Is a plane crash ever a subtle evet?
Nobody can actually own the resources what they really own is access to it but it's not the US who holds assets.
Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
So, again, what exactly will we use these for? I'm asking this honestly here because I'll be on board if I can get a legitimate reason.
Unfortunately, a unilateral beating of swords into ploughshares inevitably leads to the ploughmen being ploughed under.
That is human natue.
The eternal question is what price peace? Do we submit to lunatic theology of the Islamist? Or the slave-state political philopsophy of communist China? Who do we let rule us.......and how much degradation and humiliation do we allow to be heaped upon us before we respond?
Western civilization is at the absolute apex of human development.....never have so many been so rich and so free........We need to keep vigilant, both against our own leaders' lust for power, and our enemies' desire to destroy us utterly. We have a thing worth defending. Indeed, I am actually quite pleased that in our society, pacifists can dream their dreams basically unmolested. It speaks well of us.
But it does not change in the slightest the truth, as stated by George Orwell.... "We sleep peacefully in our beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf".
And we need to provide them the tools required to keep us free.
F16 Fighting Falcon vs. F15 Strike Eagle
YouTube - War Games - F16 Fighting Falcon vs. F15 Strike Eagle
In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 4 to 1 at times. The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.
The F-22 may not be a F-35, but considering that no other aircraft in the world has shot down a F-15 in actual combat, the F-35 has to be pretty darn good. F-35 is being delayed till 2015 instead of 2013, there is time before deciding how good it may be..
Had to add this.
YouTube - F-14 Tomcat vs MiG-23s Dogfight
YouTube - War Games - F16 Fighting Falcon vs. F15 Strike Eagle
In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 4 to 1 at times. The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.
The F-22 may not be a F-35, but considering that no other aircraft in the world has shot down a F-15 in actual combat, the F-35 has to be pretty darn good. F-35 is being delayed till 2015 instead of 2013, there is time before deciding how good it may be..
Had to add this.
YouTube - F-14 Tomcat vs MiG-23s Dogfight
Great, now we just need to figure out a way to make airstrikes on the massive debt created buying all this crap.
You already have the F-16, nothing really much better. F-35 can wait. The debt was not caused by purchasing military equip..
You would actually approve of using the military to prevent your country from being torn apart from within, that is a revolution and use of military would lead to a all out civil war, not a good idea. The U.S. is your best friend and vice versa. You may not like the arrangement, but thankfully the majority are pretty much content with it.
F-35B - Taking STOVL to a New Level - Videos - AircraftOwner Online
http://www.aircraftowner.com/videos/view/f-35b---taking-stovl-to-a-new-level_1126.html
http://www.aircraftowner.com/videos/view/f-35b---taking-stovl-to-a-new-level_1126.html
These aircraft are variations of technology appropriate for previous wars. Supersonic manned combat aircraft were revolutionary when Canada built the AVRO Arrow. These expensive systems can be shot out of the sky with various types of SAMs from man portable to truck size. The money would be better spent developing technology for the next war.
This is the future:
Wired for War: The Future of Military Robots - Brookings Institution
This is the future:
Wired for War: The Future of Military Robots - Brookings Institution
I love when it comes to our armed forces people thing procuring new equipment is a waste. Would you like to know what is a waste?Crummy plastic white metal Iltis jeeps purchased from Bombardier $84,000.00 each. We could have bought the exact same piece of crap from Europe at a cost of $26,000.00 per unit.
The Air Force needs new Jets. These craft will be around for quite a few years, pay me now or pay me later. Buy junk now as with the Iltis and you'll be replacing them in a decade. When you could have gone Humvee and got more bang for your buck over the long run.
The Air Force needs new Jets. These craft will be around for quite a few years, pay me now or pay me later. Buy junk now as with the Iltis and you'll be replacing them in a decade. When you could have gone Humvee and got more bang for your buck over the long run.
While I get that the forces needs more and new equipment, I don't quite understand why we need these really kick ass fighter jets. Even though I accept that they are a quality fighter jet, what do we do with fighter jets now that we really need to get some updated kick ass ones? Nothing more practical that we need?
We may not have a seat on the UN, but we are still a member of Nato. In the first Gulf War we deployed only our Navy and Air Force to the region. The fact that these jets have been bought through a consortium of Countries mean that long term maintenance costs will be reduced as there will be plenty of stock parts.
In the business of war Kick Ass is always best.
"Shock and Awe!" (politicians love that kind of stuff)
In concept of defending Canadian sovereignty; these aircraft are otherwise useless in achieving that goal.
Considering warfare is asymmetric, meaning the Americans would never bomb our civilians, we should be preparing for an insurgency or a 'militia defence', much like in 1812.
Nine billion in that regard could had gone to purchasing thousands of FGM-148 Javelins and Ammo. Might not be as "shock and awe" as having an easily wiped out fleet of aircraft and tanks, but missile launchers don't need as much high-industrial maintainence and the fact of the matter is if you have thousands of something than your less likely to have all your toys wiped out in one battle.
All it will take is one FGM-148 Javelin to take out an Abram... In that regard, a $40,000 missile (while expensive on misfire) is otherwise economical if it takes out a tank which costs 6 million... As well, the FGM-148 doesn't generate a heat signal, can be transported on a truck (important in an insurgency which is hit and run and fading into the civilian populace), can be fired from kilometers away and hit, et al.
Unless someone can cough up enough money to field an equal number of tanks and aircrafts to the United States, we're better off investing in our infantry capabilities, especially with the most likely scenario that a "war" with America would most likely lead to a "insurgency".
It is unacceptable for Her Majesty's Government for Canada to engage in deficit spending--which is something that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest, the Prime Minister, promised he would never do. That is, before the Government, under his leadership, began a long series of deficit budgets (and before someone goes on a rabid anti-Conservative rant--though I do love 'em--each time it was with the support of one of our scared and confused opposition parties).
Having said this, though, it was not optional spending, in this case. Spending for the Canadian Forces should be our top federal priority, as it is the Canadian Forces that enforces Canadian sovereignty at home and abroad. Consider Max Weber's considerations on the State being the source of legitimacy for the use of force--how can this manifestation of sovereignty exist without a Canadian Forces capable of protecting Canada from the physical threat that might be posed, at a moment's notice, by an external force? The Conservatives, then, have made a good call here in spending these moneys.
Of course, we should be able to trust that they have taken all steps necessary to get the best value for their dollar. This is why I've criticised the way in which this equipment has been procured, since there were opportunities to seek lower costs that were passed up by the Government--clearly irresponsible in a time of deficit spending. In principle, though, whether or not we are in a period of budgets in the red, spending for the armed forces should remain a priority for any Canadian Government. I don't suggest that the Government should have a carte blanche for overspending, though--this procurement should be a priority, but the monery needs to come from somewhere, whether it's increased taxes, department cuts, or provincial transfer payments. We can't just pass it off to the next government that takes office.
Having said this, though, it was not optional spending, in this case. Spending for the Canadian Forces should be our top federal priority, as it is the Canadian Forces that enforces Canadian sovereignty at home and abroad. Consider Max Weber's considerations on the State being the source of legitimacy for the use of force--how can this manifestation of sovereignty exist without a Canadian Forces capable of protecting Canada from the physical threat that might be posed, at a moment's notice, by an external force? The Conservatives, then, have made a good call here in spending these moneys.
Of course, we should be able to trust that they have taken all steps necessary to get the best value for their dollar. This is why I've criticised the way in which this equipment has been procured, since there were opportunities to seek lower costs that were passed up by the Government--clearly irresponsible in a time of deficit spending. In principle, though, whether or not we are in a period of budgets in the red, spending for the armed forces should remain a priority for any Canadian Government. I don't suggest that the Government should have a carte blanche for overspending, though--this procurement should be a priority, but the monery needs to come from somewhere, whether it's increased taxes, department cuts, or provincial transfer payments. We can't just pass it off to the next government that takes office.