Wilber Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 huh? what are you talking about? Something you seem to know nothing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 So go design something better. Let us know when you're done. oh I'm fine, I just think industry can ignorantly forget things so they stay in business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 oh I'm fine, I just think industry can ignorantly forget things so they stay in business Good way to keep your competitors in business. Keep it up, you'll go far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 maybe a shuttle bus for people living in edmonton that way they wouldn't have to driive it, but no like facilities procurement is a boon dogle. the problem is one shot solutions. equipment needs to be modular and adaptable to fit all scenarios, And luckily for us the F35 meets all those requirements... canada is large enough to have its own military industrial complex for its equipment based on modularity, What does the size of the country have to do with having or not having a military complex? but for various reasons, they choose to buy other peoples stuff based on approximate usability. Because purchasing weapons is much cheaper than designing and fielding your own weapon systems unless you have a guaranteed market of considerable size. Canada has no domestic market of our own to speak of and risking billions or hundreds of billions on the off chance that we might get some demand is not worth it. this is part of the reason I support a militia We have a militia. and a tax deduction to buy your own kit for all citizens, Back to ancient Greece and Rome we go right? The more affluent citizen can buy all the gucci kit while the less well off are stuck with the garbage... so much for progress, while the rest of the world looks forward you look back. as well as domestic canadian product with the gov as the sales point of the equipment, So you want to force people to buy the kit and conscript them in a militia that will never be used for what reason exactly? So we have our own market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 And luckily for us the F35 meets all those requirements... no. What does the size of the country have to do with having or not having a military complex? resources Because purchasing weapons is much cheaper than designing and fielding your own weapon systems unless you have a guaranteed market of considerable size. Canada has no domestic market of our own to speak of and risking billions or hundreds of billions on the off chance that we might get some false. your command economy math is pure bs We have a militia. no. Back to ancient Greece and Rome we go right? The more affluent citizen can buy all the gucci kit while the less well off are stuck with the garbage... so much for progress, while the rest of the world looks forward you look back. the tax cut is the same for all So you want to force people to buy the kit and conscript them in a militia that will never be used for what reason exactly? So we have our own market? people arn't forced to buy anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 no. Love your rebuttal's keep 'em coming... resources And what do the resources have to do with anything? Are the oil sands going to man an infantry regiment? Will salmon supplement the RCN in battle? We need a military that can be supported by our economy but at the same time one that will capable of providing the most security for the money we have. false. your command economy math is pure bs Your command of reality is lacking... The US spend 10's of billions of dollars if not more on research of the F35 so far and all the while they have 70 years of experience win designing and building jet fighters and another 25-30 years of research and development before that in fighters with various other propulsion and yet you think that Canada can design a better, cheaper fighter and in a shorter amount of time? We need to send out SAR because your common sense is missing. no. Yes. Reserves AKA the militia... the tax cut is the same for all But my resources are not equal to yours, the government can give me $1,000 tax cut for military kit but since my behind is on the line I will spend as much as I can to buy the best kit I can buy. So the government gives tax cut to the 13+ million Canadians fit for military service and then spends the next 20 years training the 13,000,000+ strong militia and being unable to field a soldier on operation let alone spare a battalion because every soldier in the Reg Force and the reserves is tasked with training the new recruits in the ways of the military to what purpose? So we have the largest army in the world? Every western nation is moving away from conscription and you want us to go in the opposite direction? people arn't forced to buy anything. Exactly, the guy with a wife and 3 kids making minimum wage can only afford up to the "tax credit" Which means only essentially a uniform, helmet, tac vest and the cheapest boots you can find, while the guy making half a million a year and being forced in to the militia can afford to dish out $20,000 on best kit available to him. So now here we are in the 21st century fielding a military with the same basic composition as those fielded by Ancient Greece and Early Roman Republic, they relied mainly on militia and the militia was divided in the 3 basic groups, the rich bought the best armour and weapons money could buy, then what would have passed for the middle class at the time would field cheaper and lower quality weapons and armour and less of it while the third group (the poor) went in to the field with a weapon and little to no armour simply because they could not afford any. The rich will get the gucci kit, the middle class gets the rest and the poor get nothing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 The rich will get the gucci kit, the middle class gets the rest and the poor get nothing... Good analogy. The romantic (irony noted) vision of the Hoplite equipped with a bronze breast plate, full bronze clad Hoplon (shield), bronze greaves and plumed bronze helmet was indeed a rarity. The rank and file were usually tunic and pike... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) And what do the resources have to do with anything? Are the oil sands going to man an infantry regiment? Will salmon supplement the RCN in battle? yes, and only if it is cold enough. Stuff makes stuff, you need stuff to make stuff. We need a military that can be supported by our economy but at the same time one that will capable of providing the most security for the money we have. -750 billion is a whole lot of unmoney.to get that negative equipment. Your command of reality is lacking... The US spend 10's of billions of dollars if not more on research of the F35 so far and all the while they have 70 years of experience win designing and building jet fighters and another 25-30 years of research and development before that in fighters with various other propulsion and yet you think that Canada can design a better, cheaper fighter and in a shorter amount of time? it is a slush fund. they pay vice presidents of the project millions each and had like 1000 of them, that alone over 10 years is 10 billion. fact is the project was poorly managed, bloated and an excuse for the private company to make money and gain ip and corporate acquisitions, including canadian ip. look how much of the money went to project materials. they just let the taxpayer pay for their operating costs and acqusitions. when all is said and done they have the money the tax payer has the debt. this isn't I buy a plane this is, we pay your company to give super inflated wages in a management structure from hell so that we the people can be posteriorly raped while you party as Rome burns. they get the gains the tax payer gets the debt while they pocket millions each.. Yes. Reserves AKA the militia... reserve is reserve not militia. militia is self organizing, reserve is a branch of the cf. But my resources are not equal to yours, the government can give me $1,000 tax cut for military kit but since my behind is on the line I will spend as much as I can to buy the best kit I can buy. So the government gives tax cut to the 13+ million Canadians fit for military service and then spends the next 20 years training the 13,000,000+ strong militia no militias are self organazing but workshop days could be done. also to gather intel and do safety checks. I do not expect more than say 1 in 1000 or maybe 1 in 500 to join a militia. they would be self funded though, maybe more would who knows. and being unable to field a soldier on operation let alone spare a battalion because every soldier in the Reg Force and the reserves is tasked with training the new recruits in the ways of the military to what purpose? So we have the largest army in the world? Every western nation is moving away from conscription and you want us to go in the opposite direction? no that is not applicable.militias are self organized voluntary forces. they are also self funded. they organize based on law which insures weapons of the prohibited class are safely stored much like manufacturers need to secure their weapons. there would be safety regs, an oath, and for upper nco's and officers likely some form of peace officer requirement Exactly, the guy with a wife and 3 kids making minimum wage can only afford up to the "tax credit" Which means only essentially a uniform, helmet, tac vest and the cheapest boots you can find, while the guy making half a million a year and being forced in to the militia can afford to dish out $20,000 on best kit available to him. So now here we are in the 21st century fielding a military with the same basic composition as those fielded by Ancient Greece and Early Roman Republic, they relied mainly on militia and the militia was divided in the 3 basic groups, the rich bought the best armour and weapons money could buy, then what would have passed for the middle class at the time would field cheaper and lower quality weapons and armour and less of it while the third group (the poor) went in to the field with a weapon and little to no armour simply because they could not afford any. The rich will get the gucci kit, the middle class gets the rest and the poor get nothing... yup. but militias could share equipment or set up a militia cooperative fund. or join the reserve. Im not reinventiving the wheel. if cf did surplus sales they might be able to sell for cheap direct to a militia the thing is there are no tests other than what the militia puts in cfo's already have regs for firearms use, so that is that. anyone can join the militia. you still need to do your training. while a change to gun laws would be made for use of prohibited weapons, and a safe storage by militia or in a cf armoury or to cf armoury standards, which would likely be complex as it would have to be sizable to employ 24/7 security. but if they could insure thenregs morempower to them. same goes for 'other equipment' bullets are expensive. guns arn't. vests ect arn't. I didn't say it was cheap but some may be interested.- it is serious but is a step in the right direction for personal liberties, freedom and security of the people. Edited December 28, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 nothing ai cant do in the air human can. only problem is bad design The only think the machine cannot do (the AI) is refuse an order. A soldier can still refuse the order if they think it's not just. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 yes, and only if it is cold enough. Stuff makes stuff, you need stuff to make stuff. The cost of "making" a piece of equipment is irrelevant when you look at the process from saying we want a fighter better than an F35 to the time you are finally ready to build the fighter, and most costs of the project fall here rather than the actual building of the equipment. You really need to learn a little more about the whole process before you speak... -750 billion is a whole lot of unmoney.to get that negative equipment. What on earth are you talking about? What is negative equipment and unmoney? it is a slush fund. they pay vice presidents of the project millions each and had like 1000 of them, that alone over 10 years is 10 billion. Pulling numbers out of thin air are we? Where is the proof that they had 1000 VP's paid millions? fact is the project was poorly managed, And I am sure you can manage it better? How exactly will that go? You seem to spread your grand experience all over the place but seems to me you never back any of it up... like here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=22066 bloated and an excuse for the private company to make money and gain ip and corporate acquisitions, including canadian ip.Again lacking the knowledge does not stop you from speaking does it? look how much of the money went to project materials. they just let the taxpayer pay for their operating costs and acqusitions. when all is said and done they have the money the tax payer has the debt. What is your point? They were asked to provide a service and they gave that service... this isn't I buy a plane this is, we pay your company to give super inflated wages in a management structure from hell so that we the people can be posteriorly raped while you party as Rome burns. Once again you have provided no proof that most of the money is spend in such a manner. they get the gains the tax payer gets the debt while they pocket millions each.. And they have the expertise that is so badly needed, that people are willing to pay for it? They provide the service the tax payer pays for the service... reserve is reserve not militia. Reserve is the militia, the militia is the reserve... militia is self organizing, reserve is a branch of the cf. Give me one example where government funded but not government controlled militia's have proven useful? Who will train them? Youtube? The government will give them money for equipment but who will lead them? no militias are self organazing but workshop days could be done. Who will train them during these "workshop" days? Who will supervise and control these militia's? What is to stop them from turning the weapons on the Canadian people? also to gather intel and do safety checks. Gather intel? Safety checks? And then what accept payments for protection? Do you know what will happen with this idiocy? First it will be ethnic and based around national lines, soon enough organized religion will jump in and form militia's for protection. Soon enough you will have tens of thousands of militia men fighting for islam, thousands more fighting for christianity and and any other religion that decides to throw their lit in the mix... The rich form their militia's to protect their area while the poor once again are screwed to live under the boot of their local "warlord" because the police have long since withdrawn from most of the area's they protect because they are outgunned in every confrontation. The military has only 4500 Reg force infantry and maybe as much reserve infantry against what 10 or 20 times their number of militiamen equipped just as they are only fighting for a personal cause... you become dissatisfied with the result of an election and soon you form an insurgency until you are killed by a rival or get your way. I do not expect more than say 1 in 1000 or maybe 1 in 500 to join a militia. they would be self funded though, maybe more would who knows. And how do you calculate that? no that is not applicable.militias are self organized voluntary forces. they are also self funded. So they are loyal to whoever is providing the funds? Sure went well for Rwanda did it not? they organize based on law which insures weapons of the prohibited class are safely stored much like manufacturers need to secure their weapons. Who will guarantee that? Suddenly we have potentially millions of assault rifles and body armour in private homes and little to no training to go with them with even less loyalty to Canada... great idea right? I ask again, who will train them? And who will they be loyal to? there would be safety regs, an oath, and for upper nco's and officers likely some form of peace officer requirement Safety regs mean nothing if the government is outgunned and cannot enforce them... an oath will not do much when the militia is untrained and has more in common with a gang then a formed military unit? As for senior NCO's and officers, how would they become senior NCO and officers? Because in the CF they spend a great deal of time training and working to get to a position of leadership, who will train the militia officers? yup. but militias could share equipment or set up a militia cooperative fund. or join the reserve. Or more likely they will fight each other absent a real threat from outside of Canada and we will end up with a war zone of a country and needing the US to come and get our behinds out of the fire because they are the only once with the means to help us, we sure wouldn't be able to do much with 100,000 soldiers spread throughout the country. Im not reinventiving the wheel. No you are absolutely right, it has been tried in Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan as well as dozens of other nations that have experienced your militia model, none of them are better for it today, in fact most of them are substantially worse off. if cf did surplus sales they might be able to sell for cheap direct to a militia You mean sell the surplus tanks, vehicles, personal weapons and heavy weapons? the thing is there are no tests other than what the militia puts in couldn't join the military so you want someone to create a militia in order for you to play soldier? cfo's already have regs for firearms use, so that is that. anyone can join the militia. you still need to do your training. And who exactly will do the training? ITs one thing to learn to fire a rifle at a range, it is another to be drilled in the way to handle it in a war zone. while a change to gun laws would be made for use of prohibited weapons, and a safe storage by militia or in a cf armoury or to cf armoury standards, which would likely be complex as it would have to be sizable to employ 24/7 security. but if they could insure thenregs morempower to them. same goes for 'other equipment' Why does the CF need more manpower that will essentially be sitting on their arses and doing nothing but "protecting" weapons for the militia that does not need to exist in the first place? bullets are expensive. I doubt that rounds are that expensive... guns arn't. Sur they are, since the militia will most likely be incompetent and nothing better than a gang they will be going through the weapons pretty quickly. vests ect arn't. I didn't say it was cheap but some may be interested.- Actually it is quite expensive when you figure in to the equation that a willing person could spend thousands of dollars on all the top kit... If I was going to a war zone tomorrow I would take a few thousand from my savings and go shopping for everything starting from BEW's and gloves to comfort gear... You seem to lack any knowledge so I will not bother wasting more of my time trying to educate you on the subject as you are obviously a lost cause. it is serious but is a step in the right direction for personal liberties, freedom and security of the people. I say again, sure worked well fro Rwanda doncha think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 The only think the machine cannot do (the AI) is refuse an order. A soldier can still refuse the order if they think it's not just. Situational awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Situational awareness. The AI won't be able to refuse orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) The AI won't be able to refuse orders. a lawful engagement routine can be included. one might need to have that routine during lawful wars.. which is actually the opposkte that humans will break the rules of war and commit human rights abuses. sanitary but I'm not suggesting humans are completely removed. except the factor that some operations are non survivable for humans but could be by machine autonomous guidance via ins, tercom and preinitialized objectives paired with things like engagement recognition templates these sorts of systems already exist in cruise missile systems which are basically kamikazi aircraft, obvioulsly self guiding drones have a bit more complexity but it is the exact same concept with more apparatus points for types of engagement as well as fuel conservation. pilots will likely "be supported and chaperone drone systems" single line of sign control is ideal and satalites can be downed. Edited December 28, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 a lawful engagement routine can be included. one might need to have that routine during lawful wars.. which is actually the opposkte that humans will break the rules of war and commit human rights abuses. And what if the situation does not fill one of those "lawful" or "unlawful" commands? What if it falls in uncharted territories? A pilot could make make a decision on the spot wether its right or wrong. sanitary but I'm not suggesting humans are completely removed. Then what are you suggesting? except the factor that some operations are non survivable for humans but could be by machine autonomous guidance via ins, tercom and preinitialized objectives paired with things like engagement recognition templates Something goes wrong with a fighter, the pilot could think on the spot and try something new on the other hand if the event in question was not programmed with a solution the AI will most likely go in to an endless loop looking for an identical situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) And what if the situation does not fill one of those "lawful" or "unlawful" commands? not possible, either it is black or white. you apply a filter to the go ahead. there is no such thing as total awareness aside from god. What if it falls in uncharted territories? A pilot could make make a decision on the spot wether its right or wrong. so could an ai. Then what are you suggesting? what are you asking? Something goes wrong with a fighter, the pilot could think on the spot and try something new on the other hand if the event in question was not programmed with a solution the AI will most likely go in to an endless loop looking for an identical situation. so could an ai, you have no clue what ai is capable of. the pilot has the option of ejecting. machines think purer speed than humans. humans may manage a few forked processess with some ability but machins do not need limbs or physical movements. in terms of response machines are more capable. humans have a value system however, that can be applicable but it does not equate better effectiveness in war. it does likely equate a better society in terms of values but war is inhumane 99.9% of the time anyway. they are death machines. do not think systems do not exist they do. these are not all controlled systems there are also hunter killers most of them are land based though, and are in storage or acting in perimiter functions. they are a backup or used when there is not human executive, countries like the us technically have legal processes to follow meaning strikes need to be approved, that is a major set back for non human trigger kills. if we apply the same context to cruise missiles though then it is seen how drones can be applied in the current legal structure, but in a real war anything goes. Edited December 29, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 not possible, either it is black or white. you apply a filter to the go ahead. there is no such thing as total awareness aside from god. So you think that the creators of the ai will come up with 100% of all eventualities possible? If something happens that they did not think of the AI is gone while the pilot has a chance to come up with an idea or at least attempt something. so could an ai. Within the bounds of its programming, insufficient direction means no action or inadequate action. what are you asking? I am asking you to explain your comment... so could an ai, you have no clue what ai is capable of. the pilot has the option of ejecting. machines think purer speed than humans. humans may manage a few forked processess with some ability but machins do not need limbs or physical movements. And a machine is only as good as its programming, at this stage in the game i would wager a computer cannot beat a pilot in air to air combat, maybe in a few years yes but at this point not so. in terms of response machines are more capable. A computer is only as good as its instructions. Looking at examples from history, during the cold war both NORAD and the Soviet union had close calls when early warning sensors mass launch of weapons and if an AI had been in command the situation might have deteriorated quickly in to World War 3, but since on this occasions it was a human being in command they decided to investigate further to determine whether or not it really was a launch. humans have a value system however, that can be applicable but it does not equate better effectiveness in war. And war is not all about effectiveness, having killer robots wether in the air or on the means an order is obeyed without feelings or emotions while an order is given to a human that person can make a judgement call on the scene as to wether to proceed or not. it does likely equate a better society in terms of values but war is inhumane 99.9% of the time anyway. they are death machines. Wars bring the best and worst out of people, having a pilot in the pilot seat and a soldier on the ground means people think once or twice before they go to war, having machines in the stead of humans on the front lines wars become cheaper and more popular. do not think systems do not exist they do. They might exist but they exist in a primitive form, one that is not in a position to do as you suggest. these are not all controlled systems there are also hunter killers most of them are land based though, and are in storage or acting in perimiter functions. And most of those systems have a human being as the final yay or nay. they are a backup or used when there is not human executive, countries like the us technically have legal processes to follow meaning strikes need to be approved, that is a major set back for non human trigger kills.if we apply the same context to cruise missiles though then it is seen how drones can be applied in the current legal structure, but in a real war anything goes. In a real war anything goes for the other side, the west is bound by the Geneva convention wether our enemy is or is not. You really need to review your posts before you spread this BS since if "anything goes" the US wouldn't be prosecuting and punishing the idiots who commit essentially war crimes in one degree or another, the US prosecutes their soldiers with vigour when they find out their soldiers have been committing those crimes and so do Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Your command of reality is lacking... The US spend 10's of billions of dollars if not more on research of the F35 so far and all the while they have 70 years of experience win designing and building jet fighters and another 25-30 years of research and development before that in fighters with various other propulsion and yet you think that Canada can design a better, cheaper fighter and in a shorter amount of time? Then why do we need the jets??? I stress WHY??? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Then why do we need the jets??? I stress WHY??? WWWTT Because we need them thats why either we buy them now when we don't need them yet or sooner or later we pay many times the cost to restart the program from the ground up. This is not a car where you can postpone the purchase for as long as you want until you need the car, for this you need it there when you need it, can't suddenly start building up the infrastructure and manpower from the ground up the moment you realize you badly need it. This is insurance, for the next 30-40 years we will have the fighters and the infrastructure if we need them, we can always skip on the insurance and then pray that nothing, not a single incident happens in our airspace...ever. I don't like paying for insurance any more then the next guy but I do because I know its too late to buy insurance after you are in an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Then why do we need the jets??? I stress WHY??? WWWTT What's a seven letter word for something you find in Russia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) So you think that the creators of the ai will come up with 100% of all eventualities possible? If something happens that they did not think of the AI is gone while the pilot has a chance to come up with an idea or at least attempt something. ai is self learning. it can also dream, and plan. it can be fed the whole of every air battle in existence in which physical data exists for every potential given probable attacks and equipment, it can absorb and handle far more data than a human pilot exposure time of a pro pilot is limited to probably around 20 years do some research on ai your post seems mostly based on false assumptions there are even neural emulations that function like the human brain now. here is an example uwaterloo.ca/stories/spaun-offers-rare-window-workings-human-brain-0 Edited December 30, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 ai is self learning. it can also dream, and plan. Watching too many movies are we? At this point in time we are far from having mass produced and functioning machines as those you prescribe for the CF and we can't wait 50 or 100 years to get them. it can be fed the whole of every air battle in existence in which physical data exists for every potential given probable attacks and equipment, it can absorb and handle far more data than a human pilot exposure time of a pro pilot is limited to probably around 20 years And why is every other nation using pilots if this AI is in existence? do some research on ai your post seems mostly based on false assumptions You want me to research the theory of AI's? Because as it is this is what it really is, someone experimenting and you believing that it is anywhere near operational. there are even neural emulations that function like the human brain now. Nice job googling. here is an exampleuwaterloo.ca/stories/spaun-offers-rare-window-workings-human-brain-0 And when do you think that will be available for combat systems? Arguing with you when your position is that in a few decades we MIGHT have this to work with is futile, we don't have access to something that works outside the lab and is better than a human at this point and waiting for that day is not an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Nice job googling. I've been following ai for over a decade, the only thing stoping the systems from being fielded is a desire to have them fielded. The stuff all exists. Darpa tends to focus on ground based assistants, and hunters. The pilotless drones are another fielding. Here is an example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2240394/X-47B-stealth-drone-hoped-carrier-borne-unmanned-aircraft.html There is a lot out there. Edited December 30, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairos Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) wow this today.. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pentagon-suspends-f-35-flights-due-crack-engine-191741497--finance.html f35s grounded in us over potential engine failure fault. this and lockheed saying it will cancle orders from canadian companies if canada pulls the plug on the program http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-21/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states Edited February 23, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 wow this today.. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pentagon-suspends-f-35-flights-due-crack-engine-191741497--finance.html f35s grounded in us over potential engine failure fault. this and lockheed saying it will cancle orders from canadian companies if canada pulls the plug on the program http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-21/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states The Bloomberg article notes that the F-35 project is "too big to kill." Noting that Lockheed (like every other weapons contractor) spreads their production throughout the Lower 48, what happens is almost every podunck district has House Rep who can be leveraged to support the project or face nasty campaign ads blaming him for "killing local jobs." And that of course is added leverage to go with all the bribes and kickbacks that the Congressman will cash in on after leaving office. But what's in it for Canada? Why is the Conservative Government so slavishly devoted to this project? The only thing I can't think of is that Harper's devotion to the Neocons goes beyond agreeing with any and every U.S. foreign policy initiative to include arms purchases also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.