waldo Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 I'm not whining per-say, it is after all someone else site, but I found it "harsh" when compared to what others post as a matter of opinion......None the less, I fail to see what this has to do with the F-35? your whinefest is on display in the status update. Yes, this has nothing to do with this thread... since you played up the "ignore team" comment, I took the liberty to play along in that vein. Since I can't add to that status update, I did so here in line with your "ignore team" comment. I mention the Snowden thread as your latest comments in that thread are in proximity to when you received your timeout. Your 'justifying rape' themed commentary in that thread was vile - to the extreme. To me, those comments were grounds for a suspension over your Monty Python video whinefest. Quote
waldo Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 I agree (as an outsider, uninvolved) that it sounds harsh...but it's pretty plain from the missive that the MP video is not exactly what got you suspended, as you claim. It sounds more like a last straw sort of situation. In fact, that point is emphasized. agreed. Within that Snowden thread, I trust you recall your most pointed criticism of that same thread commentary I just pointed out in my prior post. To me, that was the proverbial 'straw that broke the...' Quote
waldo Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 More good news for the program, fore Turkey: well, your giddyness is somewhat reserved. The outstanding issue for Turkey remains... "they want the F-35 code"! The fact Turkey continues down the path, more resolved than ever, to build its own jet (for now working with Saab), in a most aggressive time-frame, suggests doubt on the initial F-35 commitment numbers. That initial procurement was over a 15-year time period... their plans to build their own TF-X jet are within a 10-year time period. The overlap of those two periods doesn't bode well for any jet option, other than their own internal build. Quote
Smallc Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 The government's target price for the aircraft does not include engines either.... Quote
waldo Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 The government's target price for the aircraft does not include engines either.... nice! Which version of those costs are you referencing? Are you categorically stating quoted government costs have never included engine cost? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 The government's target price for the aircraft does not include engines either.... This is true, and on the Government site, the budget breakdown for the program is listed within the various categories (i.e. Airframes, engines, spare parts, training aides, additional weapons etc)……….As to the current cost, as mentioned by the poster, the current cost has not yet been released since contract negotiations are presently ongoing, the last figure released coincided with the LRIP 3 buy and put the F-35A’s engine at ~16 million a copy, with the “B” (IIRC) somewhere between 24-28 Billion with the LiftSystem…… Quote
waldo Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 This is true, and on the Government site, the budget breakdown for the program... is it true... or not (broken down) true? What cost get conveyed publicly..... a line-item breakout, or an all-inclusive price? Quote
Army Guy Posted October 22, 2013 Report Posted October 22, 2013 Just a question waldo, this post has gone on for 93 pages, so long in fact i've forgotten which aircraft your pushing. and why....the reason i ask is for 93 pages we have heard derek position inside and out, not that i'm getting tired of dereks posts as i've learned more about the F-35 from him than any other source. I just thought it was time to put someone else on the hot seat....hear you defend your postion.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 You're remiss in noting the delivery vehicle of said peacemaking weaponry……I’m certain the F-35 will afford Canadian Governments for decades to come the ability to deliver peace upon all evil doers That sounds pretty much like the American approach to things, and look where it's got them? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 That sounds pretty much like the American approach to things, and look where it's got them? The largest economy on the planet and sole Super Power status? The crosses some have to bear….. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 That sounds pretty much like the American approach to things, and look where it's got them? The Canadian approach brought you the Avro Arrow...any questions ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Just a question waldo, this post has gone on for 93 pages, so long in fact i've forgotten which aircraft your pushing. and why....the reason i ask is for 93 pages we have heard derek position inside and out, not that i'm getting tired of dereks posts as i've learned more about the F-35 from him than any other source. I just thought it was time to put someone else on the hot seat....hear you defend your postion.... stated several times over, through various threads... Canada does not need a replacement strike fighter "high-altitude bomber", as that has been the only use the CF-18s have seen... well, other than Peter McKay 'chasing back the Russian Bear' photo-ops! In response to the always present "NATO obligations" mantra, I've suggested Canada take a role in transport. I've suggested emphasis should be put towards significant Coast Guard upgrades, inclusive of an air-component. I've emphasized drones should be the principal area of investment... which can/could be extended beyond surveillance for those that need to pump their chests occasionally. I only get into the 'other plane alternative' game in the face of monies actually being spent... and, in that regard, I suggest Canada's needs can be met with something other than a JSFail decade+ of over-budget, over-schedule, over-hype. Of course, in that context, we come full circle as to just what are, "Canada's needs"? I will also take the liberty to speak to one of your recent comments that had you pining for the presence of CF-18s in Afghanistan. Why weren't they there? I would suggest they were not there because Canada simply did not/does not have the means/capability to stage them over a long/protracted period of engagement, which speaks to the broader issue of funding/policy extension. Otherwise... why weren't they there? Quote
Army Guy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Well for the most part i think DND use of it's F-18's were due to the caveats that our government put on them, during the Gulf war they were assigned to CAP patrols, although there was an engagement of a surface ves..as for Kosvo well i think the US had that handled with their stealth aircraft F-117, and B-2 bombers, i'm not sure anyone flew Strike missions (low Level) i think once again caveats , and for safety.... Even back then the F-18 was over the hill when compared to the other aircraft the allied's were using....Libya not sure what altitude they were flying i'll have to do some research. As for chasing bears, well that is one of the prime reasons we purchased them, that and to fill our NATO needs in Europe...which although we no longer have aircraft based in Europe that mission is still there, on top of our NORAD mission and of course our soveriegnity patrols. Which brings this question what do we fill these open holes with that you will have in regards to NO fighters aircraft.. Transport aircraft, well many have suggested that we take on a niche roll, why not transport i guess . In what form more aircraft, more ships? And is that what NATO needs, i mean it already has the US, plus NATO has it's own transport aircraft fleet, plus there is the EX soviet rental agreement. Drones , could you please provide some more info to what type and what purpose they would have ? What does Canada need ? My personal opinion about why F-18's were not there in Afghan, i think the Airforce is Stretched pretty thin, puting a sqn in Afghan would have overloaded the airforce, and it's current NATO and NORAD taskings....short on pilots and spares, Afghan would have eat them up faster than they could be replaced, not to mention that combat hours are not the same as flying in Canada, the Aircraft are to old and what life is still in them needed to be preserved....Not having the means for a projected deployment speaks to not have the right numbers of equipment and pers....in this case more than 80 aircraft with the pilots to fly them... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Seeing that Tu-95s regularly carry high-yield thermonuclear weapons on these 'photo-ops', it would be in Canada's best interest to keep them well away. Or should we see how many safety features Russian atomic devices have? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 That's right...they don't have to bomb us to do damage...just crash. We all know after all that Russia has a great safety record when it comes to...well...everything. Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Seeing that Tu-95s regularly carry high-yield thermonuclear weapons on these 'photo-ops', it would be in Canada's best interest to keep them well away. Or should we see how many safety features Russian atomic devices have? you trot this boogeyman out (from under your bed)... every time! Has 'the Bear' ever encroached upon Canadian air space? There have been several instances where they've been out there for long periods of time before being met by Peter McKay's cameras! Before his cameras arrived, what was 'the Bear' waiting for? Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 That's right...they don't have to bomb us to do damage...just crash. We all know after all that Russia has a great safety record when it comes to...well...everything. if you're worried about crashes, are there any other country's planes/ships/subs out there carrying nukes that you should be worried about crashing? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 That's right...they don't have to bomb us to do damage...just crash. We all know after all that Russia has a great safety record when it comes to...well...everything. Chernobyl comes to mind. As well as a certain COSMOS satellite... Did you know that for a moment during that last meteor strike, the Russians thought they were under nuclear attack? Where the meteor hit is at the heart of Russia's atomic weapons depots. It went-off in the megaton range and looked like an air-burst by early Russian detection methods. As for waldo's comment. Tu-95s and the devices they carry are real...not boogey men. If one crashed up North, it would be a major problem. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 My personal opinion about why F-18's were not there in Afghan, i think the Airforce is Stretched pretty thin, puting a sqn in Afghan would have overloaded the airforce, and it's current NATO and NORAD taskings....short on pilots and spares, Afghan would have eat them up faster than they could be replaced, not to mention that combat hours are not the same as flying in Canada, the Aircraft are to old and what life is still in them needed to be preserved....Not having the means for a projected deployment speaks to not have the right numbers of equipment and pers....in this case more than 80 aircraft with the pilots to fly them... didn't the $2 Billion retrofit significantly extend the life... I wasn't aware they were "that close" in terms of remaining flying hours. You know, that $2 Billion retrofit required given the protracted F-35 delay. in any case, you've made the point in why I questioned your statement... "stretched pretty thin". How do you presume to have Canada "padded out" flying F-35s? Some "expert" suggestion exists that the initial 65 procurement number was low in terms of real need... other "expert" suggestion has another 12-15 required just to deal with attrition. You know, the attrition aspect/costs that Harper Conservatives/DND never talk about. Where is the money coming from, particularly with all the other stated competing military priorities/requirements? Notwithstanding balanced budgets & deficit reductions... Quote
waldo Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Chernobyl comes to mind. Three Mile Island... Davis-Besse... at least 56 nuclear 'accidents' in the U.S........ you're going to need a bigger bed to fit all your boogeymen under! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Three Mile Island... Davis-Besse... at least 56 nuclear 'accidents' in the U.S........ you're going to need a bigger bed to fit all your boogeymen under! None of them come ANYWHERE near to what the Russians have went 'oooops' over. In 1960, the Russians blew one off that gave everybody alive a nice little glow in their bones. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 yes they did just come out of a moderization refit, upgrading them for many things, but they did not refit the airframes and wings, it is those refits that extend life times...not putting in new radar, and comms etc...those upgrades were to modernise the aircraft in terms to combat abilities, and don't extend airframe hours....Those upgrades were not done because of F-35 delays, they were done because we needed them to be compatiable with our allieds, and the tech that was on them was well past it's time .... In comparison with other users of this aircraft, these would have been retired long ago had they been US aircraft, but then again we have always reset how many hours we can fly anything, look at the sea kings or C-130 B or H models i don't think there is one nation with as many hours on those types except Canada. As for the numbers of F-35 required...well the Airforce seems to think that will be enough....i myself don't see how the math works out....if 80 F-18 were not enough to support a Afghan deployment, then i'm sure 65 F-35 will not be enough...that being said that is beyond my pay grade and is my best guess. Where is the money going to come from where it always comes from the taxpayers....As for competing priorities our air space is one of the top pri's for the military....with out it you place all your other military elements at risk...You make this out like this is all the militaries fault for wanting the top of the line fighters wasting your money....and yet this dates back over the last 25 years to every polictical party that ran this country....if this equipment had been replaced in a timily manner our Armed Forces would not be in the shape it is today...needing 100 of bils just to keep everything at par.... DND is always been there for this country, regardless if it was giving our lives or taking the bigest hit when it comes to deficit reduction....it has now caught up to us....we either pay the bill or find another solution to our defense needs....both have consquences that you have not talked about... So do the proposal you have stated, use of drones, converting our military main effort to transport....where do we get that funding....So far you have deflected your arguments away your post , i think we would all like to hear you go into detail Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Guest Derek L Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) My personal opinion about why F-18's were not there in Afghan, i think the Airforce is Stretched pretty thin, puting a sqn in Afghan would have overloaded the airforce, and it's current NATO and NORAD taskings....short on pilots and spares, Afghan would have eat them up faster than they could be replaced, not to mention that combat hours are not the same as flying in Canada, the Aircraft are to old and what life is still in them needed to be preserved....Not having the means for a projected deployment speaks to not have the right numbers of equipment and pers....in this case more than 80 aircraft with the pilots to fly them... You're not far off........During the Afghan campaign the Hornet fleet was stretched thin for two reasons. First the operational tempo of NORAD was ramped up substantially post 9/11, second reason, the Hornet fleet was undergoing the IMP upgrades from early 2002 to early 2010, to correct deficiencies found within the fleet during operations in the FRY…..namely the block obsolescence of the fleet’s avionics and communication gear. Ultimately our Hornets were brought up to the same standards as those that entered service with the USN and USMC in the early 90s. Of course the retirement of nearly 1/3rd of our Hornet fleet, the retirement of the remaining CF-5 Freedom Fighters and not picking up the option we had in our contract for several dozen more Hornets, at that point state of the art, can be attributed to the inaction, almost negligence, of the Chrétien regime. Edited October 24, 2013 by Derek L Quote
Wilber Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) you trot this boogeyman out (from under your bed)... every time! Has 'the Bear' ever encroached upon Canadian air space? There have been several instances where they've been out there for long periods of time before being met by Peter McKay's cameras! Before his cameras arrived, what was 'the Bear' waiting for? One of the main reasons for these patrols is to check our response capabilites. The Americans played the same games to check Soviet reactions and may still do with the Russians. Our F-18's were taking pictures of Bears long before the present Conservatives came to power and CF-101's made many intercepts before that. Edited October 24, 2013 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest Derek L Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 One of the main reasons for these patrols is to check our response capabilites. The Americans played the same games to check Soviet reactions and may still do with the Russians. Our F-18's were taking pictures of Bears long before the present Conservatives came to power and CF-101's made many intercepts before that. Of course, and CF-100 Canucks before them......And of course the requirement behind the CF-105...... And of course, the interception of Soviet bombers was the reason the Canadian Forces’ Hornets have the unique (among all other Hornet users) port-side searchlight forward of the leading edge atop the gun maintenance hatch : 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.