Smallc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) You actually believe that? UNfrigginbelievable! I believe it because it's true. Canada experienced massive economic growth under NAFTA. Oh, and btw, Moroney gave Canada the Free Trade agreement, not NAFTA, that was Chretien, I thought so too, but no, it only came in under Chretien. Edited February 7, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 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.... And A310 cannot be converted to do ariel boom refueling. We will have to buy new A330 MRTTs to replace them, and it's likely we would get 4 to 5. Currently, on two CC150 Polaris aircraft are configured as MRTTs (04 and 05), but you forget that there are many CC130s configured as ariel refuelers, and they would become useless. Anyway, a few MRTTs wouldn't add much to the total cost, and would not be out of range as there is wiggle room in the budgets going forward. Quote
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 A US airforce order for over 2000 aircraft, that order would be a pretty good motivator, not to mention the hundards of other orders... I see... So the U.S. Navy, Australia, GB, et al, the other purchasers/potential purcgasrs buying hundreds of NEW IN PRODUCTION fighter planes NOW to hedge their bets while waiting for the F-35, is what, stupid, a complete waste of money, the planes they have now haven't all fallen out of the sky yet, what is the reason all those other countries are "hedging their bets" on a TOTALLY UNPROVEN (combat and otherwise) airframe to "potentially" be delivered starting (hopefully) 8 years from now to replace an airfleet of fighters that are "expired/"expiring" (depending on delivery date) CF-18s? I was involved in the purchase of Canada's current F-18s and KNOW the whyfors and wherefores of why the were chosen, do you? NONE of that occured in making a "decision" on the purchase of the F-35... That's a FACT Jack, so you're "opinion" of this "purchase" doesn't replace good economics and more importantly satisfying the NEEDS of the Canadian Military's Air Wing... 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,... More for less? GREAT! I'm 100% for that concept... That's exactly what I've been saying, let's buy the BEST airframe to MATCH Canada's NEEDS and COMMITMENTS... Unfortunately that airframe is NOT the F-35 ... 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... Ahhh yes, so what's overlooking a few features like airial and/or remote landing strip refeuling matter to a Country like Canada? Canada's Military and their masters the CONS, whose attention to "details" you're so anxious to defend... (see your next comments) 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.... Well my friend you've just lost all credibility with me and exposed yourself as nothing more than a CON and a shill... You are WRONG, totally WRONG, regarding every part of that comment... Carrying the "Party Line" has a downside when you try to argue things which you yourself have exposed as untrue by your earlier comment... If you really are in the Canadian Miltary, which I'm beginning to highly doubt, you really should know when to keep your mouth shut... Since the airfoce jocks are the experts here , and i don't have to strap myself into one i'll defend there pick... The airforce "jocks" haven't been given a say... The ones I've talked to agree with me and not you... 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...) So tell me WHY Canada needs a very expensive STEALTH plane to do that? 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..... No, I mean a $21 BILLION dollar or more commitment by the current Government to buy a specific airframe not yet built via an "any cost" contract/agreement without any pertinent counter obligations or commitments by the SINGLE supplier... Which is what it is... I can't wait until the navy contracts come up, 9 bil will be a warm up....a spit in the bucket... You may have to wait... Because if this is an example how the Harper Government does business and if they get re-elected Canada could be broke by the time those appropriations come around... 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 I believe it because it's true. Canada experienced massive economic growth under NAFTA. Wouldn't it be much more accurate to say that Canada experienced massive economic growth under a Chretien/Martin led Liberal Government inspite of NAFTA? That's what I would say... I thought so too, but no, it only came in under Chretien. Now WHY would Chretien do that? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Smallc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Now WHY would Chretien do that? What? Why wouldn't he. Despite your insistence to the contrary, it was a good thing. Quote
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) What? Why wouldn't he. Despite your insistence to the contrary, it was a good thing. Could you please extrapolate a bit, some examples perhaps, some links as to why you hold such a belief? Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for freeer, but most importantly fairer, trade between countries... It's only when one of the countries involved has a leader that "sells out" his/her country in the manner that Moroney sold Canada out to his "shamrock buddy" Reagan of the United States that I get really upset... Perhaps you're just too young to remember... You might want to take the TIME to really read and try to understand a) The Canada US Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA and why the Free Trade Agreement prevented Canada from being able to gain any of the benefits Mexico obtained via NAFTA... Edited February 7, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Smallc Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Is that why Canada's economic growth was higher than the US or Mexico? Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Is that why Canada's economic growth was higher than the US or Mexico? All things considered, it wasn't, far from it... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Smallc Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 All things considered, it wasn't, far from it... Actually yes. We benefitted most in terms of jobs and growth. Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Actually yes. We benefitted most in terms of jobs and growth. Why do you keep making such statements with absolutly nothing to back them up... I was there, were you? After 2 majorities the PCs were reduced to TWO SEATS, that's right, 2 seats in the House of Commons not even party status and BELOW the NDP, and it wasn't because Kim Campbell became the leader, it was because of what Brian Moroney had done to Canada and Canada was punishing the PCs for it... I lived through the aftermath of the Moroney era, it was nowhere as pretty as you are trying to make out, not even close... - By the second quarter of 1990, the economy had begun to contract, affected by the recession and the central bank's tight monetary policy. Recovery began in the second half of 1991. Although the 1990s were marked by continued high rates of unemployment and restrained domestic spending, the economy posted an average growth rate in GDP of about 3%. Unemployment was rated at a peak of about 12% in 1992 but had gone down to 8% in 1999. Read more: Economy - Canada - export, average, growth, economic growth, policy, sector http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Canada-ECONOMY.html#ixzz1DKAzQ8LK Here's something more you can thank Moroney for: - The Bloc Québécois is a federal political party that was founded officially on 15 June 1991, and it currently runs candidates in 75 Québec ridings. Started as a parliamentary movement made up of Québec MPs who left the Conservative and the Liberal parties after the failure of the MEECH LAKE ACCORD (see also MEECH LAKE ACCORD: DOCUMENT), the party promotes Québec's interests and Québec sovereignty in the House of Commons. The Bloc was led by a former federal Conservative cabinet minister, Lucien BOUCHARD, until he left to become leader of the PARTI QUÉBÉCOIS and Premier of Québec in January 1996. The first test for the Bloc Québécois was the 1992 referendum on the CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD (see also CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD: DOCUMENT), when the party contributed to the No side's 57% victory in Québec. Then, in the 1993 federal election, the Bloc obtained 49.3% of the Québec vote and 54 seats, enough to form the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. In the months leading to the 1995 QUÉBEC REFERENDUM on sovereignty, the party played a critical role in convincing the Parti Québécois of Jacques PARIZEAU to specify in the question that a partnership offer would be made to the rest of Canada. Lucien Bouchard was also a key figure in the referendum campaign, which ended with a 49.4% result for the Yes side. - http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000829 You can say what you want and believe what you want but for many Canadians like me "Liean Brian" was and is a TRAITOR to Canada and Canadian interests and always will be... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
punked Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Wow someone has some Liberal coloured glasses on. It is one thing to spin it is another thing to selectively remember history the way GWiz does. Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Wow someone has some Liberal coloured glasses on. It is one thing to spin it is another thing to selectively remember history the way GWiz does. WRONG! I don't need glasses or anything else to tell the TRUTH... You might want to try it, it's very liberating... And it's got nothing to do with ANY party, it's got to do with the country I love - CANADA... That's something else you can try, loving your country... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
punked Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) WRONG! I don't need glasses or anything else to tell the TRUTH... You might want to try it, it's very liberating... And it's got nothing to do with ANY party, it's got to do with the country I love - CANADA... That's something else you can try, loving your country... Hahaha now I don't love my country enough for GWiz. Wow you are really piece of work aren't you. Guess what? Your vote counts as much as my vote buddy and my passport says the samething yours does so you can your crap and shove it. As for the PCs killing Canada through NAFTA the Liberals had plenty of time to repeal it like they promised, just like the GST they sat on their hands. Edited February 8, 2011 by punked Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Hahaha now I don't love my country enough for GWiz. Wow you are really piece of work aren't you. Guess what? Your vote counts as much as my vote buddy and my passport says the samething yours does so you can your crap and shove it. As for the PCs killing Canada through NAFTA the Liberals had plenty of time to repeal it like they promised, just like the GST they sat on their hands. An NDPer who's against the Canada - US Auto Pact... Now I've seen everything... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
punked Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 An NDPer who's against the Canada - US Auto Pact... Now I've seen everything... You really don't know how to read do you? I said that if you think NAFTA was terrible the Liberals ran on repealing in the 90s and that was a bunch of lies. I stated history not my opinion of history or what should have been done. Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 You really don't know how to read do you? I said that if you think NAFTA was terrible the Liberals ran on repealing in the 90s and that was a bunch of lies. I stated history not my opinion of history or what should have been done. Yeah, exactly like I said... And take the chance of killing the Auto Pact which was the price the US was asking to reopen talks on NAFTA when Chretien tried to renegotiate NAFTA... He didn't want to take that chance, would you? Children... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
punked Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Yeah, exactly like I said... And take the chance of killing the Auto Pact which was the price the US was asking to reopen talks on NAFTA when Chretien tried to renegotiate NAFTA... He didn't want to take that chance, would you? Children... You do know the Auto Pact was killed in 2001 right? You can't be that stupid. As for the Liberals if they didn't want to pay the price maybe they should not have promised it to Canadians. Edited February 8, 2011 by punked Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 You do know the Auto Pact was killed in 2001 right? You can't be that stupid. As for the Liberals if they didn't want to pay the price maybe they should not have promised it to Canadians. Whatever... Who cares... I don't... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Army Guy Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 I see... So the U.S. Navy, Australia, GB, et al, the other purchasers/potential purcgasrs buying hundreds of NEW IN PRODUCTION fighter planes NOW to hedge their bets while waiting for the F-35, is what, stupid, a complete waste of money, the planes they have now haven't all fallen out of the sky yet, what is the reason all those other countries are "hedging their bets" on a TOTALLY UNPROVEN (combat and otherwise) airframe to "potentially" be delivered starting (hopefully) 8 years from now to replace an airfleet of fighters that are "expired/"expiring" (depending on delivery date) CF-18s? Lets take a look at those purchases for a minute...Starting with the US Navy, an organization that already flys the F-18E/F in great numbers are currently purchasing the growler an specialized version of the F-18, NO mention anywhere that they are buying more f-18E/F just incase the F-35 program is a flop.......and why should'nt it it has the budget in which to do that, Canada does not....it also knows that it will take years to replace all of it's current fleet of F-18's , and still needs to operate combat ready sqns until then....NOT hedgeing their bets..... Australia, purchased the F-18F to replace it's current fleet of F-111, the 24 F-18F they have ordered 12 of them will be wired to be converted into Growlers....EA 18G's ....they are still looking at the F-35 program to replace it's F-18A....so they are NOT hedgeing their bets on another airframe..... Great Britian, their decision you may actually have a piont, however Britain is desparately trying to save their carrier program, and are willing to trade in the F-35B to do that.....I don't think they have made a final decision as of yet....as they are looking at serveral opitions on is to go from the F-35B to fewer F35C models , or go with the F-18F and upgrade at a later date..... Like I've said before, was the F-18 a Combat proven airframe when we purchased it....it had teething problems as well....and yet by the time we purchased most of those problems were worked out....but then again anything could have looked better next to the old F-104, and CF-5 it would replace. was involved in the purchase of Canada's current F-18s and KNOW the whyfors and wherefores of why the were chosen, do you? NONE of that occured in making a "decision" on the purchase of the F-35...That's a FACT Jack, so you're "opinion" of this "purchase" doesn't replace good economics and more importantly satisfying the NEEDS of the Canadian Military's Air Wing... Having those insights would be valuable in this topic i agree, And i've never claimed to be a subject matter expert on the Airforce, but like you have kept an interest on the topic, and have read many articles written by the airforce, ie Canadian Military journal, etc etc....all written by currently serving or past serving members, and i trust their judgement on this matter.... Comparing the same reasons why we chose the F-18 with this purchase is alittle unfair, tech advances have elementated most of those reasons IE the need for a twin engine, etc etc....what has not been explained in detail is the reason WHY the Airforce wants this airframe....and yet some of the big driving factors are being swepted under the table, because of mainly price sticker shock..... Good economics, kind of ironic we are talking about good economics when we are talking about an aircraft that will be 30 plus years old once it is retired, and if we followed good economics we should have been planning this replacment some 15 years ago. and could have been flying the very aircraft we have discussed here.... But that is not how Canadians role is it, had we given our military the time and effort through out the good times and bad times it would not be in the state it is now...today most of our major platforms needs replacing or they face becoming useless on the battlefield...combine that fact with our historical purchasing plans and it makes since to purchase something still on the drawing boards, so it is still relevent when we decide to do the next purchase.... And while the F-35 has more to offer than our citizens want in a fighter, it does not mean that we do not or could not use those capabilities in the future....all one has to do is look at how many times our own troops have relied on foreign airpower to provide close air support, or Cap patrols....Having a aircraft that can do it all means alot not just to the airforce, but to our Navy and Army....I'd much rather rely on a Canadian pilot for ground support than a US one , no offence to US pilots but for some reason Canadians soldiers have had a string of bad luck when US pilots have been providing a service that Canadians could have just becuase they did not have the cash to do so, or the right equipment.... More for less? GREAT! I'm 100% for that concept... That's exactly what I've been saying, let's buy the BEST airframe to MATCH Canada's NEEDS and COMMITMENTS... Unfortunately that airframe is NOT the F-35 ... Hey i agree with you those aircraft that you've mentioned, are great aircraft and would meet all of Canada's needs today and into the near future....but your well aware of our purchase history so that begs this question will those same aircraft serve this nation some 30 to 40 years from now...will they be viable on the battlefield.... Ahhh yes, so what's overlooking a few features like airial and/or remote landing strip refeuling matter to a Country like Canada? Canada's Military and their masters the CONS, whose attention to "details" you're so anxious to defend... (see your next comments) Those details are not being over looked, infact Lockheed is looking at them as we speak, we all have to remember is this aircraft is still in the testing phase, and has NOT reached production yet...we as a nation have atleast 8 more years before we see a F-35 painted in Canadian colors....thats alot of time.... The airial refeuling problem can be fixed, by either replacing the A models refueling system with the C models....as it is works with our current refueling system.....or we purchase new refueling system as SmallC suggested....As for the landing in high artic conditions I'm assuming that this is and will be a major concern for the US Airforce and it will get solved. 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.... Well my friend you've just lost all credibility with me and exposed yourself as nothing more than a CON and a shill... You are WRONG, totally WRONG, regarding every part of that comment... Carrying the "Party Line" has a downside when you try to argue things which you yourself have exposed as untrue by your earlier comment... If you really are in the Canadian Miltary, which I'm beginning to highly doubt, you really should know when to keep your mouth shut... I've posted the below references before on this topic, and all of them pretty much say the same thing i've posted here, that A) the F-35 is the aircraft the Airforce wants, and while it may be true that all pilots or members of the Airforce may or may not agree, it's the one they are getting.... the Airforce has studied this purchase for years, and have determined it's the aircraft of chose.C) that the price tag is 9 bil not 21 bil as qouted.....when you purchase a car or truck does the price tag the dealer qoutes you one that is off the lot or does it include the next 20 years of maint costs....which are covered under the OEM budget anyways..... This aircraft is atleast 5 to 6 years from entering mass production, most if not all it's current problems will be fixed...just the value of the orders at stack dictate that...that and the fact that there is only one other aircraft in the running and that is the other aircraft that competed for the airforces next fighter. And it is not as far along as lockheeds.... F-35. Replacing the F-18 over tasking the F-18 As for me actually being in the military, sorry,It's true, I'm an infanteer with 30 years experience behind him, but that does not really matter here does it, and personally don't give a rats ass if you doubt my qualifications or not, i've posted here before explaining i'm not here to be popular,or to spout the party line, just posting to clearify some myths and misunderstandings about our military, and to offer a soldiers view piont.... ..and while i may not be an Airforce subject matter expert, I do have an opinion, one based on facts being generated out of the Airforce....I doubt that all of those opinions are spouting the party line....it is after all them who will have to strap themsleves in to this aircraft and defend this nation....and i stand behind them, as one day i hope they will stand behind some Army program... 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.
punked Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 Whatever... Who cares... I don't... That is what I thought you really don't know anything. Quote
GWiz Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 That is what I thought you really don't know anything. No, it means what it said.. You bore me... Got an inferiority complex or are you that stupid? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Wild Bill Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 No, it means what it said.. You bore me... Got an inferiority complex or are you that stupid? GWiz, perhaps you don't realize it but you have a very confrontational debating style. Actually, it's outright rude! If you actually read the rules of this forum, you have broken them many times. Don't feel bad, you're far from the only one! Still, you shouldn't be surprised if a moderator gives you a warning sometime, or even more. This board has tried very hard to keep things civil and lower the level of sarcasm and personal attacks. Anyone who has seen the profane chaos of boards like "rubble.com" is well aware of how a good board can be ruined. If this board ever gets that bad I know I won't be the only one to leave. Anyhow, take it for what it's worth. I'm no cop myself and it's not my board. I just thought that perhaps you weren't aware. Perhaps you are and just don't care! Whatever, when I find someone too rude and obnoxious I just put them on the 'ignore' list and I rarely see any posts of theirs again, unless it's a quote within someone else's post. Just FYI. Do what you will. 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 9, 2011 Report Posted February 9, 2011 GWiz, perhaps you don't realize it but you have a very confrontational debating style. Actually, it's outright rude! If you actually read the rules of this forum, you have broken them many times. Don't feel bad, you're far from the only one! Still, you shouldn't be surprised if a moderator gives you a warning sometime, or even more. This board has tried very hard to keep things civil and lower the level of sarcasm and personal attacks. Anyone who has seen the profane chaos of boards like "rubble.com" is well aware of how a good board can be ruined. If this board ever gets that bad I know I won't be the only one to leave. Anyhow, take it for what it's worth. I'm no cop myself and it's not my board. I just thought that perhaps you weren't aware. Perhaps you are and just don't care! Whatever, when I find someone too rude and obnoxious I just put them on the 'ignore' list and I rarely see any posts of theirs again, unless it's a quote within someone else's post. Just FYI. Do what you will. I only give back what I get... I am aware, and as you say correctly, I don't particularily care... Since I don't know the people on here very well yet, and the people on here don't know anything about me other than what I tell them, when I'm attacked, I fight back, and I'm very good at getting out my message... Any civil post to me will ALWAYS get a civil response... As you are getting from me now... Thank you for your concern... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Topaz Posted February 9, 2011 Report Posted February 9, 2011 The US is still working on the software for the F-35 and hav eto hire software engineers to get the job done. They may as well paint the F-35 yellow like they should have done with their scud missiles. IF the Tories do go ahead and buy these without time to have an open bid and we find later they are "LEMONS" of billion dollars. Canadians won't be happy. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1226678.html Quote
punked Posted February 9, 2011 Report Posted February 9, 2011 The US is still working on the software for the F-35 and hav eto hire software engineers to get the job done. They may as well paint the F-35 yellow like they should have done with their scud missiles. IF the Tories do go ahead and buy these without time to have an open bid and we find later they are "LEMONS" of billion dollars. Canadians won't be happy. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1226678.html 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. Quote
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.