cybercoma Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 yes... as some of us have been highlighting: Sorry for repeating. I've been having a hard time seeing lately, so I haven't been reading the forums as thoroughly as I usually do. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 Sorry for repeating. I've been having a hard time seeing lately, so I haven't been reading the forums as thoroughly as I usually do. Get well soon. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 I have about 500 hours in various machines. ok, no problem! Carry on! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 ok, no problem! Carry on! http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=11632&view=findpost&p=790599 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 Sorry for repeating. I've been having a hard time seeing lately, so I haven't been reading the forums as thoroughly as I usually do. not at all... my 'repeat' reference was towards PBO Page's comments - echoing much of what some of us have been Harping on lately, in particular the latest/recent U.S. GAO report (along with the just released/latest U.S. Pentagon F-35 SAR report). Quote
waldo Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=11632&view=findpost&p=790599 really... it's too bad you take/took the attitude, as expressed, that "only pilots" can have a say in this thread... or that only pilots have anything substantive to offer for discussion/critique. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 Lots of acronyms makes folks smarter. I call it LOAMFS...to add to your collection. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 really... it's too bad you take/took the attitude, as expressed, that "only pilots" can have a say in this thread... or that only pilots have anything substantive to offer for discussion/critique. You can try flapping...but I don't advise it at altitude. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 You can try flapping...but I don't advise it at altitude. clearly Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 clearly Meh...I grew-up around aircraft. Our carport had a plane in it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 (edited) Meh...I grew-up around aircraft. Our carport had a plane in it. One of these to be exact. Anderson Kingfisher. Edited April 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 not at all... my 'repeat' reference was towards PBO Page's comments - echoing much of what some of us have been Harping on lately, in particular the latest/recent U.S. GAO report (along with the just released/latest U.S. Pentagon F-35 SAR report). America! America! God shed his grace on thee Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 America! America! God shed his grace on thee Tut, tut...in acronym form, please. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/27/pol-the-house-kevin-page-f35s-budget.html Canada's budget watchdog says it appears the Conservative government kept two sets of books when it came to the costs of replacing Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s with 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets.In an interview airing on CBC Radio's The House on Saturday, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page spoke out on the issue for the first time since Auditor General Michael Ferguson delivered a report earlier this month lambasting the government and Department of National Defence officials over estimated costs of replacing Canada's fighter jets. Page told host Evan Solomon what bothered his office was that one set of books was available inside DND, while another "for communication purposes" was presented publicly, in which he said the government was "low-balling" the numbers. "You do get the sense there were different books being kept," he told Solomon. In his report, Ferguson found that the costs of acquiring 65 F-35s over 20 years was closer to $25-billion, and not the $15-billion the public had been told. 10 billion over budget already and we still don't even have ONE of these things in our possession. What a waste. Quote
CPCFTW Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/27/pol-the-house-kevin-page-f35s-budget.html 10 billion over budget already and we still don't even have ONE of these things in our possession. What a waste. $0 billion over budget since we have barely spent anything on F35s so far. Lets keep on whining about every estimate and projection though. Quote
eyeball Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 $0 billion over budget since we have barely spent anything on F35s so far. Excellent, lets keep it that way. Lets keep on whining about every estimate and projection though. By all means let's keep them coming, the more people hear the less they like the idea. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Smallc Posted April 28, 2012 Report Posted April 28, 2012 not at all... my 'repeat' reference was towards PBO Page's comments And if he's ever right, someone might actually listen to him. Quote
waldo Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 And if he's ever right, someone might actually listen to him. oh really... how's PBO Page's initial $29 Billion estimate looking about now, hey? I bet you can't wait to see the updated number he's working on and soon to present! Quote
Smallc Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 (edited) oh really... how's PBO Page's initial $29 Billion estimate looking about now, hey? Still wrong. He's been consistently wrong when it comes to predicting the budget balance. Edited April 29, 2012 by Smallc Quote
j44 Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon Quote
Guest Derek L Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 (edited) right... he's just another one of those guys you so readily... and conveniently... dispatch - outright. Again, as was stated/emphasized, F-35 drop tanks offer minimal/measly (8%) gain to its range. Me thinks someone is getting range and fuel capacity mixed up…… Perhaps we should start talking numbers indeed…….So what’s the range, on internal fuel only of the Hornet and F-35? Like for Like. again, the reference made/offered in regards 'drag', was that the minimal/measly 8% range gain reflected the F-35 drag countering impact that drop tanks caused... simply a comment, without comparison, centered on the F-35. Are you/he suggesting the Hornet isn't effected by drag? You don't think several drop tanks and Missiles will effect it’s performance? yes, finally... an acknowledgement that F-35 "stealth" has not, has never been a need/requirement for Northern patrol/reconnaissance. Now, if only someone would step-up and actually speak to past examples... actual examples... of when Canada needed/deployed a combat/interceptor. Of course, dropping bomb payloads from afar doesn't count... or, as MLW member 'dre' so directly highlighted, neither does, "wiping out random darkies". As for that F-35 "stealth" thingee, I didn't seem to get any bites earlier: Have I stated Stealth was a need/requirement for “northern patrol”? Why doesn’t dropping bombs “count”? Are you denying that we have over the last twenty years? guys, guys... wadda bout that X-band/L-band thingee? What about those wiley Ruskies fitting their new SU-35S with L-band? And all those guys out there touting the SU-35S as the F-35 "stealth killer"? Have they all got it... wrong? Or, the "new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA", said to actually defeat the F-35's own X band stealth directly??? Comments... on the much hyped, much touted, F-35 stealth capability? What was your source? The Russians/Chinese or bloggers? You do know, the Soviets Russians have been deploying X-band/L-band thingies since the early 80s right? Tell me if I’m getting too jingoistic…… And for the sake of argument, let’s say the Soviets have closed the mineshaft gap, how do you suppose their uber radar would make out against non-stealthy, 4th gen aircraft? Edited April 29, 2012 by Derek L Quote
dre Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 And if he's ever right, someone might actually listen to him. You mean if he actually says something you want to hear, youll listen. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 You mean if he actually says something you want to hear, youll listen. Not at all. For several years, his budget estimates were consistently wrong when compared to the Department of Finance estimates. He's been wrong, in fact, more than he's been right. Why should I care what he says? Quote
dre Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 Not at all. For several years, his budget estimates were consistently wrong when compared to the Department of Finance estimates. He's been wrong, in fact, more than he's been right. Why should I care what he says? Based on that logic you must not care what the Harper government says either... Is that about right? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted April 29, 2012 Report Posted April 29, 2012 Based on that logic you must not care what the Harper government says either... Is that about right? They're been far more right on fiscal projections. The G&M had an article about it last year. This year, though, it seems that everyone is out. The deficit will be about $15B. That's far lower than anyone anticipated. 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.