Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets

[Omicron]

Well Canada has already invested 10 Million in the program and have pledged 150 Million for the F-35.

Which means, it would be nothing to write off compared to the $16 billion it will cost to finally buy them.

So guess what...you're buying them. Case closed.

It's not too late to cut the F-35 program. According to your numbers he's only spent %0.0625 of the total cost so far.

Harpie is happy to cut stimulus-funding on programs that might not have actually achieved their objectives for no other reason than because they might go over budget, yet you're suggesting that he could never consider the notion of cutting the F-35 program after having spent only %0.0625 on it.

The way Harpie's head works now, if some stimulus-spending has been done on something like a community ice-rink, and the ice-rink gets 95% built, but needs a bit more to get finished, he's happy to say "no", and leave the community with a big eye-sore that's just sitting there not being used.

The point of stimulus-spending is to provide some short term jobs *and* result in something that has long term use, like the successful stimulus-spending program that was the Hoover Dam.

In the case of the ice-rink, for another 5% it becomes a useful facility (which means yes, it went over budget by 5%, but all of it was spent on job-creation, so that's not so bad) and the community gets something they can use for a long time, which means the 105% is all spent on job-creation *and* a long-term benefit is produced, whereas in Hapie's mind, it's better to spend 100% of budget, cut it off there, and have nothing but an eye-sore left as a result, which means the stimulus spending budget *only* produced short-term jobs but *not* the long-term benefit to the community... talk about a sense of false economy.

Given that Harpie's head works that way, what would be so out-of-character for him to cut the F-35 program after having spent only %0.0625 of the total cost? He has demonstrated that he has no problem spending money on things and then pulling the plug before it produces a result.

Besides... how much did the US spend on the F-22 before pulling the plug on that?

If Ottawa were to think anything like Washington, it definitely would *not* be "Case closed" and it definitely would *not* see a problem with pulling the plug.

 

[rajinsurrey]

I believe we should invest more in our defenses, not only on new Fighter Jets but on all other aspects of our national defense. How long are we as Canadians going to hide in the shadows of the United States and seek their protection. As Canadians we ourselves need to fend for ourselves. So lets invest in our forces

In addition we need to abolish the long gun registry,

 

[Omicron]

I believe we should invest more in our defenses, not only on new Fighter Jets but on all other aspects of our national defense.

Yes we should upgrade our patrol craft, and helicopters, and fighters, but the F-35 is a fighter-bomber, which means it's only really useful for doing offense strikes on ground targets.

How long are we as Canadians going to hide in the shadows of the United States and seek their protection. As Canadians we ourselves need to fend for ourselves.

Ah, so, given that the F-35 is a fighter-bomber that's only really useful for offense ground-strikes, I guess you're thinking that we need the F-35s so we can attack the US?

Ain't gonna happen. Canadians don't hate Americans. In fact, Canadians kind'a like Americans, in a nutty sort of way... one of those "Love-Hate" kind'a things.

So lets invest in our forces

I agree, but not the F-35. That's a waste of money if one's real concern is to have practical national defense as a function of the reality of our geography.

In addition we need to abolish the long gun registry,

Did you know that per-capita Canadians have more long guns than Americans? Where they beat us out is in the hand-guns.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The max range of our present CH 146, is 656km. That's not a short hop.

Again you show your lack of knowledge, and for that you get a thumbs up, for causing me to laugh at you again.

Actually, Bear given the size of the Canadian Arctic 656 km is not much range at all. That is less than a WW II fighter plane. It would require dozens of expensive-to-maintain bases to cover the entire arctic. And then there is the fact that helicopters use fuel rather inefficiently and usually require considerable maintenance. It is one of the reasons why during the Cold War Canada used the CP 107 Argus, an aircraft that could stay up for over 24 hours.

 

[Omicron]

Actually, Bear given the size of the Canadian Arctic 656 km is not much range at all. That is less than a WW II fighter plane. It would require dozens of expensive-to-maintain bases to cover the entire arctic. And then there is the fact that helicopters use fuel rather inefficiently and usually require considerable maintenance. It is one of the reasons why during the Cold War Canada used the CP 107 Argus, an aircraft that could stay up for over 24 hours.

Hmm... I got the impression from lone wolf that the density of bases up north was enough that rescue could be done by land-based helicopters to any point within the dominion, but now you're implying not so... that there are still some points that would be out of reach of choppers hopping from base to base.

If that's the case, then it brings back the notion of a combination ice-breaker/chopper-carrier to carry helicopters close to points that would otherwise be out of reach of land-based choppers.

I understand that it would probably cost more to build an ice-breaker, but once there, what would be its operating cost compared to that of maintaining a base?

 

[EagleSmack]

Well it is all kind of moot now.

Enjoy your new F-35's.

 

[Omicron]

Enjoy your new F-35's.

How about if we swap them for those F-22s that Obama and congress canceled?

Just *drop* the export restriction on those Raptors!

You know you can trust us, what with free trade and all that jazz... we're your bestest buddy.

Come on... You *know* you wanna build 'em.

 

[EagleSmack]

Maybe someday the Raptor program will be revived, but in the meantime...

Enjoy your new F-35 fighters.

 

[Omicron]

e

Maybe someday the Raptor program will be revived, but in the meantime...

It can be revived now, by virtue of how if Ottawa *must* spend billions on State of the Art fighter-jets, then at least let those jets be *real* State of the Art, which means Raptors, plus they should be more fighter than bomber, which also means Raptors.

Just drop the export restriction on Raptors, or make an exception in Canada's case; we're your closest ally. We might be your *only* ally. You think it's England? Ha! That's just your thug-buddy.

This is your chance to keep the F-22 D/A (Design and Assembly) teams together, and to get some payback for all the money you spent developing that craft.

You don't want to let your F-22 D/A teams crumble. It's too demoralizing, and you may never get them back together again. We know, because that's what happened when a certain gong-headed prime minister trashed Canada's Avro Arrow program, which at the time was the most advanced fighter-jet in the world.

Enjoy your new F-35 fighters.

HOW?

It's not a fighter, it's a fighter-bomber. We need fighters.

What are we going to do with a fighter-bomber having a combat radius of 590 nautical miles?

Let's see, within 590 nmi we have the French islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Oh yeah, Quebec would really go for the idea of bombing those :roll:

Then there's you, except nobody in Canada can think of a reason to bomb you. You just can't get used to the idea that not everybody hates you, can you? Canada doesn't hate you, and that's pretty much how Australians feels too, in case you didn't know, so you have at least two un-coerced friends on your national Facebook page.

Finally, within range is Greenland. Why of course, that's the threat! Denmark!

There's an (uncontested) territorial dispute (before updated satellite imagery was obtained in 2007) between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island, a tiny piece of rock that can barely eke out lichens.

The dispute started when when in 1984 the Danes heard that Dome Petroleum was studying the Island, so the Danish mister for Greenland flew in by chopper and planted a Danish flag and left a bottle of cognac on Hans Island.

The flag was blown away by arctic winds, so the Danes planted another one in '88. That one blew away, so they planted a replacement in '95, which blew away. In 2002 the Danes planted another flag, and it blew away, so they returned to plant a new flag in 2003, which blew away...

Then one day in 2004, Stockwell Day (a Christo-Nazi who makes Dick Cheney look pink) was still in opposition, and he ranted about the travesty of Danes planting flags and leaving cognac on Hans Island being proof that Canada needs to spend more on the military, so the ruling party had forces rivet a plaque to the island, which couldn't blow away and which triggered a letter of protest from Denmark to Canada for not playing fair.

Then the Conservative Party won it's minority government, whereupon Stockwell Day became President of the Treasury Board, so he released $16 billion worth of funds to spend on F-35s to stop Danes from planting flags on Hans Island.

But now we have updated satellite imagery obtained in July 2007 showing that the line between Canada and Denmark runs down the middle of the island, which means Canada now has a border with two nations (USA and Denmark) and which also means that Canada can't stop Denmark from replacing flags that blow away on its half of the Island, however it's a new border, calling for a new defensive strategy, so we must park 65 F-35s on the western half of Hans Island - if they'll all fit - to defend our half from Denmark.

Is that what you mean by "enjoy them": The photo-op of taking pretty pictures of F-35s blowing away like leaves in an arctic breeze?

 

[EagleSmack]

What do you think the CF-18 is?

At any rate... have fun with the new F-35 Fighters. Don't forget to put the "C" in front of the "F" when they arrive!

 

[lone wolf]

Did you know the official border, if continued between the two points (both a thousand feet short of Hans Island) would cut the rock in half? Hans Island had its purpose. It effectively blocked Kennedy Channel from being available to boomers. Shallow water on the Greenland side, Franklin Island and an undersea mount made Danish water too risky.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Nares_strait_border_(Kennedy_channel).png

 

[EagleSmack]

But now we have updated satellite imagery obtained in July 2007 showing that the line between Canada and Denmark runs down the middle of Hans Island, which means Canada now has a border with two nations (USA and Denmark) and which also means that Canada can't stop Denmark from replacing flags that blow away on its half of the Island, however it's a new border, calling for more defense, and so we must parking 65 F-35s on the western half of Hans Island... if they'll all fit.

lol

Is that what you mean by "enjoy them": The photo-op of taking pretty pictures of F-35s blowing away like leaves in an arctic breeze?

Once you get them you can do whatever you want. You can push them into telephone poles like kids do to shopping carriages if you chose.

But you're getting them.

 

[Omicron]

Did you know the official border, if continued between the two points (both a thousand feet short of Hans Island) would cut the rock in half? Hans Island had its purpose. It effectively blocked Kennedy Channel from being available to boomers. Shallow water on the Greenland side, Franklin Island and an undersea mount made Danish water too risky.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Nares_strait_border_(Kennedy_channel).png

Interesting.

They should build a tactical patrol-submarine base on the Canadian side of Hans Island (sorta like Bear Island). That would nail down the claim... and it would have strategic purpose.

Once you get them you can do whatever you want. You can push them into telephone poles like kids do to shopping carriages if you chose.

But you're getting them.

Well... we might as well run them into telephone poles if they're F-35s.

Why can't we have F-22s?

 

[EagleSmack]

Well we might as well run them into telephone poles if they're F-35s.

Why can't we get F-22s?

Why do you want F-22's? They are they same type of fighter only the F-35 is better.

 

[Omicron]

Why do you want F-22's? They are they same type of fighter only the F-35 is better.

Because F-22s are better air-defense fighters, which is what a country needs to maintain an "air-fence" around its borders, which is what we actually need, whereas F-35s are more "general purpose" (aka fighter-bomber) and always translates into getting used as bombers, when we don't have any enemies within range of an F-35 to bomb.

Because the F-35 is "general purpose" (aka fighter-bomber) it means it can be used as a fighter, but its generality means it's only going to be so-so as a fighter compared to something designed to be pure fighter like the F-22.

We don't have enemies within F-35 range to bomb. We just need a solid air-fence, and for that, F-22s are better.

 

[lone wolf]

Interesting.

They should build a tactical patrol-submarine base on the Canadian side of Hans Island (sorta like Bear Island). That would nail down the claim... and it would have strategic purpose.

That would be a very small base - and not in the best of locations. Hans Island is a bald rock knob that projects just above the surface at high tide and is scoured by ice every spring.

 

[Nuggler]

:canada:Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets


Let's just hope like hell the money is wasted, as opposed to someday we have to use them.

At the very least their manufacture provides employment: Somewhere.

Should make new rules of warfare:

Bows and arrows only.
Invading a country will only be done in rowboats.
In the case of landlocked walking invasions, the invaders have to walk backwards, and can only use clubs. Defenders may use bows and arrows.
No castles or redoubts.
King or prime minister MUST lead the troops.
Old men who start the wars MUST enlist and fight first.
Generals HAVE to be right behind the king or prime minister.

Any variations of the rules, and YOU LOSE the war. Your country is subject to plunder, pillage, rapine, and the burning of your huts.

Some asshole somewhere would still want to start something........................eh.:-(

 

[Omicron]

Let's just hope like hell th money is wasted, as opposed to someday we have to use them.

There's a Schrodinger's Cat type irony to the whole concept of defense, wherein if it's freaky enough to scare away an enemy that would have attacked, then it was not money wasted even though the hardware never got used, whereas if the defense was presented to an enemy that had no intention of attacking, then technically it was money wasted, but there's no way to go back in time to find out if the other side would have attacked had you presented no defense.

That Schrodinger's Cat type uncertainty forces all sides to spending money on defense even when nobody wants to fight, making it an obligatory expense that is annoying enough already without financial remoras getting involved, inflating the perceived threat in order to bloat the shark upon which they ride.

Eisenhower tried to warn about that, but nobody listened, and today we see it in the form of Canada making one of its most expensive military purchases in history for jets of a type that are *known* to have no real value to Canada's defensive needs.

Meanwhile, the BC school system is experiencing a budgetary shortfall that is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of those jets, and the school system is being forced to cover the shortfall by canceling programs like the inter-school sports leagues, because they can't afford team uniforms and bus rides, which means now we've got a generation of healthy, aggressive and competitive young-males with no way to vent their energies and get some training and discipline, so how do you think they're going to turn out and what do we do with them after they've gone wild?

Oh I know... spend the money now building jails to contain them. We didn't need them in the workforce anyway, what with unemployment being so high, and if we do need more workers, we just let boats of Tamils land.

At the very least their manufacture provides employment:

Yeah, but most of it is money going south to make jobs in the USA. At the very least they could have copied the Autopact treaty for building those F-35s.

Somewhere.

Well, the market cap of Lockheed Martin is $25.49 billion, with a P/E ratio of 9.54 and a dividend yield of %3.45, which means a dividend payout of about $96M at next dividend date (30th August 2010; just 11 days away), which means tens of millions of dollars of employment for hostesses serving fat asses parked on a beach in the Bahamas getting drunk on margaritas while griping about how wrong welfare is because those who do not work should not get money from the labors of those who do.

Should make new rules of warfare:

Bows and arrows only.
Invading a country will only be done in rowboats.
In the case of landlocked walking invasions, the invaders have to walk backwards, and can only use clubs. Defenders may use bows and arrows.
No castles or redoubts.
King or prime minister MUST lead the troops.
Old men who start the wars MUST enlist and fight first.
Generals HAVE to be right behind the king or prime minister.

Any variations of the rules, and YOU LOSE the war. Your country is subject to plunder, pillage, rapine, and the burning of your huts.

I think in the case of a walking invasion, that if the invaders can only use clubs while defenders use bows and arrows, then the invaders should be allowed to walk forward.

Some asshole somewhere would still want to start something........................eh.:-(

Don't be glum. If we blanket the war-zone with pinhole cameras then we can televise it on reality TV and make a fortune selling advertising.

 

[lone wolf]

Think of it as insurance....

...always a scam going on somewhere and something you hope you win't have to use.

 

[Omicron]

Think of it as insurance....

...always a scam going on somewhere and something you hope you won't have to use.

Yeah... that pretty-much sums it up.

But man-oh-man... insurance from elephants falling out of trees?!?