Who cares about the long gun registry?

[afong56]

I see a whole lot of 'lies lies lies' without much proof proof proof. Typical afong post.

We've been involved in JSF development for 15 years but the 'unfair procurement' is only now an issue? :lol: funny

in your world, apparently the cons don't need to be called to task for misleading the public about the true cost of the deal? or the fact that they didn't perform anywhere close to due diligence on this deal?

you keep bleating on about '15 years' but fail to hold the harpo cons for the decisions they are making right here right now. after all, who's in charge now?

pathetic to see some people are so blase about a real boondoggle we are going to throw our tax dollars down a well with.

 

[mmmnaked]

More fluff without substance, keep it up afong! :lol:

The decision Harper is making is the decision we've been on track to make for the last 15 years.

Furthermore, the "real cost" of the deal is, so far, exactly what we've been told. Roughly 15 billion dollars is what the cost of the aircraft plus maintenance will be over 20 years. The other 10 billion is money we're already spending, regardless of the purchase.

Wait, we're already paying pilots and maintenance crews and fuel costs for aircraft? And we're gonna have to KEEP PAYING those things? BUT, WHY WEREN'T WE TOLD?!?! :lol: so sad

 

[afong56]

We need to be able to make a show of force, when it's required. This might be an issue where Norway and Denmark are concerned, as they are roughly on-par with us militarily. I'm sure that England never thought that they would have to go to war with Argentina.

If we have to deal with Russian incursions then we need to have comparable equipment, to be able to stand them off. We wouldn't be doing it alone, but rather in concert with the United States.

.... unless of course we continue in the vein of expecting the US to defend us from the rest of the world and using our cash elsewhere, which I can tell you is the sort of behaviour that pisses Americans off no end, in which case it would be the Americans taking over the north. If we don't help defend it, then we don't deserve it in their eyes.

THAT is how buying something like the F25 helps defend us from the US.

and we need to do that show of force against denmark and norway with f35 jets? not anywhere close to convinced that they are legitimate threats.

stand off the russians? think so? our contribution would be a pittance, an afterthought, with or without those jets.

and frankly, the u.s. is far more concerned about british reduction of forces than our contribution to any north american or nato style defence plan.

we need to go back and look at other options than the chronically overbudget, slow development, under-performing f35. ones that are more in line with our current economic downturn budgeting, and have firmer financial costing.

the f35 is a money pit.

 

[mmmnaked]

Its okay guys, lets shut down the military and let big brother US protect us. We don't need to pull our weight, they'll understand

 

[afong56]

More fluff without substance, keep it up afong! :lol:

The decision Harper is making is the decision we've been on track to make for the last 15 years.

Furthermore, the "real cost" of the deal is, so far, exactly what we've been told. Roughly 15 billion dollars is what the cost of the aircraft plus maintenance will be over 20 years. The other 10 billion is money we're already spending, regardless of the purchase.

Wait, we're already paying pilots and maintenance crews and fuel costs for aircraft? And we're gonna have to KEEP PAYING those things? BUT, WHY WEREN'T WE TOLD?!?! :lol: so sad

so the current sitting government has no capacity to govern unless it is in line with with decisions made 15 years ago?

well then bring back the gun registry folks. your logic is comically bad.

also, the 'real cost' of the deal IS $25 billion. no sane person completely ignores what it costs to pay someone to fly those jets, the maintenance, the fuel costs etc. so in your world, when our pilots switch over to the new jets, there will be no additional costs involved with bringing in trainers for the pilots, re-training the maintenance crews, and the planes will simply use the exact same amount of fuel the f18s did? yeah, okay.

to use the analogy that the gov't used, most sane people when they buy a family car do some research. they compare fuel efficiency, cost of insurance, etc. they use that due diligence to help make an informed decision. they don't simply commit to buying a product without any guarantee of final price, or even that they'll get it delivered when promised.

furthermore, the ag's $25 billion is based on assuming that the f35, which has consistently gone over budget, and missed development deadline after development deadline, will not increase in price, and will remain static in terms of unit cost. not going to happen.

as well, most military analysts realize that maintenance costs function as a percentage of initial purchase costs, so those additional costs are also going to increase proportionally.

anyone willing to sign what essentially is a blank check that comes out of our pockets needs to stop voting in elections. better yet, just give me your tax dollars. . .at least that way it won't be thrown into a money pit.

 

[afong56]

We need to be able to make a show of force, when it's required. This might be an issue where Norway and Denmark are concerned, as they are roughly on-par with us militarily. I'm sure that England never thought that they would have to go to war with Argentina.

we already spend double what denmark and norway combined spend on military expenditures each year.

just how much more do we need to waste to hold off this impending scandinavian apocalypse?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

and we need to do that show of force against denmark and norway with f35 jets? not anywhere close to convinced that they are legitimate threats.

Would you prefer that we send Sopwith Camels to stave off incursions of SAAB Gripens? Technology marches on and if you don't keep up, you're toast. Even if all that you need is a SHOW of force, it has to be an appropriate show.

stand off the russians? think so? our contribution would be a pittance, an afterthought, with or without those jets.

and frankly, the u.s. is far more concerned about british reduction of forces than our contribution to any north american or nato style defence plan.

Talked to anyone is is, or was in the US military lately? Doesn't sound like it. Even the regular citizenry thinks that we fund our health care system on what THEY pay for THEIR military.

we need to go back and look at other options than the chronically overbudget, slow development, under-performing f35. ones that are more in line with our current economic downturn budgeting, and have firmer financial costing.

the f35 is a money pit.

A viable military is a money pit.

.... until you need it.

we already spend double what denmark and norway combined spend on military expenditures each year.

just how much more do we need to waste to hold off this impending scandinavian apocalypse?

And how much have they been contributing in Afghanistan?

 

[jc100]

Globe and Mail article this morning stating unmanned drones would provide the defense currently required by Canada, that from military experts. The US uses unmanned drones currently to patrol the US Canadian border....seems to work for them.

If the US ever did threaten us and we had their jets as defense....do you not think they might have a little advantage there even without force of numbers knowing the ins and outs of the equipment? As for bombers probing defenses this has been done for years as practice, same as submarines tracking each other in the oceans. Even during the cold war the Russian bombers would turn back after evading for a few miles inside territorial airspace. I remember watching as a kid when a GE Lightning was scrambled to intercept a Russian aircraft.

The UK has a few tridents swimming about which serve as a very good deterrent even the current Argentinian threat can be seen off despite a reduced naval capacity.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Globe and Mail article this morning stating unmanned drones would provide the defense currently required by Canada, that from military experts. The US uses unmanned drones currently to patrol the US Canadian border....seems to work for them.

If the US ever did threaten us and we had their jets as defense....do you not think they might have a little advantage there even without force of numbers knowing the ins and outs of the equipment? As for bombers probing defenses this has been done for years as practice, same as submarines tracking each other in the oceans. Even during the cold war the Russian bombers would turn back after evading for a few miles inside territorial airspace. I remember watching as a kid when a GE Lightning was scrambled to intercept a Russian aircraft.

The UK has a few tridents swimming about which serve as a very good deterrent even the current Argentinian threat can be seen off despite a reduced naval capacity.

Follow me here: We don't have to worry about the Russians, as long as we have the Americans watching our back. We don't have to worry about the Americans, as long as they feel we're pulling our weight.

Or just read my previous comment, where I said the same thing.

 

[afong56]

Would you prefer that we send Sopwith Camels to stave off incursions of SAAB Gripens? Technology marches on and if you don't keep up, you're toast. Even if all that you need is a SHOW of force, it has to be an appropriate show.

stand off the russians? think so? our contribution would be a pittance, an afterthought, with or without those jets.



Talked to anyone is is, or was in the US military lately? Doesn't sound like it. Even the regular citizenry thinks that we fund our health care system on what THEY pay for THEIR military.



A viable military is a money pit.

.... until you need it.



And how much have they been contributing in Afghanistan?

first of all, who would be using the gripens? sweden? norway doesn't have them, and denmark has, afaik, not actually signed a purchase contract.

second, how exactly is a norwegian gripen, assuming it is eventually purchased by norway from the swedes, going to commit an incursion into canada's airspace with its combat range of 500 miles?

finally, what does norway/denmark's lack of afghanistan commitment have to do with our preparedness for meeting their 'threat' toward us?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

first of all, who would be using the gripens? sweden? norway doesn't have them, and denmark has, afaik, not actually signed a purchase contract.

second, how exactly is a norwegian gripen, assuming it is eventually purchased by norway from the swedes, going to commit an incursion into canada's airspace with its combat range of 500 miles?

finally, what does norway/denmark's lack of afghanistan commitment have to do with our preparedness for meeting their 'threat' toward us?

The Gripen comment was to give an example of a modern aircraft, not to set a specific scenario.

The Afghanistan comment has to do with the reasons for the difference in military expenditure. If you aren't actively using your military, then your expenditure tends to be orders of magnitude smaller.

 

[mmmnaked]

Follow me here: We don't have to worry about the Russians, as long as we have the Americans watching our back. We don't have to worry about the Americans, as long as they feel we're pulling our weight.

Or just read my previous comment, where I said the same thing.

This is the crux of the argument for buying F-35s.

 

[mmmnaked]

also, the 'real cost' of the deal IS $25 billion. no sane person completely ignores what it costs to pay someone to fly those jets, the maintenance, the fuel costs etc. so in your world, when our pilots switch over to the new jets, there will be no additional costs involved with bringing in trainers for the pilots, re-training the maintenance crews, and the planes will simply use the exact same amount of fuel the f18s did? yeah, okay.

The $10B is ALREADY being spent. Its not a cost tied to the purchase of F-35s, get that through your head.

 

[afong56]

The Gripen comment was to give an example of a modern aircraft, not to set a specific scenario.

The Afghanistan comment has to do with the reasons for the difference in military expenditure. If you aren't actively using your military, then your expenditure tends to be orders of magnitude smaller.

regardless, how exactly are the scandinavians going to threaten us--irrespective of choice of aircraft?

 

[jc100]

This is the crux of the argument for buying F-35s.

That's right...because the US NEVER turns against allies right......hmm....there's a few middle eastern gentlemen that would disagree. Plus, in a future scenario where the US needed freshwater reserves I'm really sure that they would say "oh no wait a sec...you're those nice northern people that bought a few jets a while back, we'll leave you alone".

Don't be naive.

In terms of NATO alliances Afong is correct, the US is much more enthusiastic about the UKs 200+ fighter + strike aircraft from a stable of 850 aircraft than Canada's piddly contribution now or in the future. I'm sure they are really happy though that our taxpayer dollars are going to support Lockheed Martin in it's hour of need.

 

[mmmnaked]

That's right...because the US NEVER turns against allies right......hmm....there's a few middle eastern gentlemen that would disagree. Plus, in a future scenario where the US needed freshwater reserves I'm really sure that they would say "oh no wait a sec...you're those nice northern people that bought a few jets a while back, we'll leave you alone".

Don't be naive.

In terms of NATO alliances Afong is correct, the US is much more enthusiastic about the UKs 200+ fighter + strike aircraft from a stable of 850 aircraft than Canada's piddly contribution now or in the future. I'm sure they are really happy though that our taxpayer dollars are going to support Lockheed Martin in it's hour of need.

Its not about a doomsday fight for survival the world isn't ending.

It's about upholding our obligations and pulling our weight where it counts. The UK also has twice our population, of course they're in for a bigger order of F-35s... how does this have anything to do with the discussion? Would you rather have the US in control, or the Russians and Chinese?

You guys sound like defeatist little traitors to me. "Everyone is bigger than us, bend over and take it!!"

Pathetic.

 

[afong56]

The $10B is ALREADY being spent. Its not a cost tied to the purchase of F-35s, get that through your head.

get it through your head--$25b is a made up number

it will be much, much more than that.

the true cost of the f35 deal will probably be closer to $40b when all is said and done. along with all of the other factors i've already mentioned, the fact is that the 65 planes will not all last, intact, for the duration of the deal. replacement f35s will have to be bought and paid for to upkeep this mythical force of 65 jets.

it's a boondoggle, and a money pit.

they mislead us from the beginning, and clearly, there's no due diligence being done by the harpos.

all they've been doing is writing a blank cheque paid for by our tax dollars.

 

[mmmnaked]

aaaand now he's guessing and making up numbers


the afong dynasty in full effect :lol:

Is Bob Rae paying you? or is it The Star?

 

[mmmnaked]

btw, nobody has actually written a cheque.... well, outside of Chretien for about $150M 10 years ago...

:lol: clueless individual

 

[afong56]

aaaand now he's guessing and making up numbers


the afong dynasty in full effect :lol:

Is Bob Rae paying you? or is it The Star?

you have zero facts on your side. military analysts clearly consider replacement costs, but you and the harper government don't, especially when it comes to selling the canadian government on the viability of the f35.

frankly it is highly disingenuous.

your knee-jerk defense of harpo's cons is laughable. the sad part is that the majority of canadians that didn't vote for this government now have to pay for their mistakes, their blind commitment to a project that has NO cost ceiling.

f35: overbudget, eternally delayed development, continuously increasing costs
harper's f35 commitment: misleading cost estimates, caught red handed by the auditor general, total lack of due diligence in investigating alternatives to f35

all verifiable facts yet to be refuted by any of the vacuous or patently empty posts you have managed.