ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 The first duty of the Canadian Forces is the defence of Canada. That should make it self evident. Apparently BC and Derek, like the authors of the strategy that produced the butterball, would prefer that Canada just follow the US from war to pointless war. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 The first duty of the Canadian Forces is the defence of Canada. That should make it self evident. Defend against what....Boeing or Airbus passenger planes ? CF-18s are U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters (bomb trucks), not air superiority fighter aircraft. Wasn't defending the Canadian Motherland just as important in the late 1970's, when far superior fighters were passed over ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 That's still not a fair description, as every competitor, save possibly the Typhoon, is also a bomb truck. Royal Saudi Air Force Typhoons are currently bombing ISIS......... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Apparently BC and Derek, like the authors of the strategy that produced the butterball, would prefer that Canada just follow the US from war to pointless war. Prefer hell...it's what Canada has done naturally in support of "Canadian interests". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Royal Saudi Air Force Typhoons are currently bombing ISIS......... Funny how that works, huh ? Maybe we can get Tom Cruise to glorify the lowly strike fighter mission ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Prefer hell...it's what Canada has done naturally in support of "Canadian interests". Recall, for instance, Jean Chretien saying "non" to Bush on Iraq? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Just a guess, but now that the election is over and four years of selfies are guaranteed, the government can easily back pedal on another campaign "promise" and reconsider the F-35 procurement after all. Funny how that works, huh ? Sure, based on the production cycle the RAAF will be receiving its aircraft (15 a year), there is no reason a Canadian order couldn't be placed in 2020-2021 for an out of service date of 2025 for our current Hornets. Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Are you suggesting the head of the RAAF is stretching the truth? I pointed out your definitive declaration of "WILL" does not match that of the Australian military "EXPECT" reference. I'm now also questioning how you, as you say, "stretch" even a projection to the point of your declared "TRUTH"! . Sure, a list of each nations requirements and industrial participation as of this year. imagine that! I ask for a summary type list accounting and you give me yet another go-fetch type link - one directly from LockMart, no less! Of course, there's no list there. But I indulged your go-fetch once again and I selected a couple of the country links. I'm surprised there's nothing current about Canada - imagine that; imagine LockMart failing to update the last reference where they offer a teaser suggesting the long past internal review was set to declare the F-35 the selection... I guess the failure to update Canada's linked reference was a glitch... probably the 'web guy' is still working on it, hey! Now since Norway has been mentioned a bit in recent posts here, I thought to check that link; imagine my surprise when there's no mention of the Norway decision process done on a per 6 plane procurement cycle... as in fund 6 and then review again for Parliamentary approval of subsequent funds. Somehow that ditty is missing. Of course, I had to check out the U.S. link; imagine my surprise when the ~2400 still shows up as spread appropriately across the respective military branches... per the original procurement numbers from day 1. Apparently, LockMart is under some impression that there will actually be U.S. procurement funding available for those ~2400 jets... imagine LockMart not speaking to any of the recent years concerns emanating from within the Pentagon/Congress. so ya, that piece of go-fetch you just provided from LockMart... thanks but no thanks; I ain't buyin it! and here I thought you'd be able to provide a comprehensive accounting of planes per country on projected time frames, year-by-year. It seems that's not available... and yet... and yet... you have no qualms, no reservations in continually touting lower procurement costs based on "some unknown number of planes being built upon some unknown time frame". Go figure. . Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Sure, based on the production cycle the RAAF will be receiving its aircraft (15 a year), there is no reason a Canadian order couldn't be placed in 2020-2021 for an out of service date of 2025 for our current Hornets. Sure, but the delivery timeline and type training would have to be years before that. Following your lead, Canada will tip its hand by following these kind of indirect actions instead of focusing on a big fat contract buy that would upset the bleeding masses so much. I predict a small buy at first with follow-on options. Edited December 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Canada hasn't had an air combat kill since the Korean War if memory serves me right. But it has dropped lots of bombs on other nations. So why all the concern about fantasy Top Gun scenarios for Canadian Forces pilots ? how's that F-22 never gone to combat jet working out, hey? Fantasy, or what? Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I did, and looked at their source data for such figures...........a blog yabut, you provide your reference source data/info quite regularly from LockMart...........propaganda Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Actually, looking into it, it seems you're right. The Gripen and Typhoon are primarily air to air fighters. The rest are multirole platforms. Explain why the Gripen didn't receive a radar/avionics upgrade (legacy Gripen, not the NG) until only a few years ago that would allow it to use medium range/BVR missiles...........odd that the Swedes would originally incorporate a wide range of air-to-ground weaponry into the aircraft, an aircraft replacing Saab Viggen squadrons (another attack aircraft), but only incorporate short range sidewinders (the Swedish built version of) into a primarily "air to air" platform......... Quote
Smallc Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 yabut, you provide your reference source data/info quite regularly from LockMart...........propaganda Some members often speaks to the certainty of every future plan, from the F-35 to the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Super Hornet replacements. Past events don't seem to support that...certainty. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 ... Past events don't seem to support that...certainty. Certainly not for Canada...you will only get one shot at this. Other nations have more options and flexibility. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Certainly not for Canada...you will only get one shot at this. Other nations have more options and flexibility. And they seem to be opting out as well. Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Based on this Government, as of yet, not leaving the program, well investing additional funds into it, I don't know that to be incorrect. you seem to be under some impression that statements advising Canada won't be buying the F-35 aren't to be taken at face value. Your wishful thinking is noted. You keep dropping references to not leaving the JSF program... paying additional funds into the program. As I'm aware, Canada and other participants each pledged $150 million back in 2002. You now seem to be suggesting another $150 million... as if it's some new additional payment. I can't seem to find anything to align with your repeated suggestion - do you have a link to support your repeated claim? and again, that continued participation affords an opportunity for Canadian companies to continue to bid on F-35 contracts... or perhaps extend on the ones already secured. It seems prudent to keep that opportunity open, wouldn't you say? Sort of double-up when the next alternate fighter and potential opportunities for Canadian companies comes along, yes? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 And they seem to be opting out as well. I'm predicting a turkey surplus in years ahead. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I'm predicting a turkey surplus in years ahead. Probably be selling for about the same as a used Chevy II before long. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I'm predicting a turkey surplus in years ahead. That's good, because you are going to need some excess production when Canada comes a beggin' for some. Remember how Canada's C-17's were procured...from straight up USAF production. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ Quote
waldo Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 That's still not a fair description, as every competitor, save possibly the Typhoon, is also a bomb truck. to me, the terminology 'bomb truck' says more about how Canada has deployed the CF-18... as in, what actual requirement use/need does Canada have for a so-called "first strike fighter"? Based on past deployments over the last decade, none. Which gets us back to a part of what this reversal is all about - to properly assess Canada's requirements... and role... and then find the plane to best meet that. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I pointed out your definitive declaration of "WILL" does not match that of the Australian military "EXPECT" reference. I'm now also questioning how you, as you say, "stretch" even a projection to the point of your declared "TRUTH"! . Again, you haven't offered anything to counter the head of the RAAF's sworn statement, a statement that aligns with the stated price of the (production) aircraft by Lockheed..........If the buyer and seller are reading from the same "script", where is the disconnect? so ya, that piece of go-fetch you just provided from LockMart... thanks but no thanks; I ain't buyin it! F-35 partner nations have stated requirements, requirements communicated to the DoD and Lockheed........despite suggestions otherwise in some segments of the media or by bloggers, often quoting the same troika that spearheads the anti-F35 agenda.............until said requirements have changed officially by send end users, then those are the intended numbers. and here I thought you'd be able to provide a comprehensive accounting of planes per country on projected time frames, year-by-year. It seems that's not available... and yet... and yet... you have no qualms, no reservations in continually touting lower procurement costs based on "some unknown number of planes being built upon some unknown time frame". Go figure. I suppose I could, but why would I? I continue to tout lower procurement costs because with each LRIP block buy the procurement costs have decreased..... In LRIP 1 the aircraft were ~$250 million a piece, with last year's LRIP 8 the aircraft were ~93 million + $18 for the LRIP 7 engine or ~$112 million flyaway.........LRIP 9 and 10 should be finalized by the end of the year/into the New Year.......I will go out on a limb and predict said reduction trend will continue with both orders..... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 you seem to be under some impression that statements advising Canada won't be buying the F-35 aren't to be taken at face value. No I don't.......ask the 25000 Syrian refugees to be taken in by years end. How much money is the Trudeau Government giving Boeing (Super Hornet), Dassault (Rafale) and Airbus (Eurofighter), likewise, how many GoC personal are apart of each other program? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 and again, that continued participation affords an opportunity for Canadian companies to continue to bid on F-35 contracts... or perhaps extend on the ones already secured. It seems prudent to keep that opportunity open, wouldn't you say? Sort of double-up when the next alternate fighter and potential opportunities for Canadian companies comes along, yes? Of course, likewise, if the Trudeau Government recanted their F-35 meme would I (or the RCAF and CPC) oppose such a redress of "policy"........ Riddle me this Waldo, if the Trudeau Liberals, based on them going business as usual with the F-35, held a dog & pony show "fair and transparent" competition for a Hornet replacement, and it was determined that the F-35 would actually meet the needs of the RCAF, likewise, the program offered the most industrial benefits to the aerospace and technology industries within Canada, would the Waldo want a seat upon the bandwagon Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 to me, the terminology 'bomb truck' says more about how Canada has deployed the CF-18... Mark the date and time.......we're in agreement!!!!!!! And I thank you, as aircraft themselves, don't set the foreign policy agenda of Canada. 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.