Wilber Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Sorry I made a typo. I meant to say I never suggested buying OLD stuff. And I didn't even mention the super hornet. So again I'm left wondering what you're even talking about. Feelings mutual. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
waldo Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 ... that's why it doesn't matter if you don't know whether the F-35 will meet requirements 40 years from now or whether manned fighters are still being built because you wouldn't want ones that do anyway. You can use that as an excuse to not by anything, let alone aircraft. The Super Hornet is based on a 40 year old concept, yes it is new and improved but it is still based on a 40 year old concept, just as a revamped Arrow would be based on a 60 year old concept. The Super Hornet would fill our present needs but are bound to have a much shorter shelf life than the F-35. given technology advances... given where drone capability will be in 20+ years, it no longer makes sense to presume... to depend upon... any aircraft choice lasting 30-40 years. And, should the Super Hornet be chosen it most likely would be the 'Advanced Super Hornet' - from an earlier waldo post: per, 'Mike Gibbons - vice president of F/A-18 & EA-18 Programs for Boeing Military Aircraft: "A complete Super Hornet [F/A-18E/F], with engine and electronic warfare gear, currently costs about $51 million... a fully equipped Growler [EA-18G] costs about $60 million)"... he's also offered comment that the "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade, would add ~10% additional costs to that of the existing Super Hornet costs. A googly with 'Mike Gibbons, Super Hornet costs' will bring forward many article references stating these/like figures... one of those being a CBC article from early 2013. The Boeing rep is quoted as stating the current price for a Super Hornet is ~$51 million... with the Advanced Super Hornet 10% above that. . Quote
WestCanMan Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I find it interesting that the posters who are complaining about Canada's deficit are the same ones who are now complaining about these $100 million a pop military toys. Where is the money for these macho machines supposed to come from? We are spending $1,000,000,000 on Syrian refugees, where is that money coming from? What's more important: having a military or supporting 45,000 refugees? Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
waldo Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 We are spending $1,000,000,000 on Syrian refugees, where is that money coming from? What's more important: having a military or supporting 45,000 refugees? that's $1.2 billion over 6 years... with $1.1 billion of that requiring new money (money that hadn't already been allocated): that $1.1 billion is targeted towards 6 departments... Immigration, Defence, Public Health, Shared Services Canada, Global Affairs Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. a decision has been made to defer 'big ticket military procurement' spending for 3 years (~$3.9 billion) in favour of focusing on military veterans spending ($5.6 billion over 6 years)... picking up for the failed veterans policies and cuts of the Harper Conservatives. What's more important: deferring military procurement spending (in line with spending time to properly access requirements/needs/roles) or continuing to ignore military veterans ala Harper Conservatives? . Quote
Big Guy Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 We are spending $1,000,000,000 on Syrian refugees, where is that money coming from? What's more important: having a military or supporting 45,000 refugees? When you consider that it was part of that military spending that supplies the bombs and bombers which dropped bombs on Syria to create these refugees then it makes it it very important to look after the refugees. Just what did Canada get for the $billions that we spent on the military - beside becoming a target for terrorists? 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.
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 In 20 years from now but maybe you should start keeping up with current events but we have these things called drones and they are extremely cost effective. You have no idea what you're talking about. Drones are not a substitute for fighters. And the F-35 is expected to be flying until 2050, by which time the F-18 will have been obsolete for decades. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/f-35-s-1-trillion-support-cost-ticks-up-as-more-flights-seen Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 When you consider that it was part of that military spending that supplies the bombs and bombers which dropped bombs on Syria to create these refugees t Why would anyone do something as dumb as that? It was the enormous human tragedy of the slaughter of whole communities which drew a long delayed response from the West. Refugees had been pouring out of Iraq and Syria for years before that even happened. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 that's $1.2 billion over 6 years... with $1.1 billion of that requiring new money (money that hadn't already been allocated): that $1.1 billion is targeted towards 6 departments... Immigration, Defence, Public Health, Shared Services Canada, Global Affairs Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. Which, of course, leaves out the billions of dollars which will need to be spent year after year by the provinces and muncipalities who will have to support this community of illiterate desert dwellers in Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 You have no idea what you're talking about. Drones are not a substitute for fighters. And the F-35 is expected to be flying until 2050, by which time the F-18 will have been obsolete for decades. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/f-35-s-1-trillion-support-cost-ticks-up-as-more-flights-seen I've provided evidence several times that the Super Hornet will be flying until the 2040s. Quote
waldo Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Which, of course, leaves out the billions of dollars which will need to be spent year after year by the provinces and muncipalities who will have to support this community of illiterate desert dwellers in Canada. "illiterate desert dwellers"... please sir, could you add clarity here. Can you provide details to support your summary statement that Syrian refugees within Canada align with your labeling them as "illiterate desert dwellers"? Reference is needed here before broader discussion entails - thanks in advance. . Quote
waldo Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I've provided evidence several times that the Super Hornet will be flying until the 2040s. it appears MLW member Argus prefers to presume that no drone technology and capability advances can... will... occur over the next 20 years. . Quote
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 "illiterate desert dwellers"... please sir, could you add clarity here. Can you provide details to support your summary statement that Syrian refugees within Canada align with your labeling them as "illiterate desert dwellers"? Reference is needed here before broader discussion entails - thanks in advance. . The typical family of the refugees that Canada is considering have mostly lived out in a desert where temperatures dwell in the high forties for months at a time. Canada’s refugees are being drawn from a pool of the poorest of the poor. Lacking higher education or easily transferable skill sets, and with scant English or French, they will require an immense amount of help and encouragement when they arrive on the other side of the pond. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-refugees-will-face-a-cultural-cliff-in-canada-and-canadians-will-be-tested-too Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 it appears MLW member Argus prefers to presume that no drone technology and capability advances can... will... occur over the next 20 years. . It appears that General Waldo has inside information showing that drones will be a match for fighter aircraft during this time. Care to post it? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
rotary Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 The typical family of the refugees that Canada is considering have mostly lived out in a desert where temperatures dwell in the high forties for months at a time. Canada’s refugees are being drawn from a pool of the poorest of the poor. Lacking higher education or easily transferable skill sets, and with scant English or French, they will require an immense amount of help and encouragement when they arrive on the other side of the pond. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-refugees-will-face-a-cultural-cliff-in-canada-and-canadians-will-be-tested-too Many of the comments in this "article" would apply to a lot of Americans as well. Perhaps find someone a bit more literate and less biased than Mathew Fisher if you want to be taken seriously. Quote
dre Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 It appears that General Waldo has inside information showing that drones will be a match for fighter aircraft during this time. Care to post it? Drones don't have to be a match for fighter craft. They just need to be able to provide support for domestic and international operations and they can do that even with today's technology which is why our military has been trying to get its hands on some. They are already replacing fighters and other manned craft for hundreds of missions at a fraction of the cost. Also we are fighting enemies that are trying to trick/bait us into spending ourselves into oblivion. If it costs us 10's of millions of dollars each time we drop a bomb then we are at a serious disadvantage. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Many of the comments in this "article" would apply to a lot of Americans as well. Perhaps find someone a bit more literate and less biased than Mathew Fisher if you want to be taken seriously. I do believe MLW member Argus has trotted out that Fisher article previously - the one where Fisher draws his "conclusions" based on, as he self-describes the, "dozens of Syrian refugees with whom I spoke during the past week in Lebanon"... such a comprehensive accounting! . Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Stay on topic please Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Also we are fighting enemies that are trying to trick/bait us into spending ourselves into oblivion. If it costs us 10's of millions of dollars each time we drop a bomb then we are at a serious disadvantage. notwithstanding the ~$32K cost per flight hour for the F-35... more than double the costs of any other plane in the mix. . Quote
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Many of the comments in this "article" would apply to a lot of Americans as well. Perhaps find someone a bit more literate and less biased than Mathew Fisher if you want to be taken seriously. Matt Fisher is a very respected foreign correspondent with decades of experience in the middle east. Your dismissal is typical of the brainless progressive mentality that any view you find unflattering is inaccurate and biased. Nor is he the only one to point out that the Syrians who were more sophisticated and had resources went to Europe, while those who had nothing wound up in refugee camps. And Fisher is far from the only reporter to have pointed out that the ones we're getting are the poorest and least skilled. Europe is chaotically receiving the youthful cream of the crop. Canada, by relying on the UNHCR to lead its selection process, is receiving Syria’s poorest and most vulnerable. They were Syria’s olive farmers and shopkeepers before the war, not its university graduates. Of the dozens of refugees headed to Canada that I met (and I was focused on the government-selected pool, rather than private sponsorships), I can remember only one who spoke passable English. Many of their kids, worryingly, had been out of school for years. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-distinguishes-the-syrians-arriving-in-europe-from-those-incanada/article28614428/ Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I do believe MLW member Argus has trotted out that Fisher article previously - the one where Fisher draws his "conclusions" based on, as he self-describes the, "dozens of Syrian refugees with whom I spoke during the past week in Lebanon"... such a comprehensive accounting! . And how many have you spoken with, Waldo? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Drones don't have to be a match for fighter craft. Drones can't shoot down aircraft, even civilian ones, let alone fighters. So yes, they have to be if we're going to rely on them and not buy fighters. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
rotary Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I do believe MLW member Argus has trotted out that Fisher article previously - the one where Fisher draws his "conclusions" based on, as he self-describes the, "dozens of Syrian refugees with whom I spoke during the past week in Lebanon"... such a comprehensive accounting! . Granted the link here is only to a blog, but it highlights, and picks apart some quotes from the same guru on the current OP re: the F 35. http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.ca/2012/04/most-idiotic-journalist-in-canada.html Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I've provided evidence several times that the Super Hornet will be flying until the 2040s. F-4 Phantoms are still flying too....so what does that prove ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Granted the link here is only to a blog, but it highlights,A blog by a fanatic progressive 'dedicated to the restoration of democracy?? Is this YOUR blog? Give us all a break with such sputum for cites. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) notwithstanding the ~$32K cost per flight hour for the F-35... more than double the costs of any other plane in the mix. . All new aircraft have expensive teething problems. You know this. And the costs are still half what they are for the Osprey. It also costs less than the B52, B1 or F22. It has also come down quite a bit of late and will continue to come down as parts and supplies chains are established. Edited March 25, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.