CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:41 am
 


Newsbot Newsbot:
Title: Canada to send CF-18 jets to Iraq
Category: Military
Posted By: saturn_656
Date: 2014-10-03 08:43:43
Canadian



Knowing their track record they'll crash without being in combat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:15 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:

Knowing their track record they'll crash without being in combat.



I see some red in your future.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:52 am
 


martin14 martin14:
Batsy2 Batsy2:

Knowing their track record they'll crash without being in combat.



I see some red in your future.


15 Canadian CF-18s have crashed since 1984, killing seven people, and not one of those crashes was in combat.

They've got a poor track record.





PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:18 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:
martin14 martin14:
Batsy2 Batsy2:

Knowing their track record they'll crash without being in combat.



I see some red in your future.


15 Canadian CF-18s have crashed since 1984, killing seven people, and not one of those crashes was in combat.

They've got a poor track record.


Those antique planes are still more reliable than those useless subs with screen doors you limeys sold us. :P


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:32 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:


Knowing their track record they'll crash without being in combat.

You're too fucking stupid to know anything about it, yet you yap like you do. Your ass must get jealous of the shit that comes out of your mouth. :roll:


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:38 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:
martin14 martin14:
Batsy2 Batsy2:

Knowing their track record they'll crash without being in combat.



I see some red in your future.


15 Canadian CF-18s have crashed since 1984, killing seven people, and not one of those crashes was in combat.

They've got a poor track record.

I went to RNAS Yeovilton and saw a Harrier cash on a nice sunny day. Can't imagine how many they would have left if they flew in our weather conditions.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12398
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:45 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:


15 Canadian CF-18s have crashed since 1984, killing seven people, and not one of those crashes was in combat.

They've got a poor track record.


According to this http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/airc ... ornado.htm you need to ground all your Tornado's.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4039
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:49 pm
 


0:
CF-18_Flares.jpg
CF-18_Flares.jpg [ 83.88 KiB | Viewed 383 times ]


Give 'em hell boys! :rock:

-J.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:16 pm
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Batsy2 Batsy2:


15 Canadian CF-18s have crashed since 1984, killing seven people, and not one of those crashes was in combat.

They've got a poor track record.


According to this http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/airc ... ornado.htm you need to ground all your Tornado's.

He can't read something like that while he has his hand firmly grasped around his Jones thinking about how the sun set on his empire......... 100 years ago.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:25 am
 


jj2424 jj2424:

Those antique planes are still more reliable than those useless subs with screen doors you limeys sold us. :P


It's funny how they only started being faulty when they fell into Canadian hands. They worked perfectly fine for the Royal Navy.

And it was Canada who decided to buy them. Britain didn't force you to.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:34 am
 


Regina Regina:
You're too fucking stupid to know anything about it, yet you yap like you do. Your ass must get jealous of the shit that comes out of your mouth. :roll:


So are you saying that those 18 (yes 18, not 15, I made a mistake) non-combat crashes of CF-18s since 1984 DIDN'T happen and that they were either people's imaginations or it's all one big lie?

It's funny how you can all criticise the British Upholder-class submarine and call it all a load of junk even though there was nothing at all wrong with it when it served in the Royal Navy (all the supposed problems with it only occurred when the Canadians got their hands on it) and, in fact, it was widely regarded as being among the best diesel-electric submarines in the world, yet when I criticise the crappy Canadian CF-18s and their, quite frankly, dire safety record I get a load of unwarranted abuse from people.

The fact is that the Canadian CF-18s are a load of junk - and it's the ONLY fighter you've got!


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:39 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:

According to this http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/airc ... ornado.htm you need to ground all your Tornado's.



I'd rather have have an RAF Tornado and its much sought after Brimstone missile (apparently, the Yanks and the French, amongst others, are desperate to buy some) defending me than an RCAF CF-18 Hornet defending me.

In fact, the Tornado is probably about the most capable fighter aircraft involved in the airstrikes against ISIS.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:18 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:
In fact, the Tornado is probably about the most capable fighter aircraft involved in the airstrikes against ISIS.


Oh really?

Image

Image


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:30 am
 


Batsy2 Batsy2:
It's funny how you can all criticise the British Upholder-class submarine and call it all a load of junk even though there was nothing at all wrong with it when it served in the Royal Navy (all the supposed problems with it only occurred when the Canadians got their hands on it)


There was nothing wrong with the subs when you laid them up, it's the six years tied up without receiving proper care and maintenance from the RN that screwed them.

Your guys broke 'em, sorry to say.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:23 am
 


saturn_656 saturn_656:
There was nothing wrong with the subs when you laid them up, it's the six years tied up without receiving proper care and maintenance from the RN that screwed them.

Your guys broke 'em, sorry to say.


There was nothing at all wrong with those submarines when you bought them (on a buyer beware basis). Most of the faults which occurred on them were the results of Royal Canadian Navy incompetence.

Look at the Chicoutimi incident. Despite all the rhetoric from Canadian opposition parties that the government had bought "inferior submarines" on the cheap - something which many Canadians still believe - the Chicoutimi, as the then British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon pointed out, had been brought up to top standards by the time the Canadians bought them. The submarines were in perfect condition when the Canadians bought them.

In fact, the Chicoutimi incident was discovered to have been the result of a Canadian "error in operational procedure" - in other words, it was the result of the Royal Canadian Navy's own incompetence. Yet Canadians still like to blame it on "a crappy British submarine".

And it wasn't just Canadian incompetence that the Chicoutimi incident exposed. It was also Irish search and rescue incompetence that it exposed. The Irish RNLI lifeboat "Sam and Ada Moody", stationed on Achill Island, County Mayo was put on standby to assist, but was later stood down. An Irish Navy ship, LÉ Róisín, responded to the submarine's mayday signal and set out to assist it, but was seriously damaged by the rough seas and forced to return to harbour. The only other Irish Navy ships available to help, LÉ Aoife and LÉ Niamh were patrolling off Ireland's southern coast. At 2 p.m. local time, the Royal Navy frigate HMS Montrose and the auxiliary vessel RFA Wave Knight reached the crippled Chicoutimi, with an additional three British ships en route. LÉ Aoife later reached the area and took over coordination of the rescue and salvage efforts. Other British ships dispatched to assist the submarine were HMS Marlborough and RFA Argus, as well as a number of specialist vessels to handle the situation.

I think the then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was right when he later stated that the Royal Navy would charge Canada for the cost of the rescue. We sent out all those Royal Navy submarines to help rescue a Canadian Navy submarine that had floundered to to Canadian incompetence.

The Upholder-class submarines actually highlight modern Canadian naval incompetence and whether or not Canada is capable of having a submarine fleet, more than anything else.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.