Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Harper defence spending peaked in 2009 at 1.38% and then declined to .99% in 2014. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/military-spending-defense-budget 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: The CH148 was a desperate requirement for the Navy to replace it's 55 year old helicopters. They were the ones with problems with getting parts. If you're desperate you buy off the shelf stuff. What do/were the Americans using on their frigates? 3 minutes ago, Aristides said: Harper defence spending peaked in 2009 at 1.38% and then declined to .99% in 2014. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/military-spending-defense-budget He became obsessed with balancing the books, only to discover Canadians no longer cared and went for the guy who promised they could party now and pay never. And I guarantee you that if we use the same accounting for what we're spending now and account for inflation it's no better than Harper at his worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 20 minutes ago, Aristides said: We are the only customer. Who else was showing interest in this machine? Other countries form partnerships to develop these systems before they go out on a limb to build them. We have a small military and can't afford to play these games. The additional issue is that we have facilities here that can build the Cyclone. Wherever possible, the government wants to recoup the value of military spending in taxes from companies, their suppliers, and employees of them all, while garnering votes from the areas around those facilities. Lockheed Martin and its partners in Canada employ a lot of people at very comfortable salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 What facilities do we have to build the Cyclone? What expertise do we have in building ASW helicopters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 18 minutes ago, suds said: So we developed our own nuclear reactors and sold them around the world but using nuclear to power a Canadian submarine is out of the question. That's why I asked in the first place because (as you also seem to agree) ..... it's sort of stupid isn't it? We haven't built a nuclear power plant in a generation because the Left is so afraid of them, and just disapproves of the concept entirely for a variety of reasons. If environmentalists had their way we'd close down the nuclear power plants we have. They have this idea that we can power the country with wind, solar and wishes. Note that the Greens in Germany forced the closure of their reactors even while they were in desperate straits from Russia cutting off their gas. There's no reasoning with them. We can afford nuclear subs if we wanted to, but submarines are a rock bottom priority for the government to begin with because we can't build them in Canada. So no economic benefits or kickbacks. Nuclear would cost more. Australia, two thirds our population, is getting a dozen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Aristides said: What facilities do we have to build the Cyclone? What expertise do we have in building ASW helicopters? I'm making an assumption since that seems to be how we do all these contracts. Sikorski forms partnerships with Canadian branches of companies like General Electrick, General Dynamics when bidding on these sorts of projects, and with local companies, ie, electronic suppliers you've never heard of. Edit. It was made in Florida. I"m fairly sure much of the guts was manufactured in Canada, though. Else why buy it rather than something off the shelf. Edited February 25 by I am Groot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: As always, cost is the biggest factor. Canada has some sort of angst against nuclear power. Prime reason is why we were kept off AUKUS. "AUKUS is intended to strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defense interests, building on longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. " "Canada doesn't operate or manufacture nuclear submarines, or aspire to build a nuclear fleet, it wasn't part of the dialogue". I wonder if we may have missed an opportunity with AUKUS. Some military planners claim that surface warships may soon be a thing of the past, being too slow, too conspicuous, and under threat of being taken out by too many means. It may have been a start anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 32 minutes ago, Aristides said: Harper defence spending peaked in 2009 at 1.38% and then declined to .99% in 2014. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/military-spending-defense-budget Oh you mean it was lower during the world wide recession and then was at its lowest just as he announced the massive spending increases... that the libs cancelled when they took over? Yeah . Kind of the point. Thanks for playing. Had harper won and those contracts not been cancelled defense spending would have been over 2 percent for the next several years. Why would you have massive spending the year you're about to go into a major new round of aquisitions and spending? Again - how many defense spending agreements did harper cancel? trudeau? Chretien? Yeah. Sorry the facts aren't to your liking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 31 minutes ago, I am Groot said: If you're desperate you buy off the shelf stuff. What do/were the Americans using on their frigates? ... It is you whining about us buying unique helicopters. American ships are different to ours. And they are using Sea Hawks in a different operational mode. If you are going to argue, do some research. You are sounding more and more ignorant with each post. 7 minutes ago, suds said: I wonder if we may have missed an opportunity with AUKUS. Some military planners claim that surface warships may soon be a thing of the past, being too slow, too conspicuous, and under threat of being taken out by too many means. It may have been a start anyway. Our Military situation and finances always make us miss opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Just now, ExFlyer said: Not at all. If you had facts, that would be a miracle. You just like to befuddle. Facts are the fastest way to befuddle you. What would be a miracle would be if you could actually recognize one when you saw it Harper moved forward to purchase the f-35 for 16 billion (according to the libs). He also moved forward with a multi billion dollar ship upgrade program. The libs cancelled both. Simple facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Just now, ExFlyer said: It is you whining about us buying unique helicopters. American ships are different to ours. And they are using Sea Hawks in a different operational mode. If you are going to argue, do some research. You are sounding more and more ignorant with each post. And you're sounding very much like a dick. You know, like one of those cocky internet flame warriors sitting in mom's basement who loves nothing better than to sound superior to everyone and ensure that they all know that makes them a better person. Only it doesn't. It makes you a dick. And I haven't whined about unique helicopters. You're confused about who you're talking to. Should I rub your face in your ignorance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 20 minutes ago, I am Groot said: I'm making an assumption since that seems to be how we do all these contracts. Sikorski forms partnerships with Canadian branches of companies like General Electrick, General Dynamics when bidding on these sorts of projects, and with local companies, ie, electronic suppliers you've never heard of. Edit. It was made in Florida. I"m fairly sure much of the guts was manufactured in Canada, though. Else why buy it rather than something off the shelf. Underthe contract, Sikorsky built a state of the art training centre in Shearwater, flight simulators for Shearwater and Pat Bay and contract maintenance and overhaul out to may companies (lots in Quebec LOL) which they did. The helicopter was assembled in Sikorsky plant in Stafford Connecticut. Like almost all aviation manufacturers these days, the component parts were made all over the world, even some here in Canada.You area aware there are no "off the shelf" shipborne ASW helicopters?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 35 minutes ago, I am Groot said: And you're sounding very much like a dick. You know, like one of those cocky internet flame warriors sitting in mom's basement who loves nothing better than to sound superior to everyone and ensure that they all know that makes them a better person. Only it doesn't. It makes you a dick. And I haven't whined about unique helicopters. You're confused about who you're talking to. Should I rub your face in your ignorance? Oh no, just trying to set you straight. It is clear you have no clue about ASW ad SAR helicopters. As I mentioned befloe and as many here are aware, I was in the SAR word and on the SAR procurment project and as a public servant, was on the MHP project so. I am very aware of what we bought and where we bought it. It is you that is clueless and does not like being informed and keeps on trying to sound like you do. You are an epic fail in this regard. And yes, you whine about why we got unique helicopters. Lastly the ignorance is all on your face, regardless how much I taught you Edited February 25 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Oh no, just trying to set you straight. It is clear you have no clue about ASW ad SAR helicopters. As I mentioned befloe and as many here are aware, I was in the SAR word and on the SAR procurment project and as a public servant, was on the MHP project so. I am very aware of what we bought and where we bought it. This might surprise you given what appears to be a tremendously oversized ego, but I don't read every one of your posts. 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: It is you that is clueless and does not like being informed and keeps on trying to sound like you do. You are an epic fail in this regard. I don't believe I've ever written anything on this subject that suggested any particular expertise in helicopters. You seem to be confusing me with other people again. 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: And yes, you whine about why we got unique helicopters. I didn't even know they were unique, you silly twat. 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Lastly the ignorance is all on your face, regardless how much I taught you You can't see my face, and no one can see yours. Which is why you feel free to act like an antisocial Ahole. And if you think your attitude is impressing anyone here you're sadly mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 26 Author Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) 5 hours ago, Aristides said: We are the only customer. Who else was showing interest in this machine? Other countries form partnerships to develop these systems before they go out on a limb to build them. We have a small military and can't afford to play these games. I agree can’t be a launch customer for any product. To your question though, USAF, and USMC, USCG, German Navy, all looked at it. USMC purchased 21 aircraft +2 more for testing, designated VH-92 that will fully takeover presidential duties this year. It’s also a militarized version of the H-92 superhawk but still probably very different than the Cyclone. As I understand it: Because the CH-148 Cyclone was an adaptation of a successful civilian aircraft and large US/foreign orders were also anticipated at the time it was expected to be a simple implementation. But meeting the RCAF’s requirements especially the folding tail proved challenging. Plus in addition to the cyclone being a small fleet with these bespoke features not necessarily valued by other countries, we cheaped out on other capabilities. it was only ever designed to carry torpedoes when at a minimum anti-ship missiles should have been included as this is pretty much a core feature of most maritime combat aircraft and ASW helicopters. Despite the horrendously excessive amounts of time and money spent developing and delivering the Cyclone, AFAIK the helicopter that is flying today is highly capable and well regarded by the crews that use it, except for lack of additional weapons like missiles. Initial problems with tail cracking and autopilot have been addressed to my knowledge and no new ones have emerged. I’m not saying it was the right choice to purchase but we’re not currently flying a lemon, just a very expensive orange that took a very long time to ripen. And now the fleet is approaching mid life upgrade despite not reaching full delivery and nobody has planned for it. Edited February 26 by BeaverFever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) How obsessed is Justin Trudeau's government with gender and diversity? So obsessed that they insisted a part of the $3b guarantee funds to Uklaine be for “a gender and diversity working group to promote gender-transformative mine action in Ukraine.” Edited February 26 by I am Groot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: t appears you are discussing decisions made by a political figure named Harper regarding defense spending. The text includes some skepticism about the choices made, suggesting your lack of recognition of potential miracles or positive outcomes. The mention of significant financial commitments, such as purchasing the F-35 and initiating a ship upgrade program, highlights the scale of these decisions and the potential impact on budget allocation and national defense. Ooooops - looks like i've befuddled ExFlyer with facts again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 26 Author Report Share Posted February 26 4 hours ago, I am Groot said: He became obsessed with balancing the books, only to discover Canadians no longer cared and went for the guy who promised they could party now and pay neve Just a point of fact: Harper NEVER balanced the books (His final budget doesn’t count as he avoided a defeat for the first time by basically doing the equivalent of taking money out of your RRSP to buy groceries). No conservative in modern times ever has. Perhaps if he hadn’t lost billions in revenue by cutting the GST he might have. pulled it off, but his choice just goes to show he wasn’t really “obsessed” with balancing the books Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 26 Author Report Share Posted February 26 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: How obsessed is Justin Trudeau's government with gender and diversity? So obsessed that they insisted a part of the $3b guarantee funds to Uklaine be for “a gender and diversity working group to promote gender-transformative mine action in Ukraine.” Another fact-check : HALO Trust is a global charity that helps train locals to safely clear landmines. ONE of their programs is specifically aimed at training local women but they also train men. As for your claim that “Trudeau insisted” that appears to be made up by you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) 28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Just a point of fact: Harper NEVER balanced the books (His final budget doesn’t count as he avoided a defeat for the first time by basically doing the equivalent of taking money out of your RRSP to buy groceries). No conservative in modern times ever has. Just a point of fact: Harper's first two years had surpluses. Also, the Liberals have been playing accounting games with the deficit for years. Like pretending we have a lower debt to GDP ratio because our ratio is impacted by our national pension plan being considered an asset due to it investing in the stock market while other nations national pension schemes only invest in safe bonds and other instruments. 28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Perhaps if he hadn’t lost billions in revenue by cutting the GST he might have. pulled it off, but his choice just goes to show he wasn’t really “obsessed” with balancing the books Perhaps the cut in the GST helped cushion the enormous worldwide financial recession we barely felt that occurred a couple of years later. I give Mulroney a pass due to what he inherited from Trudeau and the economic times he was in. Chretien wasn't able to balance the books for the first four years either until those times ended. Edited February 26 by I am Groot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 26 Author Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) 11 hours ago, I am Groot said: Just a point of fact: Harper's first two years had surpluses. Yes sorry I stand corrected after 13 years of true balanced budgets under Chretien/Martin, Harper inherited rhat and blew it all after year 2. Not that I think balanced budgets are so great, we’ve now had 2 generations of austerity with underfunded schools, hospitals, military, crumbling infrastructure, etc. Under Harper we got the same austerity and underfunding as Chretien/Martin while also running more deficits… 11 hours ago, I am Groot said: Perhaps the cut in the GST helped cushion the enormous worldwide financial recession we barely felt that occurred a couple of years later. No. That had nothing to do with it. Those GST cuts occurred before the Great Recession anyway. We didn’t have a financial meltdown because our financial sector is well regulated there, was no subprime mortgage crisis here, commodity prices wee booming, and the Fed cut interest rates to near zero to juice the economy. No mention of GST in any account of the Great Recession I can find, which makes sense because Canadian economic challenges were due to decreasing exports as the rest of the world suffered, not decreasing domestic consumer demand. Edited February 26 by BeaverFever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) 13 hours ago, I am Groot said: This might surprise you given what appears to be a tremendously oversized ego, but I don't read every one of your posts. I don't believe I've ever written anything on this subject that suggested any particular expertise in helicopters. You seem to be confusing me with other people again. I didn't even know they were unique, you silly twat. You can't see my face, and no one can see yours. Which is why you feel free to act like an antisocial Ahole. And if you think your attitude is impressing anyone here you're sadly mistaken. I hope you have been made aware of things you were oblivious to, despite your insults and obnoxiousness. Edited February 26 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 11 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Perhaps if he hadn’t lost billions in revenue by cutting the GST he might have. pulled it off, but his choice just goes to show he wasn’t really “obsessed” with balancing the books If lowering the GST was such a bad idea, why hasn’t Trudeau raised it again? He’s had eight years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 10 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Yes sorry I stand corrected after 13 years of true balanced budgets under Chretien/Martin, Harper inherited rhat and blew it all after year 2. I think what you mean is he reduced taxes. Saying he 'blew it' is for when someone inherits a balanced budget (or very close to) like Trudeau and then HUGELY increases spending. 10 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Not that I think balanced budgets are so great we’ve now had 2 generations of austerity underfunded schools, hospitals, military, crumbling infrastructure, etc. Under Harper we got the same austerity and underfunding but also more debt… I have to smile at a liberal who complains about Harper's deficits then his austerity. We certainly haven't seen any austerity from the Trudeau family! The splurging by Trudeau senior was what begat the austerity as Mulroney and Chretien tried to work their way back from the mess he created. Harper's austerity was trying to clean up his own mess. And no doubt the next government will have to clean up the legacy of debt Trudeau's ill-begotten son gave us. LIke it or not, we can't have everything we want. That's not something people like Trudeau ever understood. You don't get to borrow indefinitely without hitting a wall. We don't want to become Argentina. Of course, there's always raising taxes, but that carries its own penalty in the form of lower economic activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: I hope you have been made aware of things you were oblivious to, despite your insults and obnoxiousness. I have to wonder at someone old enough to have been in the Air Force and yet still has the mind of a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.