cybercoma Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Wild Bill, he's only questioning it because he's an internet troll with an American neo-con nationalist schtick. You're wasting your time. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) ...We also designed and flew the Arrow in a remarkably short time. We were the first to literally fly a new plane design from the drawing board straight into the sky! We can argue about whether the Arrow was as great a plane as some believe or not but the fact is, 20 years earlier we were not a military aircraft building and designing nation at all. Perfect example of what I'm talking about...the Avro Arrow was a splendid design, but it never made it into production. The mission died and there were already cheaper interceptor alternatives in the sky. Where was the commitment and follow through? If you think Arrow was an expensive exercise, wait until it is scaled up to a nuclear submarine (fleet). Still, our tradition of being able to wake up and adapt quickly is a real one. If we purchase some nuclear submarines I have no doubt we will end up manning them quite capably. If we build them ourselves they will work well! Waking up and adapting quickly with somebody else's platforms is not the same thing as an indigenous capability and supporting infrastructure. It was never the Canadian forces who had to re-do maintenance manuals into comic book form to suit the literacy levels of their men, BC! Frankly, I believe that our typical member of our armed forces is just more literate and educated than yours! This is not meant as an insult. We work with what we have. I'm just positing an explanation. We're dumbing down our youth as fast as we can to match you! This statement belies your very understanding of the challenges for nuclear trained submarine crews. Admiral Rickover would laugh in his grave. A full set of S5G or S8G Reactor Procedures Manuals would fill a car and are very much not in "comic book" format. My real point to you is that you should not be so quick to judge what we are capable of in a crunch. Like Hobbits, we would surprise you! We've proven ourselves many times before and we are not so far gone that we couldn't do it again, if we had to! I've already stated that it can be done with enough money and commitment, but Canada lacks both, or at least the political will to see such an investment through. Try to solve the rotary winged aircraft jinx first! Edited October 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted October 28, 2011 Author Report Posted October 28, 2011 Wild Bill, he's only questioning it because he's an internet troll with an American neo-con nationalist schtick. You're wasting your time. Which is why I don't understand anyone's reasoning for answering him. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Which is why I don't understand anyone's reasoning for answering him. That's OK son...have you ever seen a nuclear powered submarine? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
guyser Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Wild Bill, he's only questioning it because he's an internet troll with an American neo-con nationalist schtick. You're wasting your time. He may be prickly to you but his knowledge and understanding of military issues and such is first class.There are enough idiots here who piss on America and get butt hurt when he turns it back on you. If he consisted of posts of USA USA #1 and nothing else, you'd have a point. But he doesnt. Quote
WWWTT Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 i only support arming canada to protect canada not to hang off the coast of iran or somalia im sure most canadians agree with that Your absolutely right! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Tilter Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Enough with the fighter jets, they are jet powered fighters not fighter powered jets. We don't say sub nuclears, locomotive diesels or cycle motors, so what's with fighter jets. Why "jets" at all? are there other types of propulsion for fighters? Quote
Tilter Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 I didn't realize that the Victoria class Canadian subs ever made it to patrol. I thot that the fantastic "bargain" subs had all sunk into oblivion in fact rather than being useful. ("Bargain" applies only to Britain, the seller of this seajunk.) Quote
Peter F Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Canada has to get the basics in place on the surface before jumping to exotic nuclear powered platforms fighting raging battles with Russia under the ice. Define the mission before jumping for a sexy solution. And that says it all! BC also suggests it'd be better buying the Ruski Nuke icebreaker first - and he's right about that too! But that just ain't sexy. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
WWWTT Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 I believe the conservative government of Canada has reached the saturation point in new military spending. Canadians aren't going to buy into much more of it for at least another couple of years. This issue will die fast courtesy of the hard reality of economics! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Smallc Posted October 28, 2011 Author Report Posted October 28, 2011 I believe the conservative government of Canada has reached the saturation point in new military spending. There hasn't been any new spending since 2006 or 2007. People need to understand how budgeting works. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Why "jets" at all? are there other types of propulsion for fighters? Technically, the present F-35 engine is a P&W turbofan with afterburner. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WWWTT Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 There hasn't been any new spending since 2006 or 2007. People need to understand how budgeting works. Thankyou for the correction. I guess what I meant to say then was "announsements" of new spending. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Wild Bill Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Wild Bill, he's only questioning it because he's an internet troll with an American neo-con nationalist schtick. You're wasting your time. Thanks anyway, CC but I have no problems with BC. His military knowledge seems first rate and accurate. He can be a bit prickly but hey, when I post before I've had my coffee I can be crankier than I have a right to be as well! As for being a nationalist, as an American he has a right to be! We Canadians should be a bit more like them! We used to be, before we got the crazy idea that every other country and culture in the world was equal or even a bit better than us and ours! So far, he has never mistaken me for a conservative. That's better than a lot of Canadian posters on this board! He also doesn't seem as blindly partisan as many of our 'Lefties'. Besides, he knows Morse code! That makes only two of us here on MLW! Edited October 28, 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."
Army Guy Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 This story along with others may have an underliying theme. The F-35 program is well getting more and more flak every day, with more and more experts agreeing that perhaps we should down size our commitment to the F-35...The only minister right now that defends the purchase is mckay....as problems grow even the MND will find it hard to keep the program in line and on track....thats 29 bil worth of program... The reason i say this is the super hornet is looking better and better to almost everyone....I think we will all agree there is not much more room for defence spending.....And yet try and find a Canadian that really puts any stock into our current Subs....I think selling the Nuc sub would be an easy ploy if someone could convince the minister and airforce to cancel the F-35 purchase, of course that would have to be a big bone you'd have to throw, but if it did happen there would be room for perhaps some subs.... As for which Subs to purchase the brits have a new sub, and although it still going through teething problems like dereck said I don't think Canadians want to buy anything British.... I like the American solution, purchase some refitted LA class, have Canadian sailors intergrated into the US training,not the first time we have done this, infact i pretty sure we have had our sailors on board US subs as part of some Officer training course albiet in very few numbers, but it has been done....I mean our Navy is one of the few that has been allowed to form US Naval battle groups, we have exchanged crew all the time... Not only would it give Canada a crack at owning and operating it's own Nuc sub program, but we would or could do it under the worlds finest operators, it would also allow the US to still float x number of boats at a fraction of the price as there is no doubt they could or would become part of another US Naval BG. and like Derick said perhaps we could Grad into maybe the Virgina class some day.... As for Maintence , or refits, they could be done at US ship yards....as part of the agreement... 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.
Smallc Posted October 28, 2011 Author Report Posted October 28, 2011 The F-35 program is well getting more and more flak every day, with more and more experts agreeing that perhaps we should down size our commitment to the F-35...The only minister right now that defends the purchase is mckay....as problems grow even the MND will find it hard to keep the program in line and on track....thats 29 bil worth of program... Not really. That's like saying that the Canadian Surface Combatant is $100B worth of program. I mean, it is, if you include every cost for the next 30 years. The F-35 is $9B of program. Australia just spent $6B on 24 F-18 Fs. How is that more affordable? Quote
Army Guy Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Not really. That's like saying that the Canadian Surface Combatant is $100B worth of program. I mean, it is, if you include every cost for the next 30 years. The F-35 is $9B of program. Australia just spent $6B on 24 F-18 Fs. How is that more affordable? That would depend on what the Ausies got with their program, but if you numbers are right that would be 250 mil per copy ...last time i checked even the F-22 were not that expensive.... 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.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Thanks anyway, CC but I have no problems with BC. His military knowledge seems first rate and accurate. He can be a bit prickly but hey, when I post before I've had my coffee I can be crankier than I have a right to be as well! Much obliged....I can get along fine with anyone who knows the difference between a diode, triode, tetrode, and pentode. Hope your eyeight is better than mine for solderin'! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted October 28, 2011 Author Report Posted October 28, 2011 I imagine that the $6B includes more than the purchase price, and may in fact include the first few years of service, which would make it a bad comparison on my part. Here's the think though. We'll be flying whatever we buy until at least 2050. Will the F-18 E/F still be relevant then? Quote
Bonam Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 I think if we go ahead with wanting to get nuclear subs, it would be worth looking at how feasible it would be to build them in Canada. We do have the necessary nuclear reactor expertise. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 ...As for Maintence , or refits, they could be done at US ship yards....as part of the agreement... Great idea...as the Brits already do this for boomer shakedowns and tactical weapons qualification. British Trident missiles are "comingled" with US assets and facilities. The costs are just too prohibitive for independent and redundant capability. So that leaves the political problem for jobs spending outside Canada, historically a huge barrier. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Rumour has it at over 10 years or 4.6 bil us which is still about the same in CDN dollars The total cost with training and support over 10 years is A$6 billion (US$4.6 billion).[69] The Super Hornets were ordered to replace the F-111, which was retired in December 2010, pending the delivery of the F-35 Lightning II. They purchased the F model to replace the F-111....why a twin seater i don't know, maybe it makes since ...is'nt the F-15E a twin seater...anyways i can remember not so long ago we were having the same debate me sticking with the F-35 and you with the F-18 ...but things have changed a bit...something that has gotten me to change my postion is i know 65 aircraft is not enough...and i know there is no more funding available for this project....that and every day there seems to be less and less orders for this aircraft....infact the US is very concerned that it will also have to cut it's numbers...and good luck getting any more orders out of europe.... although i still like teh F-35 very much, i think it would be better to hedge our bets like the Aussies, buy hornets now, and later in the production run buy F-35's if and when that program stablizes ... 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.
Wilber Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Why "jets" at all? are there other types of propulsion for fighters? Why indeed. Today the term "jet" is redundant and could be dropped all together as all fighters now use either turbo jet or turbo fan engines and a turbo fan is just a turbo jet that has a front compressor stage that doesn't send all its output through the core of the engine. Even the prop driven training aircraft used by the military use gas turbine engines. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
olp1fan Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 We cannot afford this We are over 550 billion in debt If Harper is serious about knocking down our defecit he will resist Quote
Wilber Posted October 28, 2011 Report Posted October 28, 2011 Technically, the present F-35 engine is a P&W turbofan with afterburner. Bit of a mouthfull though and the fan is still driven by a "turbo jet". The last pure jet engine used in US fighters was the J-79 in aircraft like the F-4 and F-104 among several others. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.