Character Assassination of the Chief of the Defence Staff

[PIK]

Like usual harper to the rescue. This is a man that gets things done, instead of just ignoring the problem as we have been use to for decades in this county.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-drastically-cutting-fleet-of-vip-challenger-jets/article5694474/

[Signals.Cpl]

I really want to know what login is talking about... cut one or even 4 jets to purchase dozens of aircraft in their place? Just the manpower cost of that would make it counter productive and then you would have dozens of aircraft of different ability and not one could do the job of the challenger. And buying MiGs for escorting those aircraft? Are you for real or was that part of the joke?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

I really want to know what login is talking about... cut one or even 4 jets to purchase dozens of aircraft in their place? Just the manpower cost of that would make it counter productive and then you would have dozens of aircraft of different ability and not one could do the job of the challenger. And buying MiGs for escorting those aircraft? Are you for real or was that part of the joke?

Let me know once you figure it out

Until then:

[login]

I really want to know what login is talking about... cut one or even 4 jets to purchase dozens of aircraft in their place? Just the manpower cost of that would make it counter productive and then you would have dozens of aircraft of different ability and not one could do the job of the challenger. And buying MiGs for escorting those aircraft? Are you for real or was that part of the joke?

I'm sorry but what don't you understand?

I recommended helicopters and commercial flights with police, and military control of the helicopters when not used byexecs. I suggested that the execs get trained to fly the helicopters while being transported.

Likewise Irecommended knocking off a few f35s and in place picking second hand fighters such as the mig-29 and mig-21's (which had very low purchase costs used) Likewise,I suggested getting 200 or so personal jets instead of one f35, and modifying it to have a human fired SAM or two of them and/or AtS missiles (or cannisters, machine gun etc..) as well as input a computer guidance system operating from a novel AI, and training VIPs to fly them. Like a car only it flies and goes 5 or more times as fast. (the personal gets that cost 1/2 million have about 200-400 of them.

use them for flight trainers while your at, it rent some of them them out I figure that 400 of these should provide a few per airport

http://en.wikipedia....ports_in_Canada

Man if you cut out the "luxury" of the flight, it will reduce flight hours to only need based fights.

The second part was criticism should another major conference occur in Canada that for the price of security you could make flotilla of luxury and utility yatch's and other boats and hold the G20 on lake ontario as opposed to downtown toronto.

Like for instance this MI-24 is 500,000 from Bulgaria

MI-24 US$ 500,000

Like common half a million for a hind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

True the flight distance may only be 500km but if you leapfrom from airport to airport using a few different aircraft it is good to go.

Likewise for most vip's 500km should be more than close enough to where they need to go and the next commerical flight to international locations.

Edited December 4, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

I'm sorry but what don't you understand?

Everything, you want to cut the Challengers in order to do what? Get Helicopters that will be placed all over the country in the off chance that one or 2 Cabinet ministers were to need them at some point over the next 2 decades? Do you know where the main cost of military comes from, I believe that 50% or more is spend on personnel. So your genius idea is to get dozens of aircraft and split them all over the country each one requiring its own crew and maintenance staff as well as infrastructure for what purpose? Waste the budget of the military?

I recommended helicopters and commercial flights with police, and military control of the helicopters when not used byexecs.

And why would the military need helicopters stationed in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa far from the bases that might actually need them? Giving something to the military but putting restrictions on where they could station the equipment means that the military will get little use of it and government bureaucrats will be using it constantly. Now lets go to the police portion of the argument, I am sure that it will be their greatest wish to get helicopters at the expense of the Federal Government and see little use of them or essentially have highly trained police pilots flying those helicopter used as taxi's.

I suggested that the execs get trained to fly the helicopters while being transported.

Please oh please tell me you are either joking. This "idea" does not even get the title of being the dumbest idea possible as it would give the dumbest idea possible a bad name.

Likewise Irecommended knocking off a few f35s and in place picking second hand fighters such as the mig-29 and mig-21's (which had very low purchase costs used)

And where do we get the spare parts if our relations with Russia get frosty? The purchase costs are irrelevant, the major expense is the pilots, ground crew and infrastructure and with your idea instead of having one type of aircraft to deal with in our system we would have to maintain spare parts and equipment as well as weapons for multiple aircraft... This would make the cost of buying the F35's look like child's play and this does not even cover the portion where Russia stops playing nice with us and we have to go to Uzbekistan and beg them for spare parts if they have any.

Likewise,I suggested getting 200 or so personal jets instead of one f35,

So to save money you want to buy 200 Personal jets, and hire 400 pilots and 10,000 ground crew as well as the infrastructure and support system to maintain and repair those aircraft?

and modifying it to have a human fired SAM or two of them and/or AtS missiles (or cannisters, machine gun etc..) as well as input a computer guidance system operating from a novel AI, and training VIPs to fly them.

For what the minister of culture? Really we will spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars purchasing, equipping training and maintaing the aircraft crew and infrastructure so that bureaucrats can fly somewhere?

Like a car only it flies and goes 5 or more times as fast. (the personal gets that cost 1/2 million have about 200-400 of them.

Ok, so lets say we get 200 of them, each one get a pilot and co-pilot, then we get 10 men ground crew to maintain each aircraft, then throw in that there would be a need for a substantial supply network to get parts to and from supply depots to the field so add there at least a couple of thousand. Then the people manning the weapon systems, their salaries and the cost to consistently keep them well trained in order to avoid shooting down some passenger jet that got to close... now at a lowball figure of 10,000 crew and support staff with an average salary of $3,500(keep in mind this is on the low end) multiplied by 12 months, and then by say 20 years(for the life span of the aircraft) and you get tens of billions of dollars in upkeep and that does not count the unnecessary weapon systems, initial purchase and ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, fuel, training and infrastructure needed to support this idiotic and extremely unnecessary undertaking and that is just the things I can think of, I'm sure there is quite a lot I am forgetting.

use them for flight trainers while your at, it rent some of them them out I figure that 400 of these should provide a few per airport

So we should purchase it for the police and military, the bureaucrats will use them at will and when not in use will be rented out?

http://en.wikipedia....ports_in_Canada

Man if you cut out the "luxury" of the flight, it will reduce flight hours to only need based fights.

And what happens when you need to bring wounded troops back from Germany? What would you helicopters and heavily armed light aircraft do for us there? Should we beg the US for transport because we blew our budget on some idiotic idea and can't bring our wounded from overseas?

The second part was criticism should another major conference occur in Canada that for the price of security you could make flotilla of luxury and utility yatch's and other boats and hold the G20 on lake ontario as opposed to downtown toronto.

Please tell me you are joking... I can think of quite a few places better then the middle of the freaking lake to put a meeting where the heads of state will have to hop from one yacht to talk to one another.

Like for instance this MI-24 is 500,000 from Bulgaria

MI-24 US$ 500,000

Ever wonder why they would want to get rid of it? The Bulgarian Military realizes that the country is aligned to western Europe and North America and as such they should equip their forces with weapons and equipment that would give them access to spare parts and expertise in a war situation that the Soviet Union gave them during the Cold War

Like common half a million for a hind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

Just because it is for sale does not mean we should go and buy it, the idea that we should purchase Russian Equipment and be at the mercy of Russian foreign policy is idiotic. Wether we like it or not, our loyalties lie with the US and as such on many occasions that would put us at odds with Russia which means that we would be short on spare parts and equipment at those times.

True the flight distance may only be 500km but if you leapfrom from airport to airport using a few different aircraft it is good to go.

I see absolutely no need for that what so ever.

Likewise for most vip's 500km should be more than close enough to where they need to go and the next commerical flight to international locations.

So we will spend tens if not hundreds of billions in equipment, training and personnel to fly some "VIP" from their office to the airport to fly them to another airport to catch a plane? I can see how that makes perfect sense.

Challengers are versatile, you can use them for VIP's, Dangerous Prisoner transfers, Casualty transport amongst others, we need at most one Aircraft for the PM with appropriate equipment to be in contact at all times, one for the CDS to be able to run the military even if traveling and 2-4 for Other Duties, if anything we should purchase dedicated military aircraft that serve the same purpose and more.

The PM has a justifiable reason, the CDS has a justifiable reason but few others would have one except for emergencies, your "idea" aims to eliminate the CHallengers and replace them with hundreds of aircraft and sea craft that do not even cover a small portion of the spectrum of duties that the Challenger would be expected to do. Purchasing hundreds of aircraft and arming them for war means that there is always the chance to just handover heavy anti-aircraft weapon systems and ammunition to terrorists on a silver platter, I must say that would make me feel so safe and Im sure all Canadians and Americans would feel the same way knowing that heavy weapons are unprotected and available almost at will to anyone willing to carry them...

Edited December 4, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[login]

Everything, you want to cut the Challengers in order to do what?

Well first off only two of the six are being kept in service because they reached the end of their regular service life (from the early 1980's).

But, yes, I think that diversifying available assets from 'used' equipment, is better than going out and buying new equipment when there is a deficit.

I'd task the military to maintain it, use it for small engine repair, air technical training, support and expansion of CF assets, and executive training.

Get Helicopters that will be placed all over the country in the off chance that one or 2 Cabinet ministers were to need them at some point over the next 2 decades?

You didn't read my "other usages" where available they could be rented or tasked to other government services as required. I'm sure crop dusting or serving under serviced areas, assisting flightschools, air cadets, reserve forces and regular CF testing, emergency management etc...

Do you know where the main cost of military comes from, I believe that 50% or more is spend on personnel.

I support militias to increase the size of the forces, and an open door policy. You know if people want to go out and do their regular fire arms training this is good. if they are trusted with regular guns, then making prohibited weapons available in secure settings is not a problem.

Likewise providing training to the public --- perhaps as a service for a "payfor" service, I pay $500 to support this each year and I get flight hours, but I have operations to perform while doing my flight hours, and I have to be a sworn peace officer milita member or what have you. The program could be fine tuned but my policy position on the military is BIGGER BUT IT DOES MORE, especially economic activities, as well as skills and training. Re: public service, resource, infrastructure development etc..

If CF command told me that they don't need more soldiers to defend Canada, I would find that hard to beleive.

So your genius idea is to get dozens of aircraft and split them all over the country each one requiring its own crew and maintenance staff as well as infrastructure for what purpose?

As opposed to not having technical staff at airports? Definately but they would be everyone, but it would be like so you are a customs agent, well you are also now a small engine repair or an aircraft maintenance agent, and you get paid the same, but your hours are different. Now you are just on call for customs or crimes, but if you are sitting around the office get out to the hanger. Start working on that Light Aircraft kit that you get as a bonus for personal use.

Waste the budget of the military?

I think that buying 65 f35's is a waste of the budget. I support the purchase of some but I havn't seen a single report saying why it is 65, and why they are only going after one aircraft designed over 10 years ago as their only aircraft for the well last aircraft they ever get for a manned fighter. It is nonsense. From an outsider looking in, their plans are little more than a sublimentary brigade of the the US military (or 5 divisions (1 air 1 sea, 1 land, 1 sof/comm/intel,and 1 command)

And why would the military need helicopters stationed in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa far from the bases that might actually need them?

Well its not like there arlready arn't helicopters in those places. I'm sure you are well aware of the helicopters the CF has in the Toronto area for very specific usages, and seen SOF operations with helicopters. None the less having equipment stationed around Canada, is useful in such as a way that local areas can have faster response times. Figure that.

Giving something to the military but putting restrictions on where they could station the equipment means that the military will get little use of it and government bureaucrats will be using it constantly.

Change the rules.

Now lets go to the police portion of the argument, I am sure that it will be their greatest wish to get helicopters at the expense of the Federal Government and see little use of them or essentially have highly trained police pilots flying those helicopter used as taxi's. Please oh please tell me you are either joking. This "idea" does not even get the title of being the dumbest idea possible as it would give the dumbest idea possible a bad name.

'fraid not.

And where do we get the spare parts if our relations with Russia get frosty?

Read my comments about IP earlier.

The purchase costs are irrelevant, the major expense is the pilots, ground crew and infrastructure and with your idea instead of having one type of aircraft to deal with in our system we would have to maintain spare parts and equipment as well as weapons for multiple aircraft... This would make the cost of buying the F35's look like child's play and this does not even cover the portion where Russia stops playing nice with us and we have to go to Uzbekistan and beg them for spare parts if they have any.

Pay them less, they are under contract. I'm sure they will still serve, remember there is more demand to be in the forces than Canada can provide for, this means, gasp that CF pilots that Canada trains to fly helicopters can get the same pay as if they didn't get training and they can be happy they actually get to fly them and got to learn how to fly them, and shut up and not ask for more money than they would get if they wern't gifted with the flight lessons in the first place.

So to save money you want to buy 200 Personal jets, and hire 400 pilots and 10,000 ground crew as well as the infrastructure and support system to maintain and repair those aircraft?

Train them. You hire capable people and you train them. Get it.

For what the minister of culture? Really we will spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars purchasing, equipping training and maintaing the aircraft crew and infrastructure so that bureaucrats can fly somewhere?

You couldn't run a cost efficient program if your life depended on it. I can probably live off your gas costs alone. Expect less.

Ok, so lets say we get 200 of them, each one get a pilot and co-pilot, then we get 10 men ground crew to maintain each aircraft, then throw in that there would be a need for a substantial supply network to get parts to and from supply depots to the field so add there at least a couple of thousand. Then the people manning the weapon systems, their salaries and the cost to consistently keep them well trained in order to avoid shooting down some passenger jet that got to close... now at a lowball figure of 10,000 crew and support staff with an average salary of $3,500(keep in mind this is on the low end) multiplied by 12 months, and then by say 20 years(for the life span of the aircraft) and you get tens of billions of dollars in upkeep and that does not count the unnecessary weapon systems, initial purchase and ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, fuel, training and infrastructure needed to support this idiotic and extremely unnecessary undertaking and that is just the things I can think of, I'm sure there is quite a lot I am forgetting.

The personnel resources already exist. If the execs want to use them, they have to learn to fly them otherwise take the bus. Of course the autopilot is there too.

So we should purchase it for the police and military, the bureaucrats will use them at will and when not in use will be rented out?

Exact programs would differ based on local needs and demands.

They are a resource but they would be prioritized and only security cleared people would have access, potentially with deposits or insurance of some sort.

And what happens when you need to bring wounded troops back from Germany? What would you helicopters and heavily armed light aircraft do for us there? Should we beg the US for transport because we blew our budget on some idiotic idea and can't bring our wounded from overseas?

What disabled people arn't accomodated on commercial flights? Take the cruise ferry that Canada could have tons of for the cost of the g20 security costs. Don't beg to the US. If they won't transport our wounded don't fight their wars.

Please tell me you are joking... I can think of quite a few places better then the middle of the freaking lake to put a meeting where the heads of state will have to hop from one yacht to talk to one another.

They would hold plenty of them. So hop a yatch. They hold 3 helicopters in some cases. While there are lower costing places the middle of lake ontario and getting to keep the boats is a better deal than getting nothing from it for the tax payer.

Ever wonder why they would want to get rid of it? The Bulgarian Military realizes that the country is aligned to western Europe and North America and as such they should equip their forces with weapons and equipment that would give them access to spare parts and expertise in a war situation that the Soviet Union gave them during the Cold War

It is a 500,000 dollar Hind. I don't care about geopolitics.

Just because it is for sale does not mean we should go and buy it, the idea that we should purchase Russian Equipment and be at the mercy of Russian foreign policy is idiotic. Wether we like it or not, our loyalties lie with the US and as such on many occasions that would put us at odds with Russia which means that we would be short on spare parts and equipment at those times.

If it was made by fartians I would care less.

So we will spend tens if not hundreds of billions in equipment, training and personnel to fly some "VIP" from their office to the airport to fly them to another airport to catch a plane? I can see how that makes perfect sense.

Except for sacrificing three f35's for the 400+ personal jets , the costs for everything else was maybe 30 million. The boats of course were offset from the cost of a future summit of world leaders that security costs would be high.

Challengers are versatile, you can use them for VIP's, Dangerous Prisoner transfers, Casualty transport amongst others, we need at most one Aircraft for the PM with appropriate equipment to be in contact at all times, one for the CDS to be able to run the military even if traveling and 2-4 for Other Duties, if anything we should purchase dedicated military aircraft that serve the same purpose and more.

sedate the prisoner and chuck them in the hold of an aircanada flight with the other animals, I'd question why bring him/her back, if they set foot in Canada again arrest them. I'm geussing on notifying thelocal authorities they will keep an eye on them anyway, less Canadian resources wasted.. I'm all for bombardier and they are getting good business. But buying them at 100 million to 200 million a pop you can buy a lot of private jets for that like at 1/2 million each that is 200-400 private jets for 1 challenger. Canadian execs don't deserve challengers. They can fly commercial. I could maybe substantiate it for military officers but I deem ministers non essential in terms of national security, I think the deputy ministers are more important,and the deputys should be in Canada most of the time and a replacement deputy should be chosen if they are not. Ministers largely should just be oversight they should not be executives except very extreme political context where the legistlature without corruption empowerd the minister to act, and was absolutelyrequired such as non unilaterally effectng a safegaurd forthe publicwell being or determining a course of action that would have grave political repercussions.

The PM has a justifiable reason, the CDS has a justifiable reason but few others would have one except for emergencies, your "idea" aims to eliminate the CHallengers and replace them with hundreds of aircraft and sea craft that do not even cover a small portion of the spectrum of duties that the Challenger would be expected to do. Purchasing hundreds of aircraft and arming them for war means that there is always the chance to just handover heavy anti-aircraft weapon systems and ammunition to terrorists on a silver platter, I must say that would make me feel so safe and Im sure all Canadians and Americans would feel the same way knowing that heavy weapons are unprotected and available almost at will to anyone willing to carry them...

4 of the 6 are being eliminated. The remaining two will fly for another 10 or so years. But I would say do not buy 4 new challengers to replace the retired ones buy used aircraft and those small private jets in the place of one or two and "economize them" get them making money. If commercial activities can generate a revenue then you can go out and expand the crown corp managing the assets. If they can't make money off of it, chances are it is just wankery by the execs.

Edited December 4, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

You don't have the most basic grasp on this subject, you seem to think that the major cost of the F-35 is the F-35 itself and it is not, the aircraft cost around 9 billion to purchase then you add all the other costs and you get the 35 billion you are proposing something that will cost tax payers billions upon billions of dollars while bringing nothing in the way of new capabilities. CF members love their jobs and that is the reason that many do the job that requires them to spend significant time away from loved once, moving every couple of years and living in remote locations but once you cut the pay and make members choose between serving their country and taking care of their families, for the most part families will win out and you lose great people. You pay military members decent and they will endure the hardships because they love their jobs, when you pay them much lower then they would get in the civvie world, expect much more from them and have them see their families lacking in the basic necessities of life you are likely to see few people in the military and even fewer wanting to join. You get what you pay for, you pay people significantly below what they would make in the civilian world and expect more of them then you will lose the good and have to settle for the bottom of the barrel.

[login]

You don't have the most basic grasp on this subject, you seem to think that the major cost of the F-35 is the F-35 itself and it is not, the aircraft cost around 9 billion to purchase then you add all the other costs and you get the 35 billion you are proposing something that will cost tax payers billions upon billions of dollars while bringing nothing in the way of new capabilities. CF members love their jobs and that is the reason that many do the job that requires them to spend significant time away from loved once, moving every couple of years and living in remote locations but once you cut the pay and make members choose between serving their country and taking care of their families, for the most part families will win out and you lose great people. You pay military members decent and they will endure the hardships because they love their jobs, when you pay them much lower then they would get in the civvie world, expect much more from them and have them see their families lacking in the basic necessities of life you are likely to see few people in the military and even fewer wanting to join. You get what you pay for, you pay people significantly below what they would make in the civilian world and expect more of them then you will lose the good and have to settle for the bottom of the barrel.

This isn't the f35 thread.

None the less here is another buy on the replacement challenger cost

This one is like 300000

http://www.aso.com/l...istingType=true

( specs: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Eclipse_500 )

Loaded weight: 5,520 lb (2,504 kg)

• Useful load: 2,400 lb (1,089 kg)
  
• Max. takeoff weight: 5,950 lb (2,699 kg)
  

PS You could try to get hybrid Mini Genie Missiles for air defence, against more capable jets.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/AIR-2_Genie

Weight 822 pounds (372.9 kg)

Look at the Operators list

Operators Canada

• Royal Canadian Air Force
  
• Canadian Forces Air Command
  

see also: http://en.wikipedia....ircraft_weapons

Like look how small this little thing is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

W72

After the AIM-26 Falcon was retired, 300 units were rebuilt into an improved configuration with a higher yield and redesignated the W72. These warheads were then used to produce a number of nuclear versions of the AGM-62 Walleye television guided glide bomb system. The W72 variant had a yield of around 600 tons of TNT.

The 300 W72 units were produced between 1970 and 1972, and were in service until 1979.

Might be able to pick some stuff off with the fiscal cliff stuff in the US.. Canada should keep an eye on surplus possibilities.

Edited December 5, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

You don't get it do you? We need as few designs as possible, to limit the cost in the long term and this applies to the weapon systems as well. I believe we have an Air Defence Regiment in Gagetown and if they ask for some anti-aircraft weapon systems its one thing but when someone who is so divorced from reality advocates the purchase of weapons for a threat that does not exist its a whole different ballgame. Buying weapons the CF does not need just screws over the soldiers, sailors and aircrew because it means the money that is so desperately needed is diverted in to systems that end up being useless while the badly needed equipment purchases are postponed.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[login]

You don't get it do you? We need as few designs as possible, to limit the cost in the long term and this applies to the weapon systems as well. I believe we have an Air Defence Regiment in Gagetown and if they ask for some anti-aircraft weapon systems its one thing but when someone who is so divorced from reality advocates the purchase of weapons for a threat that does not exist its a whole different ballgame. Buying weapons the CF does not need just screws over the soldiers, sailors and aircrew because it means the money that is so desperately needed is diverted in to systems that end up being useless while the badly needed equipment purchases are postponed.

nope.

we need low cost solutions A does not = B

you are totally wrong

my solutions saves solideirs lives and enhance their futures

Edited December 5, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

nope.

we need low cost solutions A does not = B

you are totally wrong

my solutions saves solideirs lives and enhance their futures

Your "solution" "solves" a "problem" that does not exists while at the same time taking away money, resources and manpower from projects and systems we do need.

Explain what your so called solution is and why we require billions and billions of dollars in investment to solve the imaginary problem.

[login]

Your "solution" "solves" a "problem" that does not exists while at the same time taking away money, resources and manpower from projects and systems we do need.

Explain what your so called solution is and why we require billions and billions of dollars in investment to solve the imaginary problem.

In no way shape or form. It is your solution that risks lives and wastes money. You can't do anything but f35 with f35's. You can do a lot more with a bunch of jets and helicopters in terms of putting them to work earning money rather than eating it up.

You don't need billions of dollars to solve an imaginary problem. Stop asking stupid questions.

Its what you expect when people are indoctrinated to be selfish liars and crooks with no public morals and no private decency.

Edited December 6, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

In no way shape or form. It is your solution that risks lives and wastes money. You can't do anything but f35 with f35's. You can do a lot more with a bunch of jets and helicopters in terms of putting them to work earning money rather than eating it up.

And buying 400 planes that nobody needs or wants and hiring 10,000 or more people to maintain them and fly them adds enormous expense while your solution to rent them out so they bring money in is ludicrous, no one will get use of those aircraft because they will either be used by petty dictator wannabes who use the as a private jet or will be consistently rented out and neither the military or the various police forces will get any use of those aircraft. The only thing "your" solution does is waste money when the CF has to get more troops to maintain the useless 400 aircraft which means that those are people who will bring little value to the CF overall. Buying 400 different aircraft and helicopters adds to the demand to maintain an inventory of parts and places a demand on training technicians to repair dozens of designs more then they need to. Getting MiG's for the CF is out of the question as those planes breakdown like every other piece of equipment made by human beings and depending on Russia to give us the spare parts is not a good idea as at some point in time politics will interfere and Russia will stop supplying us and those "cheap" fighters you want to purchase will sit in an RCAF base gathering dust essentially being billions of dollars worth of paperweights. As for the other aircraft they add nothing to the abilities of the military or police even if you add weapons to them as the weapons will most likely be useless in a situation against fighter aircraft.

You don't need billions of dollars to solve an imaginary problem. Stop asking stupid questions.

Learn basic math:

-10,000 personnel making an average of $3,500/month and this is a lowball figure is $35,000,000/month x 12 months = $420,000,000/year just in personnel costs.

-throw in $100,000,000 in fuel and repairs a year.

-add to that the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be wasted to certify technicians and aircrew on dozens of different aircraft.

- a billion or so to expand our infrastructure to be able to handle the few hundred new aircraft.

so just the maintenance of the aircraft and salaries of the troops would be almost $16,000,000,000 over the lifetime of the aircraft and again this is a lowball figure because if you use the realistic numbers plus all the other little expenses associated with the manpower aspect that number could very easily double if not triple. I am lowballing the $100 million for fuel and repairs but that could increase dramatically as well.

The fact that we need to build more infrastructure to support those aircraft and maintain such infrastructure just increases the price exponentially it could conceivably cost $40 billion or more to operate those aircraft and that is the low side of things. The cost for the F35's is around 9 billion and the other 24 billion that people are complaining about is the upkeep of the aircraft, personnel, infrastructure and all other costs associated with the planes, increasing the number changes the costs as you need more people, bigger infrastructure investment and maintenance as well as much more in maintaining the aircraft because they would be dispersed throughout the country rather then consolidated in as few bases as possible and would be dozens of designs instead of just a couple. The cost would be billions more then the F35's and the return on investment would be dramatically lower as now we will have aircraft that depend on a foreign power that is on many occasions at odds with us and could shut down our diverse fleet of fighters and helicopters at the times when the relationship gets a little frosty. Your imaginary solution does nothing but assume that you can waltz in to the CF, slash the salaries of the troops...you know the same people that put themselves in harms way when Canada needs them, the same people who spend in some cases years apart from their families and who miss the important milestones in their children's lives... this is ludicrous as people will realize that they sacrifice so much to do a job and they could go and work in the civilian world for more money with much less in the way of sacrifices and would get to spend much more time with their families.

Its what you expect when people are indoctrinated to be selfish liars and crooks with no public morals and no private decency.

The guy who is divorced from reality and cannot do basic math or grasp basic logic is calling me selfish, a liar and a crook with no morals or decency? Gee you have a way with people who disagree with faulty your point of don't you?

[bleeding heart]

The guy who is divorced from reality and cannot do basic math or grasp basic logic is calling me selfish, a liar and a crook with no morals or decency? Gee you have a way with people who disagree with faulty your point of don't you?

A charming rhetorical style, eh?

[login]

And buying 400 planes that nobody needs or wants and hiring 10,000 or more people to maintain them and fly them adds enormous expense

Try reading what I write. First off my planes cost a 200th (1/200) what your planes cost. Second I do not suggest hiring more people I suggest expanding the size of a volunteer militia from 0 to whatever Canadians wanna. Likewise I suggest taking existing jobs and educating people to hold more skills at work sites.

I did not suggest spending more taxpayer money.

Likewise there are a whole lot of people who would like to learn to fly or rent a jet to go from point a to point b, they are called people who use airlines. A market exists, I think lots of people like aircraft and use them. I don't see why you would say they are a market nobody wants.

while your solution to rent them out so they bring money in is ludicrous, no one will get use of those aircraft because they will either be used by petty dictator wannabes who use the as a private jet or will be consistently rented out and neither the military or the various police forces will get any use of those aircraft.

You are quite wrong.

The only thing "your" solution does is waste money when the CF has to get more troops to maintain the useless 400 aircraft which means that those are people who will bring little value to the CF overall.

Your supply management skills suck. You are making a system that fails by design not planing a system that succeeds by design.

Buying 400 different aircraft and helicopters adds to the demand to maintain an inventory of parts and places a demand on training technicians to repair dozens of designs more then they need to.

You are ignoring the TRAIN PEOPLE ASPECT. People can build parts. Companies do it then charge a markup of 100x. Where do you think billion dollar profits come from, jesus?

Getting MiG's for the CF is out of the question as those planes breakdown like every other piece of equipment made by human beings and depending on Russia to give us the spare parts is not a good idea as at some point in time politics will interfere and Russia will stop supplying us and those "cheap" fighters you want to purchase will sit in an RCAF base gathering dust essentially being billions of dollars worth of paperweights. As for the other aircraft they add nothing to the abilities of the military or police even if you add weapons to them as the weapons will most likely be useless in a situation against fighter aircraft.

The scrap metal is probably worth more than $40,000. You want incapable people and that sucks. You are trying to build a world full of stupid people, you make no sense.

The rest of your post is nonsense because it is as I said not representative of my plan and based on your planning, which I stated was faulty.

[Signals.Cpl]

Try reading what I write. First off my planes cost a 200th (1/200) what your planes cost. Second I do not suggest hiring more people I suggest expanding the size of a volunteer militia from 0 to whatever Canadians wanna. Likewise I suggest taking existing jobs and educating people to hold more skills at work sites.

I did not suggest spending more taxpayer money.

Likewise there are a whole lot of people who would like to learn to fly or rent a jet to go from point a to point b, they are called people who use airlines. A market exists, I think lots of people like aircraft and use them. I don't see why you would say they are a market nobody wants.

You are quite wrong.

Your supply management skills suck. You are making a system that fails by design not planing a system that succeeds by design.

You are ignoring the TRAIN PEOPLE ASPECT. People can build parts. Companies do it then charge a markup of 100x. Where do you think billion dollar profits come from, jesus?

The scrap metal is probably worth more than $40,000. You want incapable people and that sucks. You are trying to build a world full of stupid people, you make no sense.

The rest of your post is nonsense because it is as I said not representative of my plan and based on your planning, which I stated was faulty.

You live in a dream world and I highly doubt you have worked a day in your life to even know how far off base you are, you want to force people to join a militia and learn another set of skills in order to repair aircraft that nobody needs, wants or finds particularly useful?

And building parts without permission of the nation that designed and build them is not exactly a great idea but then again you have no idea about real life do you? You don't realize that Canada is not China...

Most people base their opinions on some sort of facts while you base your opinion on fantasy that will never work, I am done wasting my time even reading your posts, honestly all I can say is I hope you pick up a book and educate yourself a little because this is getting just a little bit sad.

[login]

You live in a dream world

Nope

and I highly doubt you have worked a day in your life

wrong again.

to even know how far off base you are, you want to force people to join a militia and learn another set of skills in order to repair aircraft that nobody needs, wants or finds particularly useful?

Its not called a volunteer militia because they need to. Oh shut up with your nobody needs bs, it is pure rhetorical banter that is a cosmic teapot debate.

No one needs any of the stuff, clue in. canadians could go back to old order Mennonite ways just fine, it is about what it allows not that it is 'needed'. The stuff very much fullfills a need that is replacing 4 challenger jet aircraft that cost a whole lot of money and only a very small group of execs have access to while the whole of the public pays for them. I much favour my approach that spreads the wealth and allows more people to gain from the taxpayer outlet. If the execs want private jets let them pay for them.

And building parts without permission of the nation that designed and build them is not exactly a great idea but then again you have no idea about real life do you? You don't realize that Canada is not China...

screw IP. You do realize you are not me. If I need parts for something you can build it, it isn't for commercial application. Its not being sold. get over it.

Most people base their opinions on some sort of facts while you base your opinion on fantasy that will never work, I am done wasting my time even reading your posts, honestly all I can say is I hope you pick up a book and educate yourself a little because this is getting just a little bit sad.

No sorry, you are the person who supports ruining peoples lives for the benefit of a small group of executives at the cost to the public benefit.

There is something called "the 'repair exception'" to IP it allows for non commercial reproduction for purpose of repair of systems.

WTO

However, it has always been remembered that limits to absolute protection are justified by the public interest. In other words

http://www.murdoch.e...er104_text.html

"exploitation" refers to "the commercial activity by which patent owners employ

Doctrine of Exhaustion

In Canada, the common law doctrine of exhaustion provides that a purchaser of a patented product benefits from an implied licence to use, repair, and resell that product.

Also it would be interesting to see how many of the parts are newer than 20 years my guess is few if any, and if it was patented in Canada... (You do realize patents are only binding for 20 years and must be filed in Canada to be effective.

Signals.Cpl it is you who don't seem to know the law or how to apply it.

fueled by gasoline you could probably bulletproof mesh line this thing... and it can go on the road... OR it can fly or drive at up to 180kph. http://singularityhu...the-cheap-part/

you could soup this up as a VIP transport. for 300,000 you could get 20 of these sorts of things for the price of one of the challengers .. I'm geussing you could find even lower cost variants too....

http://pal-v.com/

Edited December 8, 2012 by login