Topaz Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Does anyone on here agree, that the government should open up tender for the next jet and see what the other companies have to offer and at what price? It can out yesterday the reason they are sticking with the F-35 is the business that some Canadian companies would get. That is all well and good BUT if the jet isn't really meant for Canada's north, than it not the jet for Canada. As a taxpayer, I would like to know what is out there and the Tories are willing to wait to hell freezes over til the F35 is 100% ready which right now is 2020. Thoughts? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) What requirements? What requirements won't the final production aircraft meet? Email Evan Solomon and ask for the SOR if you want to talk about aircraft jargon. I'm not interested. I'm only interested in the fact that the Tories tried to rigged the process, then when they realized the aircraft wouldn't meet the air force's requirements, they hid the documents that are otherwise publicly available for other projects. Edited March 28, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Boges Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Does anyone on here agree, that the government should open up tender for the next jet and see what the other companies have to offer and at what price? It can out yesterday the reason they are sticking with the F-35 is the business that some Canadian companies would get. That is all well and good BUT if the jet isn't really meant for Canada's north, than it not the jet for Canada. As a taxpayer, I would like to know what is out there and the Tories are willing to wait to hell freezes over til the F35 is 100% ready which right now is 2020. Thoughts? Who else is going to make an offer? C-Migs? a fleet of Canook Saab Griffins? The North American Eurofighter? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Solomon is absolutely incompetent. He invented these "requirements", he invented "non-compliance". It seems he's got some preliminary analytical document. Operational requirements, aircraft design specifications are secret documents. I hardly believe a journalist can get them without explanation.They're secret, eh?You must have skipped over where I posted this: The Department of National Defence says it is hiding a key F-35 document from the public because that type of document is classified. Yet its own website hosts many of these same types of papers for public downloading, almost all of which are marked as "unclassified." Continued... http://embassymag.ca/page/view/jsf-02-23-2011 Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Thats only one factor to consider. And the reality is that Canadas side in any forseeable war is going to have absolutely unchallenged air superiority no matter what anyways. You want to buy a plane for a job we MIGHT do instead of the job we KNOW we do EVERY DAY. Its like buying a Ferrari F40 to drive the store and get bread... bread is going to get pretty expensive. But maybe you guys are right, and the F-35 IS the best balance of cost and performance, and the best plane for us. Make them compete and make them prove it. The very worst thing you can ever do is tell a company you are considering buying something from that you arent considering any other options. We should have published our requirements and held a contest and reviewed presentations from various vendors. Even if you guys are right and very survival of our nation depends on buying this specific plane, then they would prevailed in the bidding process! But at least there would have been some transparency and accountability. The government shouldnt even be ALLOWED to buy stuff without opening up the contracts to competition. Even if you are already pretty sure up front that you know what your best choice is, its STILL the right thing to do. This. I give up trying to explain that. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Again...remember Bloody April, Viet-Nam, Bekaa Valley. Horrible losses...planes and pilots. During Bloody April...this... ...fought this... ...and were shot down in droves. What does the equipment we used in WWI have to do with anything? Perhaps dre is like the average UK squadron commander of 1916...transfered against their will from the cavalry. Maybe that's why they were being "shot down in droves." Edited March 28, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Well we are subcontracting our sovereignty to the Americans to some extent whether we buy no F22's or 100. Thats just our defacto position no matter what we do. We cant spend enough to get out from underneath that shadow, and if there ever is a real threat to Canada posed by major foreign powers we wont have a chance without help from the US. Thats just the reality we live in. And the United States would be obliged to "protect its interests." They bend over backwards for Israel and that's contentious with the American populous. They would be batshit crazy not to defend a border country against an aggressive invader. In any case, they would be required to through NATO anyway. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) . Edited March 28, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 And the United States would be obliged to "protect its interests." They bend over backwards for Israel and that's contentious with the American populous. They would be batshit crazy not to defend a border country against an aggressive invader. In any case, they would be required to through NATO anyway. How is NATO supposed to work? If all the member countries just relied on America to spend the money and blood it would fall apart! When you join a group you are supposed to contribute so that the group as a whole is stronger than the individual members. You are describing NATO as a club for those who wish to freeload off of Uncle Sam! What a minute...NATO IS falling apart! 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."
Wild Bill Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 What does the equipment we used in WWI have to do with anything? Maybe that's why they were being "shot down in droves." You missed the point. The people calling for cancellation of the F-35 are really trying to return us to the same old position of having second or even third best equipment. That is how you LOSE when you need your military! Either you have a military that is effective or you should not bother and accept that you will be dominated. There are no other choices. 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."
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 How is NATO supposed to work? If all the member countries just relied on America to spend the money and blood it would fall apart! When you join a group you are supposed to contribute so that the group as a whole is stronger than the individual members. You are describing NATO as a club for those who wish to freeload off of Uncle Sam! What a minute...NATO IS falling apart! It is unreasonable to expect that Canada would contribute military force equal to that of the United States. We do contribute in the ways that we can. Quote
Boges Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 It is unreasonable to expect that Canada would contribute military force equal to that of the United States. We do contribute in the ways that we can. Who's saying it should be equal? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 You missed the point. The people calling for cancellation of the F-35 are really trying to return us to the same old position of having second or even third best equipment. That is how you LOSE when you need your military! Either you have a military that is effective or you should not bother and accept that you will be dominated. There are no other choices. Funny that you would use WWI as an example, since that is perhaps the pinnacle of Canada's military operations. WWI was when we were considered to be "punching above our weight." We even earned ourselves the ability to sign the Treaty of Versailles, although we were part of the British Empire and their signature would have included our agreement. So I don't think your warning that we don't want to go back to having equipment like we had in WWI doesn't come across like I believe you think it does. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Who's saying it should be equal? Who's saying we shouldn't have any capabilities whatsoever. You were setting up a false dichotomy. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Funny that you would use WWI as an example, since that is perhaps the pinnacle of Canada's military operations. WWI was when we were considered to be "punching above our weight." We even earned ourselves the ability to sign the Treaty of Versailles, although we were part of the British Empire and their signature would have included our agreement. So I don't think your warning that we don't want to go back to having equipment like we had in WWI doesn't come across like I believe you think it does. Describe Bloody April, 1917. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Describe Bloody April, 1917. Describe Canada's overall contribution to WWI. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Describe Canada's overall contribution to WWI. You're, again, not managing to understand an historical event. Do you deny Bloody April existed? Edited March 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I deny Bloody April happened. You got me. I'm a Bloody April denier. Edited March 28, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I deny Bloody April happened. You got me. I'm a Bloody April denier. It happened. Now, can you show us how smart you are by breaking down the results of Bloody April and telling us all what went wrong for the Allies? http://www.wwiaviation.com/Bloody_April-1917.html Edited March 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 It happened. excellent... another of your diversions taking this thread down another jingoistic, militaristic rat-hole. I trust you will have many videos - yes? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 excellent... another of your diversions taking this thread down another jingoistic, militaristic rat-hole. I trust you will have many videos - yes? It's actually called "history" and we might one day learn from it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 It happened. Now, can you show us how smart you are by breaking down the results of Bloody April and telling us all what went wrong for the Allies? http://www.wwiaviation.com/Bloody_April-1917.html I'm not going to because it's completely irrelevant to the point that you so conveniently are ignoring and the point that was supposedly addressed by the youtube videos. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 But really, who’s going to occupy us? Denmark... Using Greenlandian shock troops...In war kayaks...To retake Hans Island!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 I'm not going to because it's completely irrelevant to the point that you so conveniently are ignoring and the point that was supposedly addressed by the youtube videos. That crappy aircraft get shot down? History has proved that. Over and over again. Besides, you wouldn't know a DH-2 if it ran up and bit you. Nor the lesson it taught during Bloody April. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanoe_Hawker Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Crappy Aircrafts in WW1 have no bearing on our military today. Now the fact the Sherman tank was outclassed by German tanks in pretty much every meaningful measure of effectiveness on the hand. The F22 and F35 are the only new planes we've seen since F18. What other jets are they for us to get? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.