[HyperionTheEvil]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Wiki-numbers. Dig deeper and look into accepted cost of the programs. Cost estimates rise and fall but in reality, the F35 is widely accepted to be a bit cheaper than the Typhoon.

Then again we are talking about aircraft with different roles, which as a fish-head you know sweet F.A about. I promise I won’t argue with you about grey boats and how much they cost vs capable asset. You should study the air defence industry closer.

The Typhoon is a competent air superiority fighter. Not a mud-mover at all.

The F35 is a multi-role aircraft. It is a competent air superiority aircraft and an excellent fighter-bomber/ground-support/recce aircraft. It's just a good kite.

The Typhoon is an OK kite. It just misses 'good' at it's assigned role.

You can spin about the F-35 all you want, they numbers from the Air Force and the British say that the F-35 is far far more expensive. Instead of sticking fingers in your ear yelling "WIKI NUMBERS" try actually looking at the original source material i provided

And i mentioned before that trying to throw the 'fear card' into the mix is does not make for justification for picking the F-35 over the Typhoon. In fact the British are using the Typhoon. You want tax-payers to shell out for an aircraft that is nearly three times the cost of the Typhoon of which the British already have and are a proven platform?

And in fact the British were prepared to tell the US to stuff it in case they US fails to turn over the source code for the F-35's )which we aren't getting either) for their new carriers. But since Canada is out of (rightfully so) the carrier business we dont need the F-35 which would form the basis of the Royal Navy's carrier fleet

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... c82402.htm



The F-35 is a bad investment both militarily, economically and especially with the sovereignty of our own national defence decisions and operations

[EyeBrock]

Well my fish-head chum, we shall have to agree to disagree.

[HyperionTheEvil]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well my fish-head chum, we shall have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough

[RUEZ]

In wikipedia it says Saudi Arabia purchased 72 Eurofighter Typhoon's for 9.5 billion. Canada plans to purchase 65 f-35's for 9 billion.

[EyeBrock]

Yea, the Saudis purchased Tranche-2 versions.

They now build Tranche-3. That's the GTI version with 18 inch rims and a fuck-off turbo.

And they only build the one model now, options are extra. Way extra.

[bootlegga]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, and instead of giving billions of dollars to Canadian banks (even though they didn't need or request it) in 2008, we could have done something for Arctic defence. Part of the 'stimulus package' could have gone to expanding a shipyard in Canada so that it could build ships for the navy, or we could have bought new Buffalo SAR planes from Viking Air in BC, or started construction on some icebreakers, or whatever. Prior to that, we had years of double digit billion dollar surpluses. The cash was there, just not the willingness on the part of our politicians.

You're right, Canada does not need to spend $500 billion a year on defence and run up massive deficits, but surely during the boom years, we could have spent more than we did. If you aren't embarrassed that little old Denmark has more Arctic capability than Canada (despite being far smaller in terms of economy, population and land mass - even including Greenland), then it's time to give your head a shake.

Actually no i'm not embarrassed about Denmark because the chance that we will be going to war with Denmark over the arctic is about zero. And you'll get no arguments from me that banks and other multi-national companies get away with bloody murder. But our economy is what it is and i refuse to give into the fear-mongering from some people about the Chinese (also know in right-wing circles as the godless-yellow-horde)or some other mystery enemy in some lame attempt to blowing our national budget

We definitely need new fighters that price-per-performance strongly Favours the Eurofighter , we do need new supply ships for the navy. As for the army i would reccomened not replacing their current armored tanks.

Who said anything about going to war with Denmark?

My comparison was strictly, look at what this much smaller, poorer and less populated nation can do in comparison to us. Denmark is so much smaller than us in just about every way measureable, yet they have a way to effectively patrol their Arctic territory and Canada doesn't. That was my point. That is embarrassing. It'd be like Chad out-producing us in wheat or Sri Lanka having a stronger economy than us.

I don't foresee a war starting over Arctic resources anytime soon, but if we even want a seat at the table when the discussion starts, we need to be able to patrol our Arctic 24/7/365, not just in the summer for a month or two, which what we can do right now.

As to your comments on the navy, we need new supply ships and destroyers, both are around 40 years old and need to be retired soon. Adn there's no point in replacing the Army's tanks, because they just bought new ones in 2008-09 from the Netherlands.

I honestly don't think the Chinese will be a threat in our lifetime, but even if they are, it will be another decade or two at least, so we have plenty of time to 'get ready for it' so to speak.

[HyperionTheEvil]

bootlegga bootlegga:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, and instead of giving billions of dollars to Canadian banks (even though they didn't need or request it) in 2008, we could have done something for Arctic defence. Part of the 'stimulus package' could have gone to expanding a shipyard in Canada so that it could build ships for the navy, or we could have bought new Buffalo SAR planes from Viking Air in BC, or started construction on some icebreakers, or whatever. Prior to that, we had years of double digit billion dollar surpluses. The cash was there, just not the willingness on the part of our politicians.

You're right, Canada does not need to spend $500 billion a year on defence and run up massive deficits, but surely during the boom years, we could have spent more than we did. If you aren't embarrassed that little old Denmark has more Arctic capability than Canada (despite being far smaller in terms of economy, population and land mass - even including Greenland), then it's time to give your head a shake.

Actually no i'm not embarrassed about Denmark because the chance that we will be going to war with Denmark over the arctic is about zero. And you'll get no arguments from me that banks and other multi-national companies get away with bloody murder. But our economy is what it is and i refuse to give into the fear-mongering from some people about the Chinese (also know in right-wing circles as the godless-yellow-horde)or some other mystery enemy in some lame attempt to blowing our national budget

We definitely need new fighters that price-per-performance strongly Favours the Eurofighter , we do need new supply ships for the navy. As for the army i would reccomened not replacing their current armored tanks.

Who said anything about going to war with Denmark?

My comparison was strictly, look at what this much smaller, poorer and less populated nation can do in comparison to us. Denmark is so much smaller than us in just about every way measureable, yet they have a way to effectively patrol their Arctic territory and Canada doesn't. That was my point. That is embarrassing. It'd be like Chad out-producing us in wheat or Sri Lanka having a stronger economy than us.

I don't foresee a war starting over Arctic resources anytime soon, but if we even want a seat at the table when the discussion starts, we need to be able to patrol our Arctic 24/7/365, not just in the summer for a month or two, which what we can do right now.

As to your comments on the navy, we need new supply ships and destroyers, both are around 40 years old and need to be retired soon. Adn there's no point in replacing the Army's tanks, because they just bought new ones in 2008-09 from the Netherlands.

I honestly don't think the Chinese will be a threat in our lifetime, but even if they are, it will be another decade or two at least, so we have plenty of time to 'get ready for it' so to speak.

I don't see what Denmark or any other Nation has to with our own Naval Standing Force.


I have no problem with Arctic Vessels but as i pointed out in another thread the Navy can't man the ships it has already, so there seems to be little point in building said ships if they're fated to be Out of Routine (That is permanently moored alongside) because of a lack of people. You can build as many ships as you want but unless they have the staffing, which the Navy doesn't ,all their going to do is become money pits into which we pour money into the harbors of Halifax and Esquimalt for non-operational vessels.

[bootlegga]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Who said anything about going to war with Denmark?

My comparison was strictly, look at what this much smaller, poorer and less populated nation can do in comparison to us. Denmark is so much smaller than us in just about every way measureable, yet they have a way to effectively patrol their Arctic territory and Canada doesn't. That was my point. That is embarrassing. It'd be like Chad out-producing us in wheat or Sri Lanka having a stronger economy than us.

I don't foresee a war starting over Arctic resources anytime soon, but if we even want a seat at the table when the discussion starts, we need to be able to patrol our Arctic 24/7/365, not just in the summer for a month or two, which what we can do right now.

As to your comments on the navy, we need new supply ships and destroyers, both are around 40 years old and need to be retired soon. Adn there's no point in replacing the Army's tanks, because they just bought new ones in 2008-09 from the Netherlands.

I honestly don't think the Chinese will be a threat in our lifetime, but even if they are, it will be another decade or two at least, so we have plenty of time to 'get ready for it' so to speak.

I don't see what Denmark or any other Nation has to with our own Naval Standing Force.

I have no problem with Arctic Vessels but as i pointed out in another thread the Navy can't man the ships it has already, so there seems to be little point in building said ships if they're fated to be Out of Routine (That is permanently moored alongside) because of a lack of people. You can build as many ships as you want but unless they have the staffing, which the Navy doesn't ,all their going to do is become money pits into which we pour money into the harbors of Halifax and Esquimalt for non-operational vessels.[/quote]

Ever hear of recruiting? The Army is making its goals nowadays, and if we actually bought new ships and gave the Navy some priority, maybe that would spur Navy recruiting.

[HyperionTheEvil]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Ever hear of recruiting? The Army is making its goals nowadays, and if we actually bought new ships and gave the Navy some priority, maybe that would spur Navy recruiting.

Ah, no.


It's not only a problem of recruiting, it's a problem of retention. The government spends quite a lot of money on training people in the CF. And some of those trades have a value in the free market, especially the trades which are suffering from shortages, engineers, Tech's of all kinds, hell even Mars officers can leave the CF and make up three times what they make by working in the civilian sector.


It's not having ridiculously expensive weapon systems or lack thereof that have people leave the CF. It's the lifestyle. Years away from home and family, constantly moving every few years dangerous or remote postings. Why do all that when they can do even better financially for their families without extra stress of the extra burdens of life within the CF