Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 2/4/2018 at 12:04 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

That's a terrible example 

 

The bottom line is that the CF-18 replacement has been completely politicized so we basically have to enter into some politics while talking about it, or not talk about Canada and the CF-18 replacement at all since it's not operating on non political lines anymore. That went out the window a long time ago. 

 

No, it isn't. 
Discussing why a government is wrong aboot a purchase (or heaven forbid right) is technically entering into "politics". Where it becomes a problem is when personal feelings aboot particular politicians becomes the subject of what you say.
Example:
A:The current Flubber Party government was completely wrong when they chose to buy the Acme Rock Droppers for our Coyotes. This was stupid and will lead to flattened coyotes.
This is fine. It expresses an opinion on the decision itself.
B: President Argon Noblegas is a stupid, ignorant blunderbus and should be fed to my pigs!
This is an overtly biased statement that will only serve to rile up Argon's fans. They will reply with retorts of "Oh yeah, well, yer mom's fat" and other bon mots of hilarity, and the thread begins the death spiral.
Now due to people in the past not being able to understand the difference between A and B, a blanket "NO POLITICS" rule was adopted, and generally it tends to work. As long as the personal attacks against posters is kept at bay, and angry frothings about certain political parties or their leaders is also kept down, the thread (and other posts as well) are safe from removal.
However, if ANYTHING else in the world of the F-35 happens, please post it, I'd hate for this thread to turn into 15 years of Canadian procurement procedures.

 

Alvis 3.1
ARC Moderation Team and Knife Edge Walker
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alvis 3.1 said:


A:The current Flubber Party government was completely wrong when they chose to buy the Acme Rock Droppers for our Coyotes. This was stupid and will lead to flattened coyotes.

B: President Argon Noblegas is a stupid, ignorant blunderbuss...
 

A. I voted for the Flubber's when they promised us this...

s-l300.jpg
But he canceled that deal saying that it was too expensive and just not ready:angry:. Never AGAIN will the Flubber party get my vote!

 

B. Nobelgas is an idiot! He wanted to buy this...

3ddb2de7b9ec774f980a18b816bbb643.jpg

 

I mean no maneuverability, poor thrust-to-weight ratio, terrible stealth characteristics...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:wasntme:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

No, it isn't. 
Discussing why a government is wrong aboot a purchase (or heaven forbid right) is technically entering into "politics". Where it becomes a problem is when personal feelings aboot particular politicians becomes the subject of what you say.
Example:
A:The current Flubber Party government was completely wrong when they chose to buy the Acme Rock Droppers for our Coyotes. This was stupid and will lead to flattened coyotes.
This is fine. It expresses an opinion on the decision itself.
B: President Argon Noblegas is a stupid, ignorant blunderbus and should be fed to my pigs!
This is an overtly biased statement that will only serve to rile up Argon's fans. They will reply with retorts of "Oh yeah, well, yer mom's fat" and other bon mots of hilarity, and the thread begins the death spiral.
Now due to people in the past not being able to understand the difference between A and B, a blanket "NO POLITICS" rule was adopted, and generally it tends to work. As long as the personal attacks against posters is kept at bay, and angry frothings about certain political parties or their leaders is also kept down, the thread (and other posts as well) are safe from removal.
However, if ANYTHING else in the world of the F-35 happens, please post it, I'd hate for this thread to turn into 15 years of Canadian procurement procedures.

 

Alvis 3.1
ARC Moderation Team and Knife Edge Walker
 

 

I don’t see any posts that match what you are saying, or 11Bee was quoting. I don’t see any name calling.

 

15 years? The Sea King replacement was originally announced in 1993. 2018 they were retired. Some of us will be dead when the CF-18 retires.

 

I don’t think the government will replace our fighter force. This will be their excuse to cut ties with having a fighter force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

I don’t think the government will replace our fighter force. This will be their excuse to cut ties with having a fighter force.

 

Very likely...worked for NZ. And really...why does Canada need a fighter force?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 82Whitey51 said:

 

Very likely...worked for NZ. And really...why does Canada need a fighter force?

 

Because we have always contributed on the world stage.

 

Despite our size, we have had a huge impact on history. Vimy, Juno, Korea, Gulf War, Balkans, Afghanistan, etc.

 

Canada had the smallest fighter force in the Balkans, 18 jets, but dropped 10% of all the ordnance. Which was the largest percentage of the 13 nations participating.

 

We have forward operating bases in the north and constantly deploy alert aircraft to chase Russian aircraft away.

 

We have jets on Q duty to protect against hi-jacking.

 

We have a border to defend, yes, we need a fighter force. 

 

Yes, we can’t go it alone, but we are given a voice in the world stage due to the impact we have through the contributions of our military.

 

We aren’t NZ, we are more like Australia. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

Because we have always contributed on the world stage.

 

Despite our size, we have had a huge impact on history. Vimy, Juno, Korea, Gulf War, Balkans, Afghanistan, etc.

 

Canada had the smallest fighter force in the Balkans, 18 jets, but dropped 10% of all the ordnance. Which was the largest percentage of the 13 nations participating.

 

We have forward operating bases in the north and constantly deploy alert aircraft to chase Russian aircraft away.

 

We have jets on Q duty to protect against hi-jacking.

 

We have a border to defend, yes, we need a fighter force. 

 

Yes, we can’t go it alone, but we are given a voice in the world stage due to the impact we have through the contributions of our military.

 

We aren’t NZ, we are more like Australia. 

 

Yeah, I'm not discounting Canada's contribution on the world stage, and I personally have been involved in joint ops with Canadian Forces, always great people to serve with.

Key word here is "need". If updating your fighter force is going to break the defense budget, then I can see your leadership doing away with fighters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 82Whitey51 said:

 

Yeah, I'm not discounting Canada's contribution on the world stage, and I personally have been involved in joint ops with Canadian Forces, always great people to serve with.

Key word here is "need". If updating your fighter force is going to break the defense budget, then I can see your leadership doing away with fighters.

 

 

They technically upped the requirement from 65 to 88 aircraft

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

They technically upped the requirement from 65 to 88 aircraft

Still just a token..... should be more. Eventually the decision will be F-35A. Back in the day when CF-18 was chosen the flavour was F-4 Phantom. CF-18 was crap we made the wrong choice and we spent too much money. Currently about 40 years on...... CF-18 ended up being a good choice.

 

For whatever it's worth regardless of political stripes, the military has suffered whether there were budget cuts under Canada first and covertly stripping veterans of what was owed to them.... to ordering domestically designed ships instead of buying off the shelf Scandinavian designed and built ships that would have cost less built than has already been spent on designing them here. 

 

Sea King replacement was a farce..... but Cyclone is just about up and running. A new and unproven platform just like any other. SAR fixed wing has been bought, Hercs are new and so are the C-17. Main Battle Tanks have been replaced with New used tanks..... so it's all been slow and steady were procurement started in the previous red prior to the blue. 

 

As for the decision to buy the Aussie bugs..... I agree over the SH.

 

 

Edited by Emvar
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 82Whitey51 said:

 

Yeah, I'm not discounting Canada's contribution on the world stage, and I personally have been involved in joint ops with Canadian Forces, always great people to serve with.

Key word here is "need". If updating your fighter force is going to break the defense budget, then I can see your leadership doing away with fighters.

 

The Liberals aren’t worried about breaking any budget, they don’t want to spend anything on the military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Emvar said:

 

For whatever it's worth regardless of political stripes, the military has suffered whether there were budget cuts under Canada first and covertly stripping veterans of what was owed to them.... to ordering domestically designed ships instead of buying off the shelf Scandinavian designed and built ships that would have cost less built than has alr

 

Sea King replacement was a farce..... but Cyclone is just about up and running. A new and unproven platform just like any other. SAR fixed wing has been bought, Hercs are new and so are the C-17. Main Battle Tanks have been replaced with New used tanks..... so it's all been slow and steady were procurement started in the previous red prior to the blue. 

 

As for the decision to buy the Aussie bugs..... I agree over the SH.

 

 

 

Nothing was purchased by the prior red, all resent purchases were under Harper.

 

The used Hornets are a joke, just buy the F-35A.

 

But we won’t be buying the F-35A until the Conservatives are in power next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Emvar said:

Sea King replacement was a farce..... but Cyclone is just about up and running. A new and unproven platform just like any other. SAR fixed wing has been bought, Hercs are new and so are the C-17. Main Battle Tanks have been replaced with New used tanks..... so it's all been slow and steady were procurement started in the previous red prior to the blue. 

 

As for the decision to buy the Aussie bugs..... I agree over the SH.

 

 

 

Liberal’s canned the F-35A purchase.

 

Liberals sent us to Afghanistan in unarmored Itlis jeeps, troops traded body armor and weapons on the tarmac when new rotations arrived in theatre.

 

Harper purchased body armor, helmets, and new small arms weapons for the troops in Afghanistan.

 

Harper became PM Feb 6, 2006.

 

Harper purchased 17 C-130Js Dec 13/2007.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/cc-130-hercules.page

 

July 14, 2007 Harper purchased 180 RG-31 Mine Protection Vehicles.

 

http://defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm

 

June 18, 2009 Harper purchased 15 CH-147F Chinnoks.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/medium-heavy-lift-helicopter.page

 

June 2009 Harper approved the purchase of over 100 Leopard Main Battle Tanks

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/tank-replacement.page

 

July 2009 Harper approved over 500 TAPV vehicles.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle.page

 

July 2009 Lav III upgrade announced by Harper

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/light-armoured-vehicle-III-upgrade.page

 

July 2015, over 1500 Military Pattern Vehicle replacement announced by Harper

 

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/terre-land/index-eng.html#s1

 

Nov, 2004, The only major Liberal procurement I can think of is the Cyclone, full marks to the Liberals for ordering this failing weapon platform.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/maritime-helicoper.page

 

Trudeau promised he would restore pensions to disabled Vets, we know how that turned out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2018 at 2:53 PM, Scooby said:

 

I don’t see any posts that match what you are saying, or 11Bee was quoting. I don’t see any name calling.

 

15 years? The Sea King replacement was originally announced in 1993. 2018 they were retired. Some of us will be dead when the CF-18 retires.

 

I don’t think the government will replace our fighter force. This will be their excuse to cut ties with having a fighter force.

That's why the thread stays running, despite the very obvious anger at certain politicians, it tends to stay on the right side of the tracks.
Yeah, I was likely being far too optimistic. Maybe 35  years. By the time we get around to a 5th Gen aircraft, Starfleet will be recruiting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

That's why the thread stays running, despite the very obvious anger at certain politicians, it tends to stay on the right side of the tracks.
Yeah, I was likely being far too optimistic. Maybe 35  years. By the time we get around to a 5th Gen aircraft, Starfleet will be recruiting.

 

 

It is helpful as an outsider (IE south of the wall) to get insight into who did what. 

 

It's hard enough to understand politics In my own country and it's many nuances so I tend to listen to those who pay attention in their own country. Give them the benefit of the doubt. It is helpful for example to see who purchased what. Or who didn't I suppose.

 

It's a fine line. People are frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

Liberal’s canned the F-35A purchase.

 

Liberals sent us to Afghanistan in unarmored Itlis jeeps, troops traded body armor and weapons on the tarmac when new rotations arrived in theatre.

 

Harper purchased body armor, helmets, and new small arms weapons for the troops in Afghanistan.

 

Harper became PM Feb 6, 2006.

 

Harper purchased 17 C-130Js Dec 13/2007.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/cc-130-hercules.page

 

July 14, 2007 Harper purchased 180 RG-31 Mine Protection Vehicles.

 

http://defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm

 

June 18, 2009 Harper purchased 15 CH-147F Chinnoks.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/medium-heavy-lift-helicopter.page

 

June 2009 Harper approved the purchase of over 100 Leopard Main Battle Tanks

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/tank-replacement.page

 

July 2009 Harper approved over 500 TAPV vehicles.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle.page

 

July 2009 Lav III upgrade announced by Harper

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/light-armoured-vehicle-III-upgrade.page

 

July 2015, over 1500 Military Pattern Vehicle replacement announced by Harper

 

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/terre-land/index-eng.html#s1

 

Nov, 2004, The only major Liberal procurement I can think of is the Cyclone, full marks to the Liberals for ordering this failing weapon platform.

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/maritime-helicoper.page

 

Trudeau promised he would restore pensions to disabled Vets, we know how that turned out.

Iltis was retired..... g-wagon you are thinking. 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/support-for-caf-1.3929956

 

Liberals allocated moneys for the Hercules..... Harper just okayed it. It's all about optics. Just like Harper allocated money for the sar fixed wing program and JT okayed it. 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/what-kind-of-military-can-canada-afford-1.1230004

 

 

Edited by Emvar
Link to post
Share on other sites

No,  Scooby is right about the ILTIS being sent to Afganistan. It went over and was totally unacceptable. It was fine here in peace time training, Used to love driving them, not so much on the 401 in winter, But its fibreglass floor was not going to work in a war zone. We offered the ILTIS to Afganistan but they would not take them unless we improved them and gave them a couple years worth of fuel. That was not going to happen. As it would cost too much to bring them back (I heard) they were buried in the desert, never to be seen again.

 

The G wagon was bought as a direct replacement for the ILTIS over there, and then here. They sure never bought enough, but they ARE really expensive. So when my old group used to have 4 ILTIS when we traded them in we got 2 G-wagons, and a couple green painted Chevy Surburbans.

 

The vests, yep that happened. Just like when I retired, my uniforms (worn for over 12 years) all had to get turned in so some new kid who joined almost a year earlier who was close to my size was called to QM. They took off my Sergeant stripes and handed all my kit to the new guy. Minus the underwear. As a medic I told them they would NOT hand my 12 year old underwear and socks over to a new guy. He needed new stuff. That caused a hassel but, I won and tossed my old stuff. Minus one pair of underwear as they looked SO silly. (Still have that pair, but they sure do not fit anymore). All the other uniform parts. Welcome to the old guys old clothes newbie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, we had several casualties in Iltis jeeps that ran over IEDs.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/armoured-vehicles-defended-after-deaths-in-afghanistan-1.577094

 

Jan. 27: Cpl. Jamie Murphy died and three soldiers were injured by a suicide bomber while patrolling near Camp Julien in an Iltis jeep. All were members of the Royal Canadian Regiment.

 

The three injured were all seriously injured and lost limbs.

 

The Liberals also sent us overseas in green uniforms. Harper bought the desert gear.

 

As for the Liberals allotting money for the J models, doesn’t count, approvals are what counts.

 

The Liberals allotted money for the SH, how did that work out?

Edited by Scooby
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scooby said:

Nope, we had several casualties in Iltis jeeps that ran over IEDs.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/armoured-vehicles-defended-after-deaths-in-afghanistan-1.577094

 

The Liberals also sent us overseas in green uniforms. Harper bought the desert gear.

Been looking for a rebuttal...... can't find one except....... the first election he did not have majority...... needed the opposition to help him out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scooby said:

Nope, we had several casualties in Iltis jeeps that ran over IEDs.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/armoured-vehicles-defended-after-deaths-in-afghanistan-1.577094

 

The Liberals also sent us overseas in green uniforms. Harper bought the desert gear.

The US has you beat, we invaded a country by mistake.   Lost a few orders of magnitude more than “several” casualties because we sent them off in unarmored POS Hummers.  

 

Trade you W for your Liberals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talked to an officer that served in Afghanistan in the green uniforms and they didn't really care one way or the other about that as no cammo really worked there. They were too busy trying to not stand near any US troops at night cause their cammos glowed in the dark....We now return you to regular F-35 programming....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...