OpenGambit
Banned
So some people here think that its ok to just free ride on the US's military? If we are gonna try to claim a vast amount of unpopulated land as "our country", the price has got to be paid.
|
|
|
Who cares about the long gun registry?
- Thread starter Duster929
- Start date
And which is better; putting up a token resistance, or rolling over and playing dead?
See all my previous comments.
oh sorry, must have been misled by all of the times harper and mckay publicly stated we had a contract. . .
oh wait, they couldn't have lied, could they???
or don't you believe the words of the great leader? lol
so let's have transparent tendering and due diligence that investigates all of the options, not just the f35.
if we have a price to be paid, it'd be damn nice if we knew what that price actually was, instead of committing our tax dollars to nailing jello to a wall.
the f35 is a boondoggle. time for the government to come clean and admit it has no cost certainty whatsoever.
OpenGambit
Banned
I don't disagree that the F-35 seems to be botched from a efficent use of cash perspective, my comment was more directed towards the idea that these jets are "useless"
further to the latest revelation that canada doesn't have a signed contract.
this is actually a case of bad news and worse news.
if fantino and harper are correct, then the 65 f35 jets commitment gets even WORSE.
you can forget the cons estimate of $75mil per jet. that's a lark.
the usaf and the raf just purchased their latest consignment for about $145mil a plane.
think lockheed martin is going to cut canada a 50% off deal??? guess again.
that $25bil number is looking more and more wrong, optimistically wrong.
this is actually a case of bad news and worse news.
if fantino and harper are correct, then the 65 f35 jets commitment gets even WORSE.
you can forget the cons estimate of $75mil per jet. that's a lark.
the usaf and the raf just purchased their latest consignment for about $145mil a plane.
think lockheed martin is going to cut canada a 50% off deal??? guess again.
that $25bil number is looking more and more wrong, optimistically wrong.
Are you dense?
A Typhoon would cost us $160M. A Rafale would cost us $130M.
What's left? The Saab? LOL please, might as well keep our CF-18s in the air!
You're sounding more and more ignorant with each post
keep it upAre you dense?
A Typhoon would cost us $160M. A Rafale would cost us $130M.
What's left? The Saab? LOL please, might as well keep our CF-18s in the air!
You're sounding more and more ignorant with each post
do some more research.
there are lots of options: the rafale, typhoon, gripen, and super hornet all should be considered.
where are you getting your 'numbers' from. sources please.
The guy who makes up numbers wants sources? :lol: that's quite funny.
The Germans bought a bunch of Eurofighters about 5 years ago, look up how much they paid.
The Rafal cost the French around 70 million euros back in 2008, excluding development costs!
The Gripen is NOT competitive, not by a long shot. It's also 20 years old.. but I suppose you think it's prudent to replace our aging CF-18s with slightly less aged Gripens, to save 50%... gee I wonder where that would put us 10-15 years from now :lol:
The F/A-18E/F? Less expensive, but also LESS PLANE for your money. Smaller payload, smaller operational combat radius (a big one for Canada, as you may imagine), and most importantly, far far inferior electronics, radar, and avionics.
The F-35 has all the latest and greatest radar and avionics technology. It's also touted as having full 360 degree situational awareness (AN/AAQ-37) which can detect and track rockets upwards of 800 miles away. Will Saablol build this into the Gripen if we ask? hahaha
But yeah, you obviously already knew this since you did all the procurement research ahead of our own specialists, and can say with absolute certainty that the F-35 is "overpriced" and a "boondoggle".
Reading. Do it.
The Germans bought a bunch of Eurofighters about 5 years ago, look up how much they paid.
The Rafal cost the French around 70 million euros back in 2008, excluding development costs!
The Gripen is NOT competitive, not by a long shot. It's also 20 years old.. but I suppose you think it's prudent to replace our aging CF-18s with slightly less aged Gripens, to save 50%... gee I wonder where that would put us 10-15 years from now :lol:
The F/A-18E/F? Less expensive, but also LESS PLANE for your money. Smaller payload, smaller operational combat radius (a big one for Canada, as you may imagine), and most importantly, far far inferior electronics, radar, and avionics.
The F-35 has all the latest and greatest radar and avionics technology. It's also touted as having full 360 degree situational awareness (AN/AAQ-37) which can detect and track rockets upwards of 800 miles away. Will Saab
lol build this into the Gripen if we ask? hahahaBut yeah, you obviously already knew this since you did all the procurement research ahead of our own specialists, and can say with absolute certainty that the F-35 is "overpriced" and a "boondoggle".
Reading. Do it.
Its not about a doomsday fight for survival
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.
...and a fraction of the coastline of Canada...and I wasn't the one starting with the "China and Russia are going to invade us" hype....I just weighed in with a scenario to add to the hysteria in the same vein.
Pathetic is not realising that this money could be better put to use somewhere else right now otherwise come this future scenario of yours...there will be nothing worth invading us for. We'll have no educated people as the education system will have gone to pot and our healthcare system will have decayed.
Pathetic is not understanding that we have no real nation enemies as geopolitics has changed from the 1980's.
Pathetic is not realising that technology has advanced to provide cheaper alternatives that do the job.
Pathetic is bending over and saying "spend my tax dollars as you please, no need to be transparent"
Wiser is realising that there's an alternative that's cheaper. I'd say that was also better.
Yup, the ol' two dudes in a rowboat with a .50. That's cheap.
Tell me specifically what equipment would do the job for less.
I'll be waiting.
ps. China and Russia are already probing our northern territory defenses. I don't know if you live in a cave or something, but the Russians have flown bombers up there since 1997. NORAD jets have intercepted 12-18 Russian bombers PER YEAR for the last 15 years.
Geologists believe the Arctic shelf holds vast stores of oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold and minerals. A 2007 Russian intelligence report predicted that conflict with other Arctic nations is a distinct possibility, including military action "in a competition for resources." The United States, Norway, and Denmark (through Greenland) also lay claim to portions of the Arctic seabed based on their coastal waters.
Last edited:
How about ...instead of planning for things we don't know...we plan for those we do like fossil fuels running out, an aging population and workforce, the decline of canadian innovation, otherwise along with the Chinese and Russian invasion you're expecting I think we need to actively look for more aluminum for the hats we'll need to protect us from aliens. Where does your paranoia end?
As for cheaper alternatives being useless....drones keep being mentioned. As I already mentioned, the US uses drones for border patrols, uses them for targeted bombings. Why can't we?
It's a total fallacy that to be respected on the world stage you need a mighty military. Nobody respects North Korea with it's massive army and Costa Rica, a tiny country with no military whatsoever, seems to be just fine. This deal stinks of american appeasement and has nothing to do with sensible canadian security, if it was it would have been transparent from start to finish.
As for cheaper alternatives being useless....drones keep being mentioned. As I already mentioned, the US uses drones for border patrols, uses them for targeted bombings. Why can't we?
It's a total fallacy that to be respected on the world stage you need a mighty military. Nobody respects North Korea with it's massive army and Costa Rica, a tiny country with no military whatsoever, seems to be just fine. This deal stinks of american appeasement and has nothing to do with sensible canadian security, if it was it would have been transparent from start to finish.
When you have the world's largest amount of fresh water and large oil reserves, having capable military IS planning for the future.
Do you know how many other countries intercept russian and chinese aircraft by any chance, how about UK and US aircraft over sovereign airspace? Maybe they are taking over the world? Maybe they are ruled by a bald supreme ruler who sucks his little finger, with a dwarf replica and a cat? Or maybe...just like the US and the UK submarines, playing wargames with other countries is valuable practice.
Mutually assured destruction is a very powerful deterrent, even though we don't have nuclear weapons the US would not see an invasion of Canada as stopping there as we really don't have that much to take aside from a ******** of fresh water. I'm not concerned about Russian or Chinese military might, I am concerned about industrial espionage and manipulation of currency or trade markets by these countries, but the answer to those problems aren't stealth fighters.
mad.
And only those who are truly mad would use them.
LOL and who exactly is mentioning the drones? Which IDIOT thinks theres a drone out there capable of even 1/10th of what the F35 is?
And which drone, mr. Expert? The MQ-9? At $150M per system? With nonexistent avionics and radar? With almost non existent armament? With no capability whatsoever to track incoming missiles?
Please man, humour us some more...
|
|
|
|
|