Army Guy Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 The PM would be made aware as the second in command has always been a Canadian officer, Im sure the PM would have a word if it involved Canadian waters, airspace, or assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 No, what you are telling me, in case of a NA attack, the PM would have no say... Never the less, your claim that the US has complete control is false and proven so. The call from the US President would be "This is what's happening, this is what we're going to do." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 The PM would be made aware as the second in command has always been a Canadian officer, Im sure the PM would have a word if it involved Canadian waters, airspace, or assets. Nope. Why do you think we didn't end up participating in the missile shield? The radars and missiles are all on our territory, any missile would end up blowing up over our territory spewing any radioactive/toxic materials over our soil. When Martin asked whether or not he would be consulted before anything would be blown out of the sky he wasn't given any guarantees. It wouldn't be different with anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. Why do you think we didn't end up participating in the missile shield? Hold on, you are saying we have no say and now your saying we said no.... When Martin asked whether or not he would be consulted before anything would be blown out of the sky he wasn't given any guarantees. It wouldn't be different with anything else. The Missile defense programme is not Norad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 Hold on, you are saying we have no say and now your saying we said no.... Not having a say in something you're already a part of is something quite different than declining to take part in something altogether. More semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 The call from the US President would be "This is what's happening, this is what we're going to do." The Canadian DND has already ignored the PM in a past event called The Cuban Missile Crisis.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 More semantics. Stock answer for when you have painted yourself in a corner....how jejune... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 Stock answer for when you have painted yourself in a corner....how jejune... If I'm in such a corner, tell me why you failed to respond to the point in my post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 If I'm in such a corner, tell me why you failed to respond to the point in my post? What point? The dubious comparison between the Missile Defence and NORAD and your factless claims why it was refused? Or your point where you erroneously claim that the Americans would noty consult with us? Which one would you like thrashed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 What point? The dubious comparison between the Missile Defence and NORAD and your factless claims why it was refused? Or your point where you erroneously claim that the Americans would noty consult with us? Which one would you like thrashed? Both if you can. I doubt it, though. You already tried and came back with a lame explanation - something about Canada turning down missile defence is the same thing as the PM having a say in continental defence. I never agree with BC, but he's right. It's already happened before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nicky i think your misunderstanding NORAD's role, it is not just for missiles and airspace, today it involves Martime and land contacts as well. The Canadian PM is the only person that can authorise movement of any assets not already under command and control of NORAD. And BC is right during the Cuban missle crisses our DND has dismissed orders from the PM to stand down, that being said we were at the brink of an all out Nuke War,and DND's actions at the time proved right... As for splashing a nuk armed missle over the Canadian north that part is true, but then again lets wiegh the options, over the Canadian north barely poplulated, or south with is populated....i mean come on, do we really have to think about that one.... Besides both governments have a standing agreement already in regards to incoming mis strikes. Canadian PM will be notified but does not have to auth. besides we did not agree to the free mis defense project we opted out.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. Why do you think we didn't end up participating in the missile shield? The radars and missiles are all on our territory, any missile would end up blowing up over our territory spewing any radioactive/toxic materials over our soil. When Martin asked whether or not he would be consulted before anything would be blown out of the sky he wasn't given any guarantees. It wouldn't be different with anything else. What point? The dubious comparison between the Missile Defence and NORAD and your factless claims why it was refused? Or your point where you erroneously claim that the Americans would noty consult with us? Which one would you like thrashed? Both if you can. I doubt it, though. You already tried and came back with a lame explanation - something about Canada turning down missile defence is the same thing as the PM having a say in continental defence. I never agree with BC, but he's right. It's already happened before. I can refute both with one quote. "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada," said Paul Cellucci. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/24/missile-canada050224.html#ixzz15ZKM8Shz You misunderstood BC. When asked by the US to go on high alert, the PM refused....but the RCAF and other Arms did anyway... When Martin asked whether or not he would be consulted before anything would be blown out of the sky he wasn't given any guarantees. This btw demands a citation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xul Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) Nicky i think your misunderstanding NORAD's role, it is not just for missiles and airspace, today it involves Martime and land contacts as well. The Canadian PM is the only person that can authorise movement of any assets not already under command and control of NORAD. I think DND should illuminate Canadian which ships/planes/tanks you always demanded are Her Majesty's Canadaian ships/planes/tanks, and which are His American President's ships/planes/tanks to make sure there would not be any misunderstanding... The Canadian PM is the only person that can authorise movement of any assets not already under command and control of NORAD. This part may explain why Harper has turned to believe "the war is unwinnable" after he became PM....because sitting in Canadian PM office makes him having more understanding of why Afghans lack the passion to support Karzai and "his" army to win the war.... Maybe Harper just simply wants Army Guy coming back Canada as soon as possible to update DND's website to make it more informative Edited November 17, 2010 by xul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 Here's a reason why an open bid for replacement of the F-18's. After testing for the fighter F-35, Lockheed have found a cracks in the jet after only 1500 hours in the air, which they thought could get 8000 hrs before any problems. Again, this just shows just how much the Tories DO NOT know what they are doing! http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2010/11/cracked-f-35-missing-f-22.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 Here's a reason why an open bid for replacement of the F-18's. After testing for the fighter F-35, Lockheed have found a cracks in the jet after only 1500 hours in the air, which they thought could get 8000 hrs before any problems. Again, this just shows just how much the Tories DO NOT know what they are doing! http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2010/11/cracked-f-35-missing-f-22.html Actually at this point it proves nothing, and seriously don't link a blog link the story the blog is using. The aft bulkhead of the F-35B BH-1 fatigue-test specimen has developed cracks after 1,500 hours of durability testing, Ares has learned. This is less than one-tenth of the planned fatigue test program, which is designed to prove an 8,000-hour airframe life with a safety factor of two.The bulkhead design was modified in the course of the jet's weight-saving redesign in 2004-05, switching from forged titanium - proven on the F-22 - to a new aluminum forging process developed by Alcoa. Engineers are still investigating the failure and it is not yet known whether the cracks reflect a design fault, a test problem (for example, a condition on the rig that does not reproduce design conditions) or a faulty part. The F-35A and F-35C bulkheads are still made of titanium, as are similar bulkheads on the F-22. link So basically this is only affected the F-35B and may be a manufacturing error and not a design one. It's to early to tell. Keep grasping at straws I'm sure one will hold eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 IF the TORIES are so sure of this fighter is the one, then there's NO reason NOT to have an open bid to confirm they are right. Why aren't they? Could it be that the other companies have said they could build a jet to take of Canada needs and come in cheaper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The following is another reason to open bid this jet. Last week I read were some in the military pilots rather have the French's fighter jet, its lower in cost and probably lower in problems. Canada needs an open bid. Even thought the Tories keep saying that they are concern about Canadian jobs, BS! They weren't their for the workers is Sudbury, Hamilton and Chatham-Kent, and the forest industry, and a number of others who lost their jobs because the government either didn't get involved or should have gotten involved. Yes, they got involved with the auto sector but I'm sure that more to do the economy than helping the workers themselves. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/joint.strike.fighter/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 This topic seems to have stop with ones views and this is probably my last. I believe the Tories are wrong on this one and Canadians will pay dearly for it. The cost of maintenance and security will add to the nation's debt but the Tories are deciding jobs over the nation's debt and yet, there's no guarantee just how many job are secured under this. The right thing to do is have an open bid, if only to see how much Canada could save. Harper owns this one. http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Maintenance+security+needs+will+cause+fighter+costs+soar+documents/3897708/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 3, 2010 Report Share Posted December 3, 2010 The Liberals have called for Canada to pull out of the MOU and put the contract out to a competitive bid. They and other opposition MPs have objected that the current deal does not include minimum regional-benefits guarantees that at least one dollar of contracts would be bought in Canada for every dollar spent on the aircraft. But in a briefing for journalists at St. Hubert's airbase, several high-ranking officers said an exhaustive list of 14 mandatory requirements for the aircraft's capabilities was drawn up during an analysis period that began as far back as 2005. "Without them, an aircraft could not be considered," said Major William Radiff, a fighter pilot on staff at DND's directorate of air requirements. A subset of 56 less absolute requirements was also included after extensive consultation across DND. Lt.-Col. Gordon Zans, also of DND's next generation capability team, said his briefing was designed to "dispel the impression, after Ottawa's surprise announcement, that Canada did not do its due diligence." My link The cost of maintenance and security will add to the nation's debt but the Tories are deciding jobs over the nation's debt and yet How is the cost of Maintence going to add to the Nations debt, when it will be taken out of DND's annual Budget. Regardless of high or low it is. Here is what Lockheed said..... Burbage told the committee, however, that the projected industrial benefits that Canada will gain will likely exceed the $9-billion purchase price.At least 206 projects for Canadian companies related to the F-35s have been identified and Lockheed Martin has every intention of keeping the work in Canada, he said. My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Here's an article by a journalist that is doing a 3-part story on the F-35 and hopeful the need to have an open bid will come out of this story. http://www.globalnews.ca/world/Maintenance+send+cost+fighter+soaring/3960960/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Here's an article by a journalist that is doing a 3-part story on the F-35 and hopeful the need to have an open bid will come out of this story. Oh great...you can't make this stuff up....Canada's interests are being protected by Boeing! Boeing representatives were telling Conservative MPs they needed a competition to ensure Canada would get the best deal. "We believe we are much less expensive than the JSF," said Boeing official Glenn Erutti. "We have industrial benefits for Canadian industry available right now." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Oh great...you can't make this stuff up....Canada's interests are being protected by Boeing! Boeing representatives were telling Conservative MPs they needed a competition to ensure Canada would get the best deal. "We believe we are much less expensive than the JSF," said Boeing official Glenn Erutti. "We have industrial benefits for Canadian industry available right now." That is not the point. The point was the DND requirement for a two engine aircraft, what ever did happen to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 That is not the point. The point was the DND requirement for a two engine aircraft, what ever did happen to that? Engines got more reliable and powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Even thought the Tories keep saying that they are concern about Canadian jobs, BS! They weren't their for the workers is Sudbury, Hamilton and Chatham-Kent, and the forest industry, and a number of others who lost their jobs......... Ontario Liberal government's business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 The Liberals have called for Canada to pull out of the MOU and put the contract out to a competitive bid. They and other opposition MPs have objected that the current deal does not include minimum regional-benefits guarantees that at least one dollar of contracts would be bought in Canada for every dollar spent on the aircraft. My link How is the cost of Maintence going to add to the Nations debt, when it will be taken out of DND's annual Budget. Regardless of high or low it is. Here is what Lockheed said..... My link Having requirements is all fine and good, but this plane only theoretically meets them. The CNN article above makes it clear there is serious problems with the program. 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.