DogOnPorch Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 "Hoist up the John B. Sails...See how the mainsail's set..." WAIT A MINUTE!!! WHY IS THIS THING OUTTA CONTROL!!!! Well, the Russians had the Caspian Sea Monster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 When you look at countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, how does Canada's military stack up against the other nations that are around us on that list--Australia, Kuwait, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Germany? I see no reason why our military should be larger or more heavily equiped than those nations. Those countries you mention all have stark differences in both Defence and Foreign policies…….Iceland and Ireland are both relatively isolated being small Island nations and don’t have a strong history in being International “actors”……..Sweden, for centuries, as a neutral State/Kingdom has been focused on defending their integral sovereignty and only recently (relatively speaking) has been involving itself internationally via the UN…….The Kuwaitis and Germans, obviously, are situated historically, on heavily contested real estate, and such, have focused, like Sweden, on defending their own nation. The Germans, since the end of the cold war, have only started again acting gradually on the world stage…… That leaves Australia, and I’d include the Dutch ……..These nations, like ours, don’t really face a direct threat to their national sovereignty (With two quick caveats, the Dutch during the cold war would have likely been a speed bump for the Soviets, and the Australians are surrounded by semi stable nations within their region, though not really a direct threat to Australia proper, it still plays into their domestic and international policies) Now looking at these two nations, when compared to Canada, we all have relatively stable economies, relatively similar standards of living domestically and the same interests internationally. We’ve also had historic precedent in terms of establishing ourselves, when we so choose, in “punching above our weight” in foreign, armed conflicts……….As for our three nations militaries, each nation is facing the same budgets woes and the need to replace rapidly aging equipment, and quite obviously that comes at great cost to the taxpayer. This is where we as Canadians need to decide where we want to place ourselves, because no one else is going to do it for us, on the international stage……..The Australians and Dutch have decided, this is/was made evident by the similar roles both these nations played in Afghanistan and the fact that they’ve both bit the proverbial bullet and are both investing substantially in military renewal. And for the record, the Air Forces of both the Dutch and Australians see the F-35 as a required investment for the uncertain decades ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) The budget really seems to signal that the government has gotten off of the F-35 train: The Government will continue to replace key equipment, including purchasing new ships built in Canada through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, as well as by acquiring an affordable replacement for Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet to better equip Canada’s men and women in uniform. In order to ensure that funding for major capital equipment procurements is available when it is needed, the Government is adjusting the National Defence funding profile to move $3.54 billion over seven years into the future period in which Edited March 30, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 The budget really seems to signal that the government has gotten off of the F-35 train: And as I’ve asked a million times, with what? The Super Hornet assembly line is shutting down in three years, and as outlined in the budget, funding for new defence purchases is being “shifted back” several (or seven years as in your source) years………..Are you suggesting the Government is going to “find” 17-18 Billion dollars in the next few years to purchase 65 Super Hornets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 And as I’ve asked a million times, with what? Don't ask me. The Rafale though, has been mentioned in several media pieces recently (I know, I know, French weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Don't ask me. The Rafale though, has been mentioned in several media pieces recently (I know, I know, French weapons. Not only French weapons, but the Rafale’s lack there of a working AESA radar, French industry (See A400M and Nh-90) and French Governments…….Not to mention, the cost of a Rafale “C” with support for 20 years will mirror that of the rumoured cost of the F-35 contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters. That's only $29 billion per year. If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 That's only $29 billion per year. If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. And that's too much, we can't afford that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Not only French weapons, but the Rafale’s lack there of a working AESA radar, French industry (See A400M and Nh-90) and French Governments…….Not to mention, the cost of a Rafale “C” with support for 20 years will mirror that of the rumoured cost of the F-35 contract. Well sometimes people who are flat broke cant buy the nicest sports care on the market. We will probably have to make a compromise. The Rafale, Super Hornet, Gripen, and Typhoon would all be viable replacement. And nobody has any idea what the F-35 will cost to fly over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well sometimes people who are flat broke cant buy the nicest sports care on the market. We will probably have to make a compromise. The Rafale, Super Hornet, Gripen, and Typhoon would all be viable replacement. And nobody has any idea what the F-35 will cost to fly over time. Care to outline how those aircraft you listed will be viable until the 2040-2050 timeframe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Care to outline how those aircraft you listed will be viable until the 2040-2050 timeframe? ...and how much each would "cost to fly over time"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 ...and how much each would "cost to fly over time"? And when the USN, RAAF, RAF, and French military etc start retiring them in the 2020s-30s, whose going to pay for and develop for Canada the “mid-life” upgrade…….We won’t be able to piggy-back onto the US at that time….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 And when the USN, RAAF, RAF, and French military etc start retiring them in the 2020s-30s, whose going to pay for and develop for Canada the “mid-life” upgrade…….We won’t be able to piggy-back onto the US at that time….. And how are we going to pay 29 billion per year for each Jet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACKER Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) And when the USN, RAAF, RAF, and French military etc start retiring them in the 2020s-30s, whose going to pay for and develop for Canada the “mid-life” upgrade…….We won’t be able to piggy-back onto the US at that time….. Who cares about 2030 the world technologically will be vastly different and if it isn't were all dead anyway. There is an incrementally dangerous global environmental threat we cannot beat with offense, it only grows with the evil. You can't apply todays reality to 20 years from now. It is highly doubted any of the same technologies will be used, it is like applying wwI technology to the gulf war. Technology will only accellerate until MB capacity to energy resource threshold is met. aircraft have few if any advantages in todays world of highspeed railguns and advanced long range missile systems. it is nonsense for a nation without air defence to concentrate on airplanes that wouldn't even get off the ground in the event of a real attack. Edited March 30, 2012 by MACKER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 And how are we going to pay 29 billion per year for each Jet? What the hell are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Who cares about 2030 the world technologically will be vastly different and if it isn't were all dead anyway. Indeed, I'm still waiting for my hovercraft though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 What the hell are you talking about? http://www.reuters.c...E82S03L20120329 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects... That's for about 2400 aircraft...not 65! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 http://www.reuters.c...E82S03L20120329 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters. And how does that equal a per plane annual operational cost of 29 billion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 That's for about 2400 aircraft...not 65! What do you mean.. are you saying this is different than the jets Canada might purchase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 What do you mean.. are you saying this is different than the jets Canada might purchase? Canada hasn't purchased a damn thing, so who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 What do you mean.. are you saying this is different than the jets Canada might purchase? The tier one partners (US & UK) have and are paying the majority of the development costs, in turn, they defined the key requirements for the program, and their defence industries get first crack at the most lucrative contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 What about buying 1/2 fighter jets, and 1/2 un-manned vehicles? UCAVs cost way less to purchase and maintain, and 1/18th as much to fly per hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Canada will not be purchasing these Jets Just watch 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.