It's about time. Liberals take aim at F-35
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
EyeBrock @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:22 pm
They 'aint $245 million a unit. End ex.
DerbyX @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:25 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
They 'aint $245 million a unit. End ex.
They are reported 191 million "fly away" cost. Any additional cost would probably be the same for any new aircraft.
Still we could get 3X the number of Super Hornets for less.
herbie @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:42 pm
I'm sure if the Taliban 6th Panzer division ever attacked the CF18s would be useful in Afghanistan.
Why do we insist on always going out of our way to NOT buy military goods from the US. After sinking billions into the project we'd be nuts to consider anything else.
Bruce_the_vii @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:04 am
My thought on the military is they should buy something that they might actually use. Basically we are part of Nato but we should carry our weight by actually doing something over the coming years. Certainly peace keeping will be on going and the army needs good equipment for that. I'm not an expert in military but that was my thought. We could even do without air superiorority jets.
Bruce_the_vii @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:25 am
And where are the smart bombs. With a $130 million jet you really need TV bombs so you can have certain kill and multiple targets per sortie. Sony or Tosheba should be making a range of these so you get some cost efficiency.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:27 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
They 'aint $245 million a unit. End ex.
They are reported 191 million "fly away" cost. Any additional cost would probably be the same for any new aircraft.
Still we could get 3X the number of Super Hornets for less.
They are 191 million , then include the cost of the program over twenty years and you get 245,000,000 $ (and that's being generous) EB just doesnt want to look at the US Air forces and the British MoD own numbers
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:33 am
Bodah Bodah:
If the money is spent on F-35s don't worry Hyperion.
Worse case scenario, You can always rely on a parliamentary committee set up by the separatists, ndp and the liberals where they can grill educated experts in their field regarding their knowledge and judgement when it comes to avionics.
While pretending they have a clue what the fuck their talking about. Then find them guilty for being in cahoots with the Americans.
Have fun with that.
Worse case scenario, You can always rely on a parliamentary committee set up by the separatists, ndp and the liberals where they can grill educated experts in their field regarding their knowledge and judgement when it comes to avionics.
While pretending they have a clue what the fuck their talking about. Then find them guilty for being in cahoots with the Americans.
Have fun with that.
I could care a less who builds what we end up flying. If the manufacturer would agree to cut the price of the program to match the Eurofighter then fine- get the F-35 as long as we have our own copies of the source software. i want the absolute best deal our government can get. The F-35 fails that test in every extent.
EyeBrock @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:46 am
So you say.
Your wiki-figures are way off. The Brits and Italians who now fly the Typhoon have ordered the F35.
You better e-mail them to tell them what a huge mistake they are making, Mr expert.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:01 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
So you say.
Your wiki-figures are way off. The Brits and Italians who now fly the Typhoon have ordered the F35.
You better e-mail them to tell them what a huge mistake they are making, Mr expert.
Your wiki-figures are way off. The Brits and Italians who now fly the Typhoon have ordered the F35.
You better e-mail them to tell them what a huge mistake they are making, Mr expert.
In this very thread i have posted the original source Material from the DoD and the British Mod. You just don't like being made to look like a fool and keep claiming that original source documents are "wiki numbers".
Not only are you wrong, have been proven wrong, but the best and only defence you have saying 'wiki wiki wiki'. Sorry sunshine, thy are not 'wiki's numbers, they are in fact as i said, original source documents and even our own governments numbers.You just can't accept that. Thats fine i have proven my point several times and have also provided my source material from the US and British
Now i can understand why people don't like the 245,000,000,000 per unit price, there's nothing to like about. Hence why the Eurofighter is a much better aircraft for our needs and more more prudent and responsible path for Canadian Tax-payers to be responsible for
It's unfortunate that you and a good number Conservative's have so little concern for Canadian Tax-payers. The CPC seems to have lost it's hold on fiscal responsibility, to fake-lake to irresponsible spending. The only reason the CPC gained a minority government is that they promised Canadians that they would not turn into an overspending party. And that is exactly what they have with this 'deal' A no bid contract for aircraft at the 245m $ is of deleterious to sound finance when a perfectly good aircraft is available from the British a fraction of the price.
EyeBrock @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:16 am
Wrong again.
The unit price isn't 245 mill. You really are having a problem with facts.
The last official figures given by the MoD in 2003 for Typhoon unit costs were 68 million pounds.
If you use your flawed logic on unit costs for the F35, do you count the Typhoon's added costs on top of the 2003 MoD figures?
You can't chop and change the method you use for costs so it enhances your very silly argument.
Will parts of the Typhoons will be built in Canada, if so which parts? I'll go with zero.
The F35 program involves Canadian companies. 2nd and 3rd line servicing will be done in Canada. That means good Canadian aerospace jobs.
If the Typhoons are perfectly good, why have the British ordered 135 F35's?
But you carry on with your lone rant and wiki-numbers. Being wrong is something you are constant at.
HaRdLy @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:18 am
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
No attention was paid to the Eurofighter even though it is a top notch aircraft, perfect for our needs, and much much more tax-payer friendly
As EB has stated more than once, the Euro-Fighter is a air superiority jet, not a dual role fighter/bomber as Canada needs.
Public_Domain @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:29 am
Arctic_Menace @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:23 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Artic menace said;
"And us getting the F-35 is going to change this how?
"
The F35 has modern avionics and weapons systems. It can be easily plugged into an E3 Sentry for coordination as well as command & control. It will have total interoperability with our allies.
As in Air Command would have very few excuses not to deploy F35’s.
If the F35 was in for instance, the Afghan theatre, where the Brit's, the Yanks, Aussies and Dutch have combat aircraft in situ, life would be much easier for all the Air Forces.
The infrastructure for support would already be there for CF-35’s.
All nations’ F35's could be re-armed, refuelled by any of those air force personnel.
Spares would be readily available, auxiliary power units, aircraft steps, tires, etc etc.
It’s all about the ability to deploy with the minimum of kit.
These were lessons learned by the Brits, Italians and Germans with the Tornado program. Interoperability is key.
That’s how it would be different with F35’s.
"And us getting the F-35 is going to change this how?
"The F35 has modern avionics and weapons systems. It can be easily plugged into an E3 Sentry for coordination as well as command & control. It will have total interoperability with our allies.
As in Air Command would have very few excuses not to deploy F35’s.
If the F35 was in for instance, the Afghan theatre, where the Brit's, the Yanks, Aussies and Dutch have combat aircraft in situ, life would be much easier for all the Air Forces.
The infrastructure for support would already be there for CF-35’s.
All nations’ F35's could be re-armed, refuelled by any of those air force personnel.
Spares would be readily available, auxiliary power units, aircraft steps, tires, etc etc.
It’s all about the ability to deploy with the minimum of kit.
These were lessons learned by the Brits, Italians and Germans with the Tornado program. Interoperability is key.
That’s how it would be different with F35’s.
That's all fine and dandy, but how does it really change the way we've used our fighters lately? If history is a precedent, then our F-35's will languish and will hardly see any international deployment like our CF-18's have. My reasoning is essentially the following; why spend even more money for less aircraft that we're probably going to be treating the same way?
Bodah @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:38 am
You can't predict the future AM . Having an aircraft that covers all bases sounds crazy to some but makes sense to others and probably makes a shit load of sense for the top brass at DND. It's their job to ensure we have an effective airforce.
EyeBrock @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:38 am
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Artic menace said;
"And us getting the F-35 is going to change this how?"
The F35 has modern avionics and weapons systems. It can be easily plugged into an E3 Sentry for coordination as well as command & control. It will have total interoperability with our allies.
As in Air Command would have very few excuses not to deploy F35’s.
If the F35 was in for instance, the Afghan theatre, where the Brit's, the Yanks, Aussies and Dutch have combat aircraft in situ, life would be much easier for all the Air Forces.
The infrastructure for support would already be there for CF-35’s.
All nations’ F35's could be re-armed, refuelled by any of those air force personnel.
Spares would be readily available, auxiliary power units, aircraft steps, tires, etc etc.
It’s all about the ability to deploy with the minimum of kit.
These were lessons learned by the Brits, Italians and Germans with the Tornado program. Interoperability is key.
That’s how it would be different with F35’s.
"And us getting the F-35 is going to change this how?
"The F35 has modern avionics and weapons systems. It can be easily plugged into an E3 Sentry for coordination as well as command & control. It will have total interoperability with our allies.
As in Air Command would have very few excuses not to deploy F35’s.
If the F35 was in for instance, the Afghan theatre, where the Brit's, the Yanks, Aussies and Dutch have combat aircraft in situ, life would be much easier for all the Air Forces.
The infrastructure for support would already be there for CF-35’s.
All nations’ F35's could be re-armed, refuelled by any of those air force personnel.
Spares would be readily available, auxiliary power units, aircraft steps, tires, etc etc.
It’s all about the ability to deploy with the minimum of kit.
These were lessons learned by the Brits, Italians and Germans with the Tornado program. Interoperability is key.
That’s how it would be different with F35’s.
That's all fine and dandy, but how does it really change the way we've used our fighters lately? If history is a precedent, then our F-35's will languish and will hardly see any international deployment like our CF-18's have. My reasoning is essentially the following; why spend even more money for less aircraft that we're probably going to be treating the same way?
The CF18's haven't been used because cost-cutting measures have denied them required upgrades. Consequently when we had to actually use them in combat, they didn't have the avionics or weapons systems to allow them to do the job. More false economies from our previous governments.
And you do have a point. The F35's will need upgrades and refits during the expected 30 year life to ensure operational effectiveness.
But with the C17's we have the capability to deploy our fighters worldwide very quickly.
The Army and Maritime Command have good out-of-area capabilities. Air Command don't.
Deploying to an airfield with RAF/RAAF/USAF/USMC/RNaF etc F35's already in theatre will mean an easy transition for CF35's.
Look past the partisan Liberal politics AM.
Just because the Libs are now saying it's bad when they had the original foresight to get us involved in the program should allude to this 'outrage' being pure politics.
Something the Libs are really crappy at these days.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next