW)... Oh, and don't forget, we're talking an UNPROVEN airframe, not the best choice among several PROVEN airframes like Canada's purchase of it's F-18s last time... and a pilot is the weakness of any system an unmanned aircraft will be capable of far more once it has that monkey off it's back...acceleration, maneuverability are all sacrificed in order to keep the monkey inside alive who would be killed by G forces that unmanned aircraft are capable of...as well a large portion of the cost of the aircraft is dedicated to a pilot... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 Or farther than you think...don't assume that Canada or any other nation will get these type of aircraft through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. As you may know, the American F-22 Raptor is not for export to any nation. Maybe yes, maybe no, regardless, I also don't think that the US is alone in developing unmanned planes... What's more I don't particularily care... Can you tell me the last military conflict Canada was involved with without the U.S.? Get my drift? I think Canada will be all right flying some pretty good, and definitely more suitable to Canada's needs and role as a "military power", "last generation planes" instead of next generation planes'll be just fine... Like I've said before, you don't NEED a Mazeratti to drive to the corner store to pick up some milk, eh... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Maybe yes, maybe no, regardless, I also don't think that the US is alone in developing unmanned planes... What's more I don't particularily care... Then why discuss such aircraft at all as an option? Can you tell me the last military conflict Canada was involved with without the U.S.? Get my drift? The Great Turbot War with Spain I think Canada will be all right flying some pretty good, and definitely more suitable to Canada's needs and role as a "military power", "last generation planes" instead of next generation planes'll be just fine... Canada's DND thinks otherwise. Like I've said before, you don't NEED a Mazeratti to drive to the corner store to pick up some milk, eh... You do if somebody is chasing and trying to kill you. Edited February 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 Then why discuss such aircraft at all as an option? The Great Turbot War with Spain Canada's DND thinks otherwise. You do if somebody is chasing and trying to kill you. boooring Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 boooring I agree...the interminable wrangling for any such defense procurements in Canada has become very boring. I guess it is cheaper to just pay cancellation fees. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Topaz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 Perhaps the reasons for the Tories pushing the F-35 has more to do with the perimeter security pact than anything else. The harmonizing of the borders, and military responsibility, so they want the same aircraft for the two countries which, I feel, sometime in the future will become one. The Tories gave up "FREE TRADE" Harper is giving us "NAU". No matter what THEY name it, its still NAU. Harper probably traded the pact, for the oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas. Quote
Smallc Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 And the Liberals gave us NAFTA. Ooooh, scary. Quote
Esq Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) I agree...the interminable wrangling for any such defense procurements in Canada has become very boring. I guess it is cheaper to just pay cancellation fees. No its cheaper just to wave the finger and sue the bastards for fraud and misrepresentation. you know stuff like this http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/06/former-lockheed-martin-engineer-calls-fraud-on-f22-stealth.html http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2010/02/f-35-behind-schedule-and-has-cost-over.html Funny how this top of the line aircraft is "not as technologically sophistocated" as an aircraft designed in the mid to late 1990's. 15 years ago. real cutting edge. good aircraft yes. misrepresentation in the sale and contract side definately. however thing is budgets need to be approved by parliament. you can't just spend the publics money without permission that is illegal. then we have this hot off the press " http://isurfhopkins.com/local-news/9704-new-military-productions-at-ge-whitfield-reinforces-support.html?tmpl=component " Then you have to ask if studies have been conducted in Canada for effect of noise of the engine? In late 2008 the Air Force revealed that the F-35 would be about twice as loud at takeoff as the F-15 Eagle and up to four times as loud upon landing.[76] As a result, residents near Luke Air Force Base, Arizona and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, possible homes of the jet, have requested that the Air Force conduct environmental impact studies concerning the F-35's noise levels. has canada done these studies in the air bases surrounding the proposed f35 sites in Quebec and Alberta? (or just how far away someone can hear these taking off.. like would someone hear them take off in Russia? How can you defend against accoustic detection tracking or accoustic warning systems going all the way back to the invaders homeland? Or other systems to provider early warning of intercept? Apparently the government already said where these planes would be positioned and serviced. That is really strong national defence from the conservative government - but maybe its another lie... The city of Valparaiso, Florida, adjacent to Eglin AFB, threatened in February 2009 to sue the Air Force understand this is just a proposal... proposal.. canada has not yet legally agreed to purchase these things.. paraliament hasn't approved it and likely wont. the budget has not been approved and will not be approved by the current parliament as far as I can tell -- in regards to the f35.. it is a no go in Canada. If Lockheed thinks it has, it is mistaken and that would be due to lies by people who don't have the authority to approve items not approved in the budget. The PM doesn't have the ability to set the budget of Canada and approve it themself. That is what parliament does = it approves the spending allocations, much like the US congress --- the PM has no ability to spend tax dollars without approval of parliament. The CF sends their wish list, the government looks over it, sees what it is good with, then sends that to parliament.. once parliament approves it - then it is good. That critical third step does not seem likely, actually it pretty much is dead in the water. It isn't suited for arctic operations - where the bulk of Canadian operations are due. - It costs more to maintain. and it is already outdated. and won't be delivered for atleast another 5 years. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/therell-be-no-stealth-in-touting-the-f-35/article1875031/ It is absurd Stephen Harper would enter a contract dedicating tax payer dollars without parliament approving the contract. It is contempt of parliament. This would be more than sufficient to impeach - or in Canada as it is called a non confidence vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-confidence_motion Much like the recent secret perimiter security agreement. Done withhout parliamentary insight or consent. Its far past time to joist. Edited February 5, 2011 by Esq Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 No its cheaper just to wave the finger and sue the bastards for fraud and misrepresentation. I agree....any contractor should also buy cancellation insurance because the direction of the wind changes often....not to mention design specifications and modifications "just for Canada". The only way to have a chance is to include manufacturing incentives for the provinces with the most votes. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wild Bill Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 you can't just spend the publics money without permission that is illegal. Sez who? Trudeau and Chretien did it all the time! Do you think we decided to have a new flag, a Charter of Rights and a new Constitution by means of a referendum? Hell, stuff like that wasn't even in the campaign! Trudeau was in power and suddenly these things are happening! So we never even had the chance to indicate our preferences by voting for his party and giving him a mandate. Look at what Mulroney tried to do with Meech Lake! Damn near got away with it, too! Thank God we DID get to vote on that one! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 I agree...the interminable wrangling for any such defense procurements in Canada has become very boring. I guess it is cheaper to just pay cancellation fees. yep Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 And the Liberals gave us NAFTA. Ooooh, scary. Not quite right, the Liberals tried to improve on the U.S. - Canada FREE TRADE deal where Brian Moroney sold Canada out to the U.S. in NAFTA, but he didn't gain much, other than a little better access to U.S. and MEXICO markets, because to get the "fairness" Chretien wanted it would have cost Canada the Auto-Pact agreement which was too high a price to pay... When you're out of chips (after Free Trade) it's hard to raise the stakes... Thanks again liean Brian, you screwed Canada real good... :angry: Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Esq Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Sez who? The rule of law. Trudeau and Chretien did it all the time! Give examples of contracts agreed to without funds being allocated by parliament in advance. Do you think we decided to have a new flag, a Charter of Rights and a new Constitution by means of a referendum? How did the word referendum get into this? Hell, stuff like that wasn't even in the campaign! Trudeau was in power and suddenly these things are happening! So we never even had the chance to indicate our preferences by voting for his party and giving him a mandate.Look at what Mulroney tried to do with Meech Lake! Damn near got away with it, too! Thank God we DID get to vote on that one! Actually the government does have power to propose policy changes and *gasp* legal changes. However more or less parliament is required in any responsible governance model. Canada is complex though because it is a Frankenstine state. Most of the courts are partisan appointments so adjudication of questions of law can also appear that way. What is so bad about the meech lake accord? * a recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society" - true. It has a seperate legal system. The application of civil code vs. common law is a distinction. Each throne/crown also is in sort a seperate society * a constitutional veto for Quebec and the other provinces - this is a good call. Canada is a federation after all. Each constituent member of that fedreation should be in agreement with any changes to the laws of the federation. * increased provincial powers with respect to immigration - good call. but mobility rights are in question - the issue of residency should be able to be determined on basis of legal qualification. Example someone who commits a provincial offence may be given a court order not to be in that province (restraining orders already limit the mobility rights of the charter), but may be applicable to other provinces - since provincial law may differ. I actually do support provincial immigration law - I think it is a good think to have. The territories however would be under federal jurisdiction and a place of last resort for individuals barred from provincial residence. I support the idea of exile in place of incarceration. Yes there would be additional safegaurds, like meeting with a case worker regularly like parole or a probation officer situation. Also an emphasis on restitution. A bar on provincial residence may also be set to elapse after a certain period of time. For example people likely ain't gonna escape from baffin island without a boat or plane. Plus Jobs for Baffin Islanders and more chance for development of the islands resources and offshore resources. Like what is going on on prince charles island? Can you believe these islands wern't even written about until after the 1930's Not many people realize canada has a bunch of islands that are great for development and perfect for penal colonies. http://www.commanderresources.com/i/maps/Baffin/Baffin-Island-Map.jpg like get some "terraforming" projects underway. Like food growing all nasa like with use of human waste to good purpose and other fun stuff in developing arability of colony areas. http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/environments/maps/detailed/islands/baffin.htm its not all bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS8RZcKQwBA * extension and regulation of the right for a reasonable financial compensation to any province that chooses to opt out of any future federal programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction - I don't see how this is so bad. The reasonable part is the question. What is reasonable compensation? * provincial input in appointing senators and Supreme Court judges I think input in nominations should be there. Like anyone should be able to send nominations to the PM. - along with the reasons therein. Although it seems that the public would be vastly satisfied if these were opened up to a public vote - perhaps after a round of governmental questioning. The way I invision it would be. Individuals may self nominate for the position, or other individuals may nominate them. From the list of nominees input is given from major stakeholders in the government. Individuals that are "selected" could be called to the bar of the commons or senate for questioning. Likewise the GG or PM could also have sit ins with the various individuals and ask them relevant questions to guage their capacity for the post. But before these high level meetings.. the Advisory Council would vote on their top choices - - and those within the advisory council or their represenatives in the council could pitch their running for the seat. (Since everyone is able to be represented in the council.) These nomination periods might be a month or two in advance to the post being filled. (The advisory council acting as the gauge of public opinion since 1 vote = 1 vote in the council and every citizens has 1 vote they can keep or give to someone else) After the advisory council the short list would be reviewed. Parliament might have a vote on it. The PM would then send the nomination to the governor general for consent. I don't see what was so bad about meech lake? Edited February 6, 2011 by Esq Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I don't see what was so bad about meech lake? There were a lot of good things in Meech Lake. Not all, but a lot. The problem was that Meech was basically a backroom deal cooked up by a bunch of guys in suits, at a time when populism was starting to become a more powerful meme in the Canadian electorate. There were dark rumours of different promises being made in the French translation from the original given to English Canada. In effect, too many people in TROC lost faith in the integrity of Mulroney and the Tory Party of that time. They didn't feel they properly understood Meech, especially since it was rushed so fast at times that the ordinary people couldn't get a good look at it. So in the end, they went with their gut. They felt they were being conned so they rejected it. Meanwhile, it was Elijah Harper, the Manitoba aboriginal MLA who put the final torpedo into Meech, by refusing to allow unanimous consent to the deal. It is a telling point that rather than put the blame on the aboriginals, which would be "politically incorrect" many people today blame Clyde Wells, the Nfld. premier for accepting that the Manitoba action meant Meech was already dead so he canceled a vote in the Nfld. House for being unnecessary. Ironically, Harper has become a hero to much of Canada for killing the deal. It was perceived as not just wrong for native peoples but for mainstream Canadians as well. I consider Meech Lake to be a classic case of something being oversold by 'suits' who appeared just a bit too slick, losing the confidence of their 'customers'. Most of this can be blamed on Mulroney personally. He was elected to two consecutive majorities, the largest the country had ever seen. Yet towards the end of his second mandate he no longer appeared to be an agent of change. He looked like more of the "same old, same old" - the same as the Liberals we had rejected, only slicker! Edited February 6, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Posted February 6, 2011 There were a lot of good things in Meech Lake. Not all, but a lot. The problem was that Meech was basically a backroom deal cooked up by a bunch of guys in suits, at a time when populism was starting to become a more powerful meme in the Canadian electorate. There were dark rumours of different promises being made in the French translation from the original given to English Canada. In effect, too many people in TROC lost faith in the integrity of Mulroney and the Tory Party of that time. They didn't feel they properly understood Meech, especially since it was rushed so fast at times that the ordinary people couldn't get a good look at it. So in the end, they went with their gut. They felt they were being conned so they rejected it. Meanwhile, it was Elijah Harper, the Manitoba aboriginal MLA who put the final torpedo into Meech, by refusing to allow unanimous consent to the deal. It is a telling point that rather than put the blame on the aboriginals, which would be "politically incorrect" many people today blame Clyde Wells, the Nfld. premier for accepting that the Manitoba action meant Meech was already dead so he canceled a vote in the Nfld. House for being unnecessary. Ironically, Harper has become a hero to much of Canada for killing the deal. It was perceived as not just wrong for native peoples but for mainstream Canadians as well. I consider Meech Lake to be a classic case of something being oversold by 'suits' who appeared just a bit too slick, losing the confidence of their 'customers'. Most of this can be blamed on Mulroney personally. He was elected to two consecutive majorities, the largest the country had ever seen. Yet towards the end of his second mandate he no longer appeared to be an agent of change. He looked like more of the "same old, same old" - the same as the Liberals we had rejected, only slicker! What the hell has Meech Lake got to do with the price of rice in China? Sheeesh... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Army Guy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And apparently the F-35 can't do the job because it can't land in the north. If that's the case, why are we buying this thing? I'm sure by the time this aircraft reaches production stages , they would have worked out these problems, seeing how landing in heavy cross winds in artic conditions would be a very important US concern as well.... 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.
Topaz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 And the Liberals gave us NAFTA. Ooooh, scary. Wrong, the PC gave us NAFTA. For Mulroney getting it signed, he helped Bush sr, get on the Barrick Gold board as a director. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/over.aspx?lang=en&menu_id=33&menu=R Quote
Army Guy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle vision is an affordable weapon system that expands tactical mission options for revolutionary new air power as an integrated part of a system of systems solution. The UCAV weapon system will exploit the design and operational freedoms of relocating the pilot outside of the vehicle to enable a new paradigm in aircraft affordability while maintaining the rationale, judgment, and moral qualities of the human operator. In our vision, this weapon system will require minimal maintenance, can be stored for extended periods of time, and is capable of dynamic mission control while engaging multiple targets in a single mission under minimal human supervision. The UCAV will conduct missions from ordinary airfields as part of an integrated force package complementary to manned tactical and support assets. UCAV controllers will observe rules of engagement and make the critical decisions to use or refrain from using force. ----- And while it makes for interesting reading there is more to the Ucav story than what you post, firstly the US airforce is presueing this tech along with dozens of other projects, but as of today nothing has really appeared on the production side of the house....it would change air warfare forever, and whats that mean today, it would give the first nation to mass produce these aircraft a huge advantage....so i think the US although it's develpoing these aircraft types is no were close to mass production or it would have done so.... something else you've forgotten is the human element, currently a pilot has skin in the game , as his life is hanging in the balance , the same way as those on the ground that he supports....he is going to perform at a much greater skill level than say his counter part sitting in a sea container, controling his remote control aircraft while drinking and eating his timmies, And while UCAV do have some advantage over manned aircraft , being smaller aircraft, cheaper aircraft, able to perform higher G turns and dives....all these can be over come by a more skillfull pilot...one must also have control over everything that allows cummunication with these remote control planes....if the enemy jams or takes out Sats, what you now have is junk in the sky with no control...another hurdle to over come before introducing these UCAV's Some say you can have pre programed stikes already programed in....thats all good until your target moves, or perhaps becomes flooded with civilians, or the thousands of other murphies laws takes effect....now you have a wpns sys that you can not control... More importantly, with the probable cost of the F-35 now projected to increase (easily) to $21 BILLION with the first delivery in 8 years (vs NOW)...Oh, and don't forget, we're talking an UNPROVEN airframe, not the best choice among several PROVEN airframes like Canada's purchase of it's F-18s last time... Ever new airframe that was introduced has gone through teething problems including the F-18....those same problems are going to effect your UCAV.... 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.
Topaz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Would all of you agree that the Feds NEEDS to have an open bid to put this to rest? The question is why aren't they? They are avoiding this as much as they are stalling on the documents of the torturing of the detainees. The opposition parties are not saying it has to be another jet, they are saying lets have an open bid and see what information we get back. Canada could ended up with the F-35 but we need to find out for sure. Quote
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 I'm sure by the time this aircraft reaches production stages , they would have worked out these problems, seeing how landing in heavy cross winds in artic conditions would be a very important US concern as well.... What makes you thing so? Why did Canada not "order" the C (Navy) varient (shorter take offs and landings plus longer range)? Are we going to also have to buy the planes to refuel them because the ones we have now can't? Is there a GOOD reason you'ed prefer the F-35 over other, far cheaper options more suited to Canada's needs? What is the PRIME roll of the fighter planes Canada needs, foreign wars/involvement, or domestic security? Why was the public not given a say in this $21 Billion dollar and rising decision? I will anxiously await you answers to these questions... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Wild Bill Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Would all of you agree that the Feds NEEDS to have an open bid to put this to rest? The question is why aren't they? They are avoiding this as much as they are stalling on the documents of the torturing of the detainees. The opposition parties are not saying it has to be another jet, they are saying lets have an open bid and see what information we get back. Canada could ended up with the F-35 but we need to find out for sure. Topaz, have you not been paying attention? It's been mentioned many times that there is NO other plane anywhere near the capabilities of the F-35! So how can you have a competitive bid? It's like bidding between a Ford Pinto and a Corvette Stingray! What's more, the Liberals back when they were in power spent a pile of our tax money to get us enrolled in the design program for the F-35. This guaranteed us a better price and a higher place in the delivery line. If we back out now we throw all that money away, just like when the Liberals canceled the EH-101 helicopters. So what you suggest sounds simple but has some pretty strong and complicated details involved. Many of the critics posting in this thread are not really talking about a competitive bid for a better deal on another plane. They KNOW about these details! What they are really trying to do is to make sure we don't spend any money at all and who cares if we have a useful plane! Otherwise they'd stop deliberately ignoring these important details. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Wrong, the PC gave us NAFTA. For Mulroney getting it signed, he helped Bush sr, get on the Barrick Gold board as a director. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/over.aspx?lang=en&menu_id=33&menu=R Wow, you're actually right. Too bad for you though that NAFTA was one of the best things that ever happened to Canada economically. Quote
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Wow, you're actually right. Too bad for you though that NAFTA was one of the best things that ever happened to Canada economically. You actually believe that? UNfrigginbelievable! Oh, and btw, Moroney gave Canada the Free Trade agreement, not NAFTA, that was Chretien, and his hands were pretty much tied in trying to make pro-Canada changes (from the 95% pro USA Free Trade Agreement) because it would have meant putting the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact on the block... Brian Moroney, the BEST Prime Minister the United States ever had... I guess that's why he lives in his mansion in Palm Beach Florida now... :angry: Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Topaz, have you not been paying attention? It's been mentioned many times that there is NO other plane anywhere near the capabilities of the F-35! So how can you have a competitive bid? It's like bidding between a Ford Pinto and a Corvette Stingray! What's more, the Liberals back when they were in power spent a pile of our tax money to get us enrolled in the design program for the F-35. This guaranteed us a better price and a higher place in the delivery line. If we back out now we throw all that money away, just like when the Liberals canceled the EH-101 helicopters. So what you suggest sounds simple but has some pretty strong and complicated details involved. Many of the critics posting in this thread are not really talking about a competitive bid for a better deal on another plane. They KNOW about these details! What they are really trying to do is to make sure we don't spend any money at all and who cares if we have a useful plane! Otherwise they'd stop deliberately ignoring these important details. I guess it's you that hasn't been paying attention and is ignoring details... Why not take the time to read through this thread and see them? Have a look: NOW - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621061 FUTURE - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621074 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Army Guy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 What makes you thing so? A US airforce order for over 2000 aircraft, that order would be a pretty good motivator, not to mention the hundards of other orders... Why did Canada not "order" the C (Navy) varient (shorter take offs and landings plus longer range) Price would be a driving factor, c model is 30 million more which would mean even less aircraft than we ordered now, and when you compare the two 30 million does not get you a whole lot more. some range, and some extra ordance,... Are we going to also have to buy the planes to refuel them because the ones we have now can't? So we we convert them , no big deal, i doubt very much we will have to purchase the entire new refueler, besides we only have what 3 of them.... Is there a GOOD reason you'ed prefer the F-35 over other, far cheaper options more suited to Canada's needs? It's the aircraft that the airforce have chosen, they've studied the shit out of the problem and this is the one they have picked.....they've listed why , when and how....and while most Canadians don't like the price tag, they could not give a shit what plane they have chosen...and the price tag is 9 bil not 21 bil....the actual purchase price is 9 bil dollars for 65 airplanes....which includes planes, parts, training, and sims.... Since the airfoce jocks are the experts here , and i don't have to strap myself into one i'll defend there pick..... What is the PRIME roll of the fighter planes Canada needs, foreign wars/involvement, or domestic security? The defence of Canada is the prime role, next is living up to our defence agreements, NATO, and Norad, (this is proably going to see combat aircraft used in a combat role...) Why was the public not given a say in this $21 Billion dollar and rising decision? You mean 9 bil dollar purchase....does the public get a say into any purchase made by our government....or is it just this one... i wonder if the public opinion would change if the world turned to shit tommorow, and their sons and daughters were strapping themselves into the cockpits...or is this just about money....i mean we have lots of sons and daughters, to offer our government....why should we arm them with the best money has to offer at this time....I had thought at one time that there was an unwritten code between the tax payer and the military volunteer....you fight and we'll pay for the equipment....now it's more than that it's all about the money.....our sons and daughters are worth 250 k....this is 9 bil we are talking about..... I can't wait until the navy contracts come up, 9 bil will be a warm up....a spit in the bucket... 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.
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.