Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tpsdoodle





Joined: 25 Jan 2011
Posts: 227
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:29 am    Post subject: F-35's - How Many Governments Does It Take To FUC! Up Reply with quote

Kind of hard to believe really, you see it doesn't really matter who get in power they eventually bull shit us all by manipulating facts for their own political gains.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/s.....74455.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-jets.html

Can't wait to see the spin on this one and whom they will blame for the "FALSE" and misleading facts and figures.......

From MacKay to Ambrose.... It's too bad really.......
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 188
Reputation: 53
votes: 2

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It all comes down to the fact that Canadian taxpayers do not want to pay to defend this country. The F 35 is too expensive.
If we are not willing to have a military capable of defending Canada, we should disband it. It would break my heart, but the money could be used elsewhere.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2388
Reputation: 165.3Reputation: 165.3
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
It all comes down to the fact that Canadian taxpayers do not want to pay to defend this country. The F 35 is too expensive.
If we are not willing to have a military capable of defending Canada, we should disband it. It would break my heart, but the money could be used elsewhere.


To some extent, I agree with you.

But I think it's the politics that are noxious. First, the actual purchase price is far lower than the figure that's bandied about, which includes maintenance, and other charges, over the 40 years of the aircraft's expected service life. This inflated figure gives the anti-war alarmists a chance to sound fiscally prudent, and they jump at it.

Whatever else, we will doubtless end up in an alliance with the Americans, but we might have to start pulling more of our own weight. It might be like this -- if Canada wants to stay in NORAD, it must buy the F 35s. (No comparable rival aircraft is available.) In that case, we have a chair at the table where the decisions are made about nuclear war. Otherwise, we might not.

Do we want to have that input? Enough to pay all that money for the F 35s?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 188
Reputation: 53
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only nation that can invade Canada is the United States. In the near term, that is a highly unlikely prospect.
To fight a war, we would have to emulate the Swiss. Switzerland can mobilize the largest military force in Europe in 72 hours.
We will not lose our position in NORAD if we do not buy the F 35. Soviet procurement policy was a good lesson: make it cheap, make it work, and make a lot of it. The key to air combat is better pilots. Both the Battle of Britain and the Falklands demonstrated that the quality of the pilots was more decisive than the quality of the aircraft. That being said, you still need the numbers to get air superiority.
As for nuclear war, the only way to have a say in the decision is to build our own nuclear weapons.
The politicians are a reflection of the public mood. Canadians do not want to spend the money to rebuild the Canadian Forces and most are opposed to nuclear weapons. Yet, if we really wanted to deter an invasion, nuclear weapons are the cheapest means of doing so.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2388
Reputation: 165.3Reputation: 165.3
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's realistic to think that an army of 60,000-80,000 can defend the second biggest nation state on earth. We need to ally ourselves with the US and think in terms of keeping invaders out of North America, or become, like Switzerland, a garrison state where every adult male is in the army ... That's how I look at it.

I am not against that. Maybe we are at a decision-point. Our defense policy can go one of two ways ... either we accept that we will always be part of a bigger force ... first, British, later NATO led ... or we start thinking in terms of defending ourselves, as much as we can, by ourselves. And, believe me, Canadians are not up to paying for that. Not if there's another way.

The real choice is the F 35 or an inferior aircraft. Can you justify the expense, in performance where it counts, over the life of the aircraft? It must be a very complex decision, apart even before the other budget realities that come into it.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
It all comes down to the fact that Canadian taxpayers do not want to pay to defend this country. The F 35 is too expensive.
If we are not willing to have a military capable of defending Canada, we should disband it. It would break my heart, but the money could be used elsewhere.


I actually agree with you to some extent.

The issue with the F-35's in almost wholly political and not at all practical.
At first all I heard about was that this plane would never get off the ground, yet the B variants have been in service aboard the USS Hornet for a year now without issue.

Which again proved exactly what a "military expert" put forward by the left is worth.

30b to purchase and maintain aircraft for 20 - 30 years isn't that far a cry over what we are paying now to maintain our nearly 30 year old CF-18's year over year, and I can't stress enough our CF-18's are nearly 30 years old.

We have deployed our fighter jets 1000 times in the last decade domestically, be it for an intercept or otherwise.

Being able to patrol your own territory is part of being sovereign is it not?

The F-35 is the only plane that the Brits and Americans can purchase to replace their Harriers and Thunderbolts respectively meaning it will be the most common fighter jet on the planet assuming they are purchased for nothing other then to replace those two fleets.

There is not a realistic alternative, that was the point of the JSF program.

The idea of buying Super Hornets and bumming spare parts off Bulgaria is ridiculous.

30b over 30 years for the ability to properly maintain our military was never unreasonable, and to this day I am yet to hear a functional alternative aside from "open procurement" which is utterly ridiculous because the spec for the aircraft can only be filled by a single plane anyway.


Last edited by cosmostein on Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:12 am; edited 1 time in total
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
The only nation that can invade Canada is the United States. In the near term, that is a highly unlikely prospect.


I think this has more to do with Russia stepping on our claim if the North then anything else.

They have already attempting to secure thousands of kilometers of mineral rights with their "continental shelf" argument and we have an international discussion of if a Northern Passage which cuts right through our northern territories is an "International Waterway" or not.

We have the second largest country by size on the planet, we need the means to enforce its borders by being able to patrol its borders.

This isnt about going to war, certainly not with 65 aircraft this is about sovereignty and our borders plain and simple.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2388
Reputation: 165.3Reputation: 165.3
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I take this discussion is a different direction? Is there something wrong with this aircraft? Has its price risen so dramatically that Canada can't afford it?

There's a constant drumbeat of articles being published, all of them acting as 'everybody knows' that the plane flies like a stone. Examples:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/1.....recy-trap/

http://fullcomment.nationalpos.....set-aside/

http://www.winnipegsun.com/201.....eplacement

And that's just today's harvest.

Why is there this fuss? You never know if there's something wrong with the plane, or if the media sharks are chumming the water, sensing that Peter Mackay is vulnerable ... another Bev Oda to chew on, perhaps?
Thucydides





Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 25
Reputation: 74.8

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is two fold.

The simple problem is the Press has tried to reduce the story to a single number, without providing context or meaning (or even saying how the number is calculated).

The larger problem is there has been no serious debate about defense or Canada's role in the world for decades now. The CF-35 and the decision to buy only 65 was based on price and the fact the plane was expected to be in service for 30 or 40 years (some of the competing designs are already 20 years old).

Do we need 65 jet fighters? Do we need more or less? Do we need a small, short ranged plane like the CF-35 or should we have considered a larger, longer ranged aircraft to better meet our geographic situation? For that matter, how should the Navy be configured? The Army? Canada's Special Forces?

Until there is a real debate about our Grand Strategy and our National Interests, we will have no understanding of what we need our military forces to do. Once we discover that, then we can debate the best and most economical means to achieve these goals.
reidjr





Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5Reputation: 46.5
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
The only nation that can invade Canada is the United States. In the near term, that is a highly unlikely prospect.
To fight a war, we would have to emulate the Swiss. Switzerland can mobilize the largest military force in Europe in 72 hours.
We will not lose our position in NORAD if we do not buy the F 35. Soviet procurement policy was a good lesson: make it cheap, make it work, and make a lot of it. The key to air combat is better pilots. Both the Battle of Britain and the Falklands demonstrated that the quality of the pilots was more decisive than the quality of the aircraft. That being said, you still need the numbers to get air superiority.
As for nuclear war, the only way to have a say in the decision is to build our own nuclear weapons.
The politicians are a reflection of the public mood. Canadians do not want to spend the money to rebuild the Canadian Forces and most are opposed to nuclear weapons. Yet, if we really wanted to deter an invasion, nuclear weapons are the cheapest means of doing so.


Russia and even China would be a concern if we had no defense as they would have no push back if they wanted to take over the Artic the other thing is if we have no Dnd etc then you could see all types of groups setting up in Canada like it or not we need defense.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Can I take this discussion is a different direction? Is there something wrong with this aircraft? Has its price risen so dramatically that Canada can't afford it?

There's a constant drumbeat of articles being published, all of them acting as 'everybody knows' that the plane flies like a stone.


The US Navy has had a squadron of F-35B's aboard the USS Hornet in active service for nearly a year.

So far the plane by the Navy's standards has been as advertised.

The media taking potshots at the jets abilities was valid till the first F35B landed vertically on the deck of the Hornet, then they looked like media all sass no substance.

What I am not seeing is the comparison of the F35 to the only real viable (and please understand I use the term viable very lightly) alternative aircraft the Boeing Super Hornet.

Aside from the Super Hornet being duel engine, is there anything that it does better then the F35?

Wouldn't logic dictate that an inferior plane would cost less?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


F-35's - How Many Governments Does It Take To FUC! Up

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB