Smallc Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 At most, the B model will be scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 At most, the B model will be scrapped. Yes that is possible. But the A will get produced by the thousands. Is the world's replacement for the f16, which was one of the most produced military aircraft in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 ...and still a deadly machine limited only by airframe fatigue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 At most, the B model will be scrapped. Nah, the B, which was on a probation, has started meeting it’s objectives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z3glzZuY14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Is this what "scrapped" looks like ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zYdnpUXoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Means nothing. The airwar over Viet-nam was terribly effective at bringing North Viet-Nam to its knees. It was folks such as yourself working for the enemy at home that lost the Viet-Nam War to the Communists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 OK military genius. How and why did the Viet-Nam War start and end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) All thats just risk management. Thats a part of procurement as well. No entity can afford to completely isolate themselves from risk... so you gotta do your best to assess probability, and use that guide spending. And I think a reasonable person would say that the probability of these fighters ever defending Canadian airspace from another country with modern fighters is very remote. The risk is real, but so is the risk of a major asteroid hitting us. Should we spend 50 billion on asteroid defenses as well? Nuclear strikes are still a possibility as well... should we have a missile defense program? You could probably spend 5 trillion dollars trying to negate all the potential risks out there and you still wouldnt be insured. So you have to look at what you can afford, and then apportion that spending based on your assessment of the risks out there. We cannot afford very much... our government cannot even fund its own daily operations with the revenue stream it has. And if we defecit spend to get these planes they will cost us almost double of whats on the pricetag. It seems to me like our government just latched onto the first shiny object that came into view. Having said all that... this is probably an excellent plane. And even if we dont have to defend Canadian airspace against modern aircraft we have entangling alliances that might force us into wars of aggression outside our own borders. A small contingent of these planes might be appropriate once they have an established service record, and the intitial kinks ironed out. Dr. Dre, that just doesn't sound practical to me! It sounds like an accounting decision and from the 80's on I worked for several companies that were run by accountants - and went into the ground! The reason was that although accounts are usually very good at counting all the nickels they are no better than anybody else about how to get those nickels coming in! In practice, they were worse and each time I and others lost their job. You've heard the old joke about the statistician who thought that if you had on leg in fire and one standing on ice on the whole you really had no reason to complain? I think risk management applied too ruthlessly to combat capability would be worse than no decision at all! With your example, what plane, no matter how old and useless, couldn't run patrols and shoot down an airliner? Wouldn't a CF-5 fit your purpose? No, unless I'm missing something that you could show this old guy, with your situation we might as well have no planes at all! This of course would mean no combat capability, no support for our allies, no ability to conduct our own defense and return Canada to the position of being a military deadbeat dependent on our allies to even get our troops to the theatre. Have you forgotten how when Chretien sent our CF-18s to the Kosovo conflict our IFF avionics were so primitive that we could not fly with our allies without the risk of either causing or receiving friendly fire? That we were relegated to "make work" patrols in the rear of the theatre? When you are called to a rumble you have to be ready to actually fight. You can't expect the enemy to respect your need to only fight with those in your weight class. If you can't contribute, then stay out! You'll only get in the way of those who have to do the REAL fighting! We would have to stay in the rear and run the canteen. Edited November 16, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 OK military genius. How and why did the Viet-Nam War start and end? Jeepers, I thought you would be more aware of the Vietnam War, but I guess not. Here are some resources to help you out: Vietnam War - Wikipedia Battlefield Vietnam - PBS Vietnam War - history.com If need any more, let me know and I'll see what I can dig up on this Internet search thing-a-ma-bob they call "Google." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Jeepers, I thought you would be more aware of the Vietnam War, but I guess not. Here are some resources to help you out: Vietnam War - Wikipedia Battlefield Vietnam - PBS Vietnam War - history.com If need any more, let me know and I'll see what I can dig up on this Internet search thing-a-ma-bob they call "Google." That's not what I asked. I wanted your 'version' of events that do not involve America losing on the Home Front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 That's not what I asked. I wanted your 'version' of events that do not involve America losing on the Home Front. My version wouldn't be any more legitimate than your version. Just take, say, Wikipedia as 'a' version and that should be good enough for you to prove that "folks such as" me caused the US to lose "the Viet-Nam war to the Communists." You actually have me intriqued now. I can't wait for your dissertation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 My version wouldn't be any more legitimate than your version. Just take, say, Wikipedia as 'a' version and that should be good enough for you to prove that "folks such as" me caused the US to lose "the Viet-Nam war to the Communists." You actually have me intriqued now. I can't wait for your dissertation. You didn't answer the question...again. So I'll just assume you know nothing about the conflict in Indochina w/o consulting Google. Viet-Nam was lost on the Home Front in America by people openly siding with the enemy over their own country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Viet-Nam was lost on the Home Front in America by people openly siding with the enemy over their own country. No it wasn't, that's just a loser's excuse. See? My "version" is as legitimate as yours. Now, be a good boy and go prove your point instead of making all these empty headed pronouncements. Use Google or Yahoo, if you wish. Go ahead. I really want to know how "folks such as" me did this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) No it wasn't, that's just a loser's excuse. See? My "version" is as legitimate as yours. Now, be a good boy and go prove your point instead of making all these empty headed pronouncements. Use Google or Yahoo, if you wish. Go ahead. I really want to know how "folks such as" me did this. Once again you fail to even give a revisionist's answer. History is not your strong point, I gather? Edited November 16, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 You didn't answer the question...again. So I'll just assume you know nothing about the conflict in Indochina w/o consulting Google. Viet-Nam was lost on the Home Front in America by people openly siding with the enemy over their own country. not that I'm siding with Shwa, because I think he averages around 0.5 intelligent sentences for every 100 he writes, but what on earth are you talking about? Americans were siding with the North Vietnamese in the war? Please explain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 No it wasn't, that's just a loser's excuse. See? My "version" is as legitimate as yours. Now, be a good boy and go prove your point instead of making all these empty headed pronouncements. Use Google or Yahoo, if you wish. Go ahead. I really want to know how "folks such as" me did this. Yes it was. Ask just about any Viet Nam vet. He will tell you that they fought not to lose instead of fighting to win. They had one arm tied behind their back the whole time they were there, particularly when it came to the air war against North Vietnam. Domestic politics and the fear of bringing Russia or China into the war were the reasons why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 not that I'm siding with Shwa, because I think he averages around 0.5 intelligent sentences for every 100 he writes, but what on earth are you talking about? Americans were siding with the North Vietnamese in the war? Please explain... See: Jane Fonda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Once again you fail to even give a revisionist's answer. History is not your strong point, I gather? I did give you a version, that of three sources independent of either of us. What now? Afraid to get into a discussion where you actually have to prove yourself against a disinterested source? Yeah, I thought so 'fraidy cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Domestic politics and the fear of bringing Russia or China into the war were the reasons why. This is a far cry from, "It was folks such as yourself working for the enemy at home that lost the Viet-Nam War to the Communists." Come now, let's see you defend such a statement with some factual information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 This is a far cry from, "It was folks such as yourself working for the enemy at home that lost the Viet-Nam War to the Communists." Come now, let's see you defend such a statement with some factual information. I didn't say that but. Opposition The result in Vietnam was determined by politics, not the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 I didn't say that but.Opposition The result in Vietnam was determined by politics, not the military. Yeah, I saw all of that on the news in the 60's and early 70's. I read the magazines and looked at the graphic photos in Time magazine and listened to the comments on TV news programs. It all seemed so... black and white. Imagine, war and domestic politics entwined like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 See: Jane Fonda Barbarella was the worst movie I've ever seen. What's your point? How did a US sex symbol lose them the Vietnam War? I thought it was more a lack of political will to spend billions of dollars and tens of thousand of young American lives fighting for a 3rd world shit-hole nobody cared about. They didn't so much lose the war so much as US voters decided that there was no reason for them to be there in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Are you serious? I was happy with the Canada we had before him. this is no longer Canada, its Harperland what is to like about him? for crying out loud his photo ops are of him cuddling his kitten with a fake smile in front of a fireplace that is just creepy why do I not like Harper? He is an evangelical ideologue ...you could support something with all kinds of evidence and he's like ...no, we're doing it my way, his government is one of the most corrupt in the past 50 years... I'm sure he'd let Tony Clement and John Baird get away with murder if it meant he'd keep his government Need I go on more? Well, for a change perhaps a little truth from you would help. I could offer that the Creiten government was the most corrupt but then you might ask for some proof--- you know--- Proof????? the thing that you can't supply with your stupid statements about Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 ...and a proof is a proof because it is proven! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Is this what "scrapped" looks like ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zYdnpUXoss The ground below it also looks like a lot of the Arctic---- the place that some people aver they can't fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.