F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[login]

We do have some important posts on this thread... we found out that Genocide is justifiable... in fact its preferable method to control criminals for some members here.

not your form of genocide.

you are just painting so the merit in the discussion is limited.

Edited December 25, 2012 by login

[login]

Not in the real world, in the real world the cooks are a necessity

you are clearly out of touch from the real world. cooks are not a neccesity.

your line of argument is why the jet program was yanked from the dnd/cf

\

cost effectiveness doesn't seem to be in you comprehension

Edited December 25, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

that simply isn't true you have a problem with keeping tabs on my opinion, speak for yourself, don't put your words into my mouth.

He actually covered your ideas pretty well in about 20 words...

dishonesty will only earn you bad karma.

Lucky for him he is not dishonest.

I am one of few people on this forum that support a form of f35 purchase, I just don't support the 65 all in purchase

Lets buy the right aircraft, just not in numbers that can do anything worthwhile.

my plan is to in multiple stages to but cf-18s, dassault rafales, f35s, as well as integrate if possible a secret arrow II variant

One aircraft type is hard enough to maintain as it is, having a dozen designs means that we will be stuck with ever increasing costs in upkeep as we need to train the same technicians on a dozen different and sometimes incompatible systems.

the civvilain purchases are to replace the challenger jets that are being decomissioned get your facts straight

Your idea was to save a couple of million dollars by wasting hundreds of billions... really smart.

this is largely what I;ve been on about

http://www.ndtv.com/...air-force-14255

India bought 126 of them for 10 billion,'

thats under 80 million each

Not when you add up the upkeep and all that fine stuff... Keep in mind that they pay their soldiers a lot less than us therefore a lot of their upkeep cost is cut... You need to delve deeper in to the logistic and supply side before you make such obviously faulty suggestions.

[Signals.Cpl]

not your form of genocide.

you are just painting so the merit in the discussion is limited.

Genocide is genocide, there is no my genocide and your genocide but one genocide its simple...

[login]

I disagree. I see your position you fail to see mine, end of story. I can't give you a new brain to change that.

go ahead and quote me but don't take my comments out of context it is a disservice't

taking me out of context just isn't fair play,

Edited December 25, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

you are clearly out of touch from the real world. cooks are not a neccesity.

Clearly with your vast experience in all sorts of military matters through Call of Duty I would now bow out seeing as I only have five years experience in the REAL MILITARY...

your line of argument is why the jet program was yanked from the dnd/cf

\

cost effectiveness doesn't seem to be in you comprehension

If by cost effectiveness you mean wasting billions for solving problems that don't exist then yes... but you seem to be an expert in wasting money rather than cutting costs.

[Signals.Cpl]

I disagree. I see your position you fail to see mine, end of story. I can't give you a new brain to change that.

go ahead and quote me but don't take my comments out of context it is a disservice't

taking me out of context just isn't fair play,

Genocide is the mass murder of innocent people, not some way of killing off criminals who commit atrocities.

[login]

Clearly with your vast experience in all sorts of military matters through Call of Duty I would now bow out seeing as I only have five years experience in the REAL MILITARY...

says your net anonyminity, you havn't demonstrated knowledge.

If by cost effectiveness you mean wasting billions for solving problems that don't exist then yes... but you seem to be an expert in wasting money rather than cutting costs.

It was you who invented problems not me.

I havn't attempted to solve any problems so you are mischaracterizing

as I siad very clearly I can't address a problem that hasn't been identified,

the level of smoke and mirrors in these parts is truely pathetic

Edited December 25, 2012 by login

[dre]

Lets buy the right aircraft, just not in numbers that can do anything worthwhile.

Well its a matter of how much money we have to spend, and last I heard the government of canada cannot even pay its own employees without borrowing money from foreigners.

Do you have 30 billion kicking around?

[login]

it has nothing to do with innocence http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043

[Signals.Cpl]

Well its a matter of how much money we have to spend, and last I heard the government of canada cannot even pay its own employees without borrowing money from foreigners.

Do you have 30 billion kicking around?

And what is the alternative? No aircraft at all?

[Signals.Cpl]

says your net anonyminity, you havn't demonstrated knowledge.

I have demonstrated knowledge by refuting your childish "theories", you can't recognize knowledge because you have none to speak of can't recognize what you don't have now can you?

It was you who invented problems not me.

Yeah sure, its clear who is inventing problem and who is not, unfortunately for you people see how full of sh*t you are.

I havn't attempted to solve any problems so you are mischaracterizing

Damn right you haven't, since you only create "solutions" for imaginary problems...

as I siad very clearly I can't address a problem that hasn't been identified,

You cannot address a problem because you have no identifiable shred of knowledge to lend to this discussion, all you have is useless ideas that will take one of the best and most professional militaries in the world and destroy it and its abilities. Save a few dollars by wasting billions if not trillions with your rabid solutions all the while being a proponent of genocide... you have build quite a reputation here as the guy who knows absolutely nothing about anything yet is an "expert" in everything.

the level of smoke and mirrors in these parts is truely pathetic

Glad you recognize your BS too... so its not just us.

[Signals.Cpl]

it has nothing to do with innocence http://www.ushmm.org...duleId=10007043

Yeah, the jews sure asked for it being all militaristic and killing Germans indiscriminately... right?

[dre]

And what is the alternative? No aircraft at all?

Thats one alternative.... Id prefer to keep at least enough of an airforce to patrol our own airspace. We need to count up how much cash we have on hand, then crunch the numbers for every option available, including unmanned craft. Maybe we could buy 20 F-35's and a bunch of drones.

Either way, we need to start the process again from scratch and do it right this time.

[Signals.Cpl]

Thats one alternative.... Id prefer to keep at least enough of an airforce to patrol our own airspace. We need to count up how much cash we have on hand, then crunch the numbers for every option available, including unmanned craft. Maybe we could buy 20 F-35's and a bunch of drones.

Either way, we need to start the process again from scratch and do it right this time.

I would prefer to hand over security to our airspace over to the US rather than have the illusion of security without the ability to meet even the most rudimentary emergency within our country. We either have enough to defend our airspace from whatever threat there is, or we let someone else do it for us. Drones are great but they do not and are not advanced enough at this stage of the game to replace the human factor which could make the difference between mission success of failure due to the ability to gain intelligence and use it immediately instead of watching through a computer screen from hundreds if not thousands of km away.

[Wilber]

Thats one alternative.... Id prefer to keep at least enough of an airforce to patrol our own airspace. We need to count up how much cash we have on hand, then crunch the numbers for every option available, including unmanned craft. Maybe we could buy 20 F-35's and a bunch of drones.

Either way, we need to start the process again from scratch and do it right this time.

Thing is, the infrastructure required to operate 20 anything will not be less than a third of what it will cost to operate 65. Much of it will be required regardless of the number we buy.

[dre]

Thing is, the infrastructure required to operate 20 anything will not be less than a third of what it will cost to operate 65. Much of it will be required regardless of the number we buy.

Thats a fair point, if we go through a proper procurement process, and publish a cost benefit analysis of all the various options, then we can attach some real numbers to those things.

[Wilber]

Thats a fair point, if we go through a proper procurement process, and publish a cost benefit analysis of all the various options, then we can attach some real numbers to those things.

One thing that is fact. Mixed fleets are more expensive to operate. Duplication of infrastructure, training etc. One of the reasons airlines like Southwest and Westjet are so successful is they only operate one type.

[dre]

One thing that is fact. Mixed fleets are more expensive to operate. Duplication of infrastructure, training etc. One of the reasons airlines like Southwest and Westjet are so successful is they only operate one type.

That entirely depends what the mix is. Purchasing drones for 1/2 of our airforce might save us us a substancial ammount of money. Prices seem to range from 10 million to 35.

But again...

if we go through a proper procurement process, and publish a cost benefit analysis of all the various options, then we can attach some real numbers to those things.

[Signals.Cpl]

That entirely depends what the mix is. Purchasing drones for 1/2 of our airforce might save us us a substancial ammount of money. Prices seem to range from 10 million to 35.

But again...

But are drones advanced to the point of being able to replace a live pilot on the aircraft rather than someone a few hundred km away watching on a screen?

[dre]

But are drones advanced to the point of being able to replace a live pilot on the aircraft rather than someone a few hundred km away watching on a screen?

Well theoretically someone watching a screen will only see things a couple of hundred miliseconds slower than someone in the plane. But the answer to your question as far as I know is in some cases yes, and some cases no. For all the routine patrols we fly (which is 99% of what our airforce does) they seem quite well suited...

Reaper has a range of 3,682 miles and an operational altitude of 50,000 ft,^[28] which make it especially useful for long-term loitering operations, both for surveillance and support of ground troops.^[29]

They fly longer and higher than an f-35. A dozen or two of these things "loitering" at the edge of our airspace might be pretty effective in terms of our patrol/recon regime.

The US is also increasingly using drones for more and more roles in places like the middle east for recon, supporting ground forces, and counter terrorism operations.

Edited December 26, 2012 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

The trouble with using TV screens to conduct air to air combat is almost total lack of situational awareness. When the operator has 360 degree all 'round/up & down visibility, then perhaps they'll come of age as air combat machines. I'm sure this is being worked on...but still a ways off, I'd imagine.

Edited December 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has only rented drones from Israel, or purchased "drone services" from contractors in Afghanistan. Any procurement decision would be met with the same domestic circus over cost and jobs as the F-35.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well theoretically someone watching a screen will only see things a couple of hundred miliseconds slower than someone in the plane. But the answer to your question as far as I know is in some cases yes, and some cases no. For all the routine patrols we fly (which is 99% of what our airforce does) they seem quite well suited...

we need something capable of doing the routine but also being able to perform in exceptional and adverse circumstances. What happens when the drones have to do the other 1% and they can't perform up to par?

And as far as the pilot is concerned, they can make a decision not he spot with all the information available while the guy who controls the drone even if its instantaneous cannot hope to have the same degree of control and immediate intelligence as a pair of eyes attached to a brain.

We need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst rather than hope for the best and prepare for the routine.

[dre]

we need something capable of doing the routine but also being able to perform in exceptional and adverse circumstances. What happens when the drones have to do the other 1% and they can't perform up to par?

And as far as the pilot is concerned, they can make a decision not he spot with all the information available while the guy who controls the drone even if its instantaneous cannot hope to have the same degree of control and immediate intelligence as a pair of eyes attached to a brain.

We need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst rather than hope for the best and prepare for the routine.

We cant afford to prepare for the worst. The "worst" is an invasion by a major foreign power with thousands of planes, cruise missiles, ICBM's, or whatever. This is basic risk management. Canada cannot afford to insure itself against every possible threat, so we first need to make sure our basic needs are taken care of, then we need to insure against as many of the likely disaster scenarios as possible, then tackle a few of the unlikely scenarios if we still have money left.

And spending money in a way that is not sustainable hurts our national security is does not help it.

drones have to do the other 1% and they can't perform up to par?

Well I was proposing only a partial replacement of manned aircraft with drones. We could still procure a manned aircraft in smaller numbers as well.