Derek 2.0 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 ah yes! I'll always relish anyone putting forward a link to confirm exactly what I said... you summarily dispatched the need for the tests, that everything had been taken care of "years ago"! As I said, the testing was aimed at the broader "computer/networking infrastructure"... the all-inclusive nature of puters/networks! . Of the ALIS network......... yup... although put forward initially as a part of the required/scheduled testing requirements, apparently... these tests were too "real-world" for the JSF office/LockMart, hey! Or a reflection of cyber (lack of) security throughout the US Government........ Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 I am sure that Canada's unique and very specialized mission requirements will result in a selection that assures total air dominance. That's why Canada chose a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter 35 years ago. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 I am sure that Canada's unique and very specialized mission requirements will result in a selection that assures total air dominance. That's why Canada chose a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter 35 years ago. We'd like to have at least some air dominance, which is why the bomb truck is not for us. But thanks for playing. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 I am sure that Canada's unique and very specialized mission requirements will result in a selection that assures total air dominance. That's why Canada chose a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter 35 years ago. One would hope, but then there is already one aircraft using Canadian technology in its multinational development and production program .........In relation to the ALIS, there is already a Vancouver based tech company producing portions of said software......the end user: When the rubber hits the road, a Hornet replacement, like past procurements, will come down to pork........the F-35 program already has Canadian content versus promises made by various companies' marketing departments. If we don't procure the F-35, Canadian aerospace companies will be hurt and Canadians will loose their jobs...........and that is why we are still a F-35 partner. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 We'll get ~10 billion worth of contracts fro whichever supplier we choose. So best to choose a plane that can work in the arctic for instance. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 ....When the rubber hits the road, a Hornet replacement, like past procurements, will come down to pork....... Maybe...just maybe...this time around will be different. Canada's requirements are so unique and specialized that only more delays and reviews can assure the best choice. This is the process that resulted in selecting a shorter range, U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter (aka "bomb truck"). No other country in the world has Canada's requirements and experience with Canadian air space dominance. Only Canada can decide what is best for Canadian industry politics. The trick is to find the right foreign "jet" to continue this tradition! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Maybe...just maybe...this time around will be different. Canada's requirements are so unique and specialized that only more delays and reviews can assure the best choice. This is the process that resulted in selecting a shorter range, U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter (aka "bomb truck"). Again it comes down to the IRBs.........one of the IRBs we received when McDonnell Douglas won our original Hornet contract was McDonnell Douglas financing General Mill's business expansion inside Canada, including bringing Red Lobster North of the border............ Quote
Big Guy Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 If there were no Canadian troops on the ground in the first place then those fighters would not have been required for anything. Stop this meddling. Bring all Canadian military and personnel home. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
waldo Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Justin Trudeau is still determined to withdraw our fighter planes from the fight against Isil despite the fact that they were required to protect our ground troops yesterday. How long is it going to be before his stupidity costs the lives of Canadians? "our ground troops"? Say what? Now I knew Canada had personnel training... I didn't realize they were "ground troops". Nor did I realize they were forward positioned in combat areas... nor have I read any accounts of the incident suggesting "Canadian ground troops" required protection. Please correct me with a provided citation - thanks in advance. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Please correct me with a provided citation - thanks in advance. Here: Canadian Armed Forces Maj.-Gen. Charles Lamarre told reporters in Ottawa on Thursday night, that Canadian troops were involved when ISIS militants launched a surprise attack using suicide bombs, mortars and artillery east of Mosul on Wednesday. Canadian Forces assisted Kurdish fighters with covering fire from the ground, while two CF-18s were called in to launch airstrikes, along with U.S., British, and French warplanes. Lamarre called the 17-hour battle, "the largest event that the Canadian Armed Forces training up north have been involved in." Quote
WestCanMan Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 "our ground troops"? Say what? Now I knew Canada had personnel training... I didn't realize they were "ground troops". Nor did I realize they were forward positioned in combat areas... nor have I read any accounts of the incident suggesting "Canadian ground troops" required protection. Please correct me with a provided citation - thanks in advance.They are ground troops waldo, members of the infantry with their feet on the ground in a war zone. Whether they are killing Isil members or teaching other people how to kill Isil members do you think it makes a difference to Isil? I'm biting my tongue when I tell you quite simply that the kind of aid that the fighter planes supplied to our members is always required when it is in any way beneficial. That's an incredibly basic concept and if you need any more explanation than that then I will just leave you wondering. What happens in the theatre of war is based on randomness, chances, preparation, planning, equipment, execution, etc. If the fighter planes didn't attack the Isil members who were attacking our soldiers do you think that there's a better chance that we would be talking about dead Canadians right now Waldo? Easy question. Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
Derek 2.0 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 What happens in the theatre of war is based on randomness, chances, preparation, planning, equipment, execution, etc. If the fighter planes didn't attack the Isil members who were attacking our soldiers do you think that there's a better chance that we would be talking about dead Canadians right now Waldo? Easy question. That's true, but in fairness, there is a multinational cab ranking of aircraft over both Iraq and Syria providing 24/7 coverage to allied forces on the ground..........that of course is no excuse, nor does it offer a reasoning as to why the Trudeau Government wants to pull our Hornets out........we have forces on the ground acting as forward air controllers with the Kurds, CP-140s locating targets over the region and a Polaris refueling strike aircraft.........but we can't maintain our own strike aircraft in the theater because? The Liberals said they'll add to the Forces on the ground (good idea) but we can't do this well still bombing the IS? That makes zero sense, and though I disagree with them, the NDP had a more coherent plan to pull all the Forces out..... Quote
WestCanMan Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) That's true, but in fairness, there is a multinational cab ranking of aircraft over both Iraq and Syria providing 24/7 coverage to allied forces on the ground..........that of course is no excuse, nor does it offer a reasoning as to why the Trudeau Government wants to pull our Hornets out........we have forces on the ground acting as forward air controllers with the Kurds, CP-140s locating targets over the region and a Polaris refueling strike aircraft.........but we can't maintain our own strike aircraft in the theater because? The Liberals said they'll add to the Forces on the ground (good idea) but we can't do this well still bombing the IS? That makes zero sense, and though I disagree with them, the NDP had a more coherent plan to pull all the Forces out..... I think it's bad policy for us to let our allies bear the expense of having pilots and support crews stationed over there (overseas + combat pay bonuses for all of them), paying for the fuel for their planes, risking the lives of their pilots and expensive fighter planes, the cost of their missiles and other ordinance they use... It all adds up. I also wonder about the strategy of training soldiers over there. Hasn't it backfired every time western nations have trained middle-eastern groups how to fight? Sooner or later they end up being our enemies. The NDP lol. I would have crapped my pants of Mulcair was elected PM. All I have ever seen that guy do is complain. I swear he would have started a war against the US. Edited December 19, 2015 by WestCanMan Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
eyeball Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) They are ground troops waldo, members of the infantry with their feet on the ground in a war zone. Whether they are killing Isil members or teaching other people how to kill Isil members do you think it makes a difference to Isil?Exactly. If Canada is in for a penny it's in for a pound.Trudeau is as much a warmongering war-pig as anyone. Pulling a few bombers out means absolutely squat. He'll have to actually pull everything we've got out of the ME and tell our allies to go stuff themselves if he expects any respect or support from me. Edited December 19, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Big Guy Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 So I heard to-day that the Turks are fighting the Kurds. Hey - they are both supposed to be good guys and our friends and fighting with us. So are we bombing Kurds too? Are we dropping bombs with Turkey? Oh, and it was only a matter of time before the USA with their surgical strike capability took out a few friendlies by mistake. In the fiasco called the "war" the Americans just took out about a dozen Iraqi friendlies. OOPS! And some folks wonder why we are taking our airplanes out of that "war" that would be a joke if not for all those folks being killed. Get ALL Canadians out of that area and get them home before we get taken out by our "allies" if/when we can figure out who they are. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 ....Oh, and it was only a matter of time before the USA with their surgical strike capability took out a few friendlies by mistake. In the fiasco called the "war" the Americans just took out about a dozen Iraqi friendlies. OOPS! Don't worry...the coalition hides any stories about Canada bombing "friendlies" or civilians...don't want to upset the folks back home. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 Considering their last two frontline fighters were Dassault products, not too surprised. ........again, not a surprising move, as the Indians have longstanding ties with both the Russians and French. interesting... your rather challenging reply, "What of them? Has India or Qatar actually ordered the Rafale yet?"... doesn't seem to quite line-up with your "not too surprised" dismissal that this is just India and Qatar lining up with their status-quo vendors. By the by, it appears India may have greater designs on that Rafale than just this initial 36 purchase... although it does speak to my other comment asking you about the status of that 5th gen Russian PAK FA T-50 and the 'collaborative' association India has with Russia in that regard... something about India "said to be" purchasing 154 of them. in any case, given your oft repeated comment advising of all other non-F-35 assembly lines coming to an end in "short order"... will you be adjusting that comment at all given recent purchases... of non-F-35 aircraft? . Quote
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 Don't worry...the coalition hides any stories about Canada bombing "friendlies" or civilians...don't want to upset the folks back home. "coalition hides" - please elaborate... there have been examples of coverage "not hidden" (the most recent, albeit denied by Canadian military officials) ... if you have examples of "hidden Canadian collateral bombing deaths", they would certainly contribute to this thread. . Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 "coalition hides" - please elaborate... there have been examples of coverage "not hidden" (the most recent, albeit denied by Canadian military officials) ... if you have examples of "hidden Canadian collateral bombing deaths", they would certainly contribute to this thread. . Apparently he's so hooked on Fox news and such he does't bother to read anything Canadian. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 interesting... your rather challenging reply, "What of them? Has India or Qatar actually ordered the Rafale yet?"... doesn't seem to quite line-up with your "not too surprised" dismissal that this is just India and Qatar lining up with their status-quo vendors. How's that? IIRC, I didn't even suggest what aircraft the Indians would procure. Looking at their near term requirements (and current inventory), coupled with their desire for local production/technology transfers (American makers wouldn't agree, nor be allowed, the later to the extent the Indians would want) a Russian or French purchase shouldn't surprise.......and of course, they've done both this year. By the by, it appears India may have greater designs on that Rafale than just this initial 36 purchase... Maybe, but let's put it into context, 36 aircraft represents ~3-5% of the inventory of the Indian air force.... although it does speak to my other comment asking you about the status of that 5th gen Russian PAK FA T-50 and the 'collaborative' association India has with Russia in that regard... something about India "said to be" purchasing 154 of them. Again, I'm not sure that it impacts that status, as its a different program.........what would be more telling is if they had of purchased the Rafale for their navy in addition, instead, opting for the latest incarnation of the Mig-29.......with said fleet being roughly 3xs that of their eventual Rafale fleet. in any case, given your oft repeated comment advising of all other non-F-35 assembly lines coming to an end in "short order"... will you be adjusting that comment at all given recent purchases... of non-F-35 aircraft? That would depend on the terms of the deals and Dassault's rate of production, which has been at its lowest (viable) possible rate, of which (absent new orders) would have met French requirements in the next several years. Again assuming the rate of production isn't increased, the assembly line staying open several more years would be a given. Quote
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 How's that? IIRC, I didn't even suggest what aircraft the Indians would procure. it was in regards the rather bold prediction that the Rafale production line would end in 2016... in line with your numerous like statements touting the end of all non-F-35 production lines... and this is just India and Qatar and just the Rafale. Speaking of production lines, care to step-up and speak to that ever-declining number for the F-35 production line... now at 60 a year for a decade+. Gee that sure doesn't match all the numbers thrown around by LockMart for so many years - does it, hey! . Again, I'm not sure that it impacts that status, as its a different program......... so you keep saying. Not the point... apparently you're hesitant to speak to other so-called '5th gen' planes out there. Apparently, the Russian production version of the PAK FA T-50 set to begin entry into the Russian Air Force in 2017. "Propaganda says better than the F-22"! Hey... the Russians just sold 24 Sukhoi SU-35s to the Chinese for $2 billion... interesting times, yes? . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 it was in regards the rather bold prediction that the Rafale production line would end in 2016... in line with your numerous like statements touting the end of all non-F-35 production lines... and this is just India and Qatar and just the Rafale. Speaking of production lines, care to step-up and speak to that ever-declining number for the F-35 production line... now at 60 a year for a decade+. Gee that sure doesn't match all the numbers thrown around by LockMart for so many years - does it, hey! . . There was nothing bold about it, the final French aircraft are to be delivered Spring-Summer 2016, absent new orders, the line will/would close.......... You realize next Year's LRIP production of the F-35 is over 60 aircraft, in addition, the DoD has bought 11 additional F-35s, more than expected? (and the flyaway cost of the F-35A is now $98 million per?) so you keep saying. Not the point... apparently you're hesitant to speak to other so-called '5th gen' planes out there. Apparently, the Russian production version of the PAK FA T-50 set to begin entry into the Russian Air Force in 2017. "Propaganda says better than the F-22"! Hey... the Russians just sold 24 Sukhoi SU-35s to the Chinese for $2 billion... interesting times, yes? I'm not hesitant at all to speak to it..........better than the F-22? In Putin's Russia, propaganda reads you........In the early 80s, many in NATO feared the then vaunted Mig-29 being superior to the then new Hornet and F-16s, in reality, once the Wall came down and the West got their hands on former East German Migs, such fears were quickly dismissed........It should be telling that the unified Germans retired their 1980s era Mig-29s a decade earlier than their 1970s purchased (of a 1960s design) F-4 Phantoms. At the end of the day, Russian aircraft rely on Russian electronics/avionics.........I assume Comrade Waldo doesn't own any Russian household electronic products? As to the Chinese purchase, that should be telling onto their own domestic types, including their 5th generation program's progress..........whats more, the recent Chinese purchases of Russian (1970s era) fighter engines for their own domestic programs is a clear indication that the Chinese are yet unable to build high performance engines, even reverse engineering Russian products........one doesn't need have a background in aviation to understand putting sub-par Mig-29 engines into ones own (far larger) domestic 5th generation fighter isn't boost of confidence........ Where does that leave the T-50? Best case for the Russians is a (near) equal to the F-15/Eurofighter/Rafale and an improvement over multirole types like the Hornets, Falcons, Gripens etc.........and thats if it works as advertised, and assuming the Western aircraft don't have the benefit of numerous "force multipliers"...i.e AWACS, aerial refueling, electronic warfare etc etc....... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 IRBs ...now called ITBs...highlight the recurring theme of under-capitalization in Canada. Leveraging foreign contractors with defence contracts for domestic industrial benefits were found to be "sub optimal". Implicit in such a process is that the much heralded "Canadian requirements" and mission capabilities can be compromised by the ITB mandate(s). And primes will just take advantage of the incentive programs with higher costs. Maybe that explains how MD won the contract to build U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters for a nation that has no carriers ! http://thefundingportal.com/blog/industrial-and-regional-benefits-overhauled-after-28-years/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 Maybe that explains how MD won the contract to build U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters for a nation that has no carriers ! so you keep emphasizing... over and over again! But go figure - that would make a total of 7 countries, sans carriers, that purchased the F/A-18 Hornet. Apparently, it does/did quite well off carriers. Why... even during the illegal invasion of Iraq, U.S. Hornets flew from land air bases in Kuwait... not carriers - go figure. . Quote
waldo Posted December 20, 2015 Report Posted December 20, 2015 In Putin's Russia, propaganda reads you.... As to the Chinese purchase........one doesn't need have a background in aviation to understand putting sub-par Mig-29 engines into ones own (far larger) domestic 5th generation fighter isn't boost of confidence........ Where does that leave the T-50? Best case for the Russians is a (near) equal to the F-15/Eurofighter/Rafale and an improvement over multirole types like the Hornets, Falcons, Gripens etc.........and thats if it works as advertised, and assuming the Western aircraft don't have the benefit of numerous "force multipliers"...i.e AWACS, aerial refueling, electronic warfare etc etc....... surely you're not equating the Sukhoi SU-35s to... a Mig-29... surely! Gee, I read the SU-35s is a match for... if not better than... the F-15 today. I dropped the 'P' word just to get a reaction from you... just to reinforce you really likee a certain type of propaganda - that coming from LockMart/JSF Program Office! Whatever the actual state of that 2017 production entry into the Russian Air Force for the PAK FA T-50... isn't it odd that all critical and/or speculative writing on it has it being compared to the F-22 and not the F-35 - oh my! . 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.