Canada Election 2015 - Page 68

MolsonExport · #**1341** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

Hoping for a wing & a prayer are ya?

Airplanes and Bibles? That's in the conservative bag.

Migs · #**1342** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

That doesn't make sense, the point of cancelling the F-35 is to buy something cheaper, not to buy nothing.

Cheaper & a 15 - 20 year old technology. Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc were all developed in the late nineties & it would be at least 4-5 years until we could receive our first jet. To keep up with all of our allies the F-35 is the only true option. Case in point the Aussies, the bought Super Hornets to bridge the gap between their Legacy hornets & the F-35.

MolsonExport · #**1343** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 5:28 PM**

A fool and his money are soon parted.

suburbia · #**1344** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

There is really nothing out there that can do the job and is a huge savings in cost.

I'm not meaning to provide a definitive and comprehensive response, but I do point out that recent information is that the F35 performs even worse on several metrics as compared to the old F16, or the old CF18 planes we currently have. The point of this is to highlight simplistic responses such as "there is really nothing out there that can do the job and is a huge savings in cost" at best need to be contextualized, and at worse, are blatantly false.

http://bgr.com/2015/07/01/f-35-f-16-fighter-dogfight-test/

Personally, when suppliers are screwing you over, sometimes it is better to move away even if there is not cost savings due to prior incompetence. Within reason, it because a question of principal.

Quote:

The news comes from a five-page brief that an F-35 pilot wrote after a war exercise against the F-16. The problem with the F-35 appears to be related to maneuverability, as the plane isn’t able to get the upper hand in combat against an older fighter.

More troubling is the fact that during this particular test, the F-35 should have been superior to the F-16 not only because of its more aerodynamic design but also because the old fighter was carrying extra fuel tanks. Still, the F-35 was not able to shoot down the F-16 or evade the attack, even though it should have been significantly nimbler than its opponent.
<>
You might think it can’t get any worse than that, but it does. Apparently the F-35’s cockpit is too cramped, which means the pilot can’t easily move his head with the helmet on to see what’s behind him.

The helmet size relative to the canopy not allowing the pilot to turn his/her head is inexcusable. Warrants a darwin award for for non-lethal stupidity (though it could result in something lethal).

caltrane74 · #**1345** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

Cheaper & a 15 - 20 year old technology. Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc were all developed in the late nineties & it would be at least 4-5 years until we could receive our first jet. To keep up with all of our allies the F-35 is the only true option. Case in point the Aussies, the bought Super Hornets to bridge the gap between their Legacy hornets & the F-35.

Why can't we buy Russian jets, they are cheaper and they are better than the American planes.

VANRIDERFAN · #**1346** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

I'm not meaning to provide a definitive and comprehensive response, but I do point out that recent information is that the F35 performs even worse on several metrics as compared to the old F16, or the old CF18 planes we currently have. The point of this is to highlight simplistic responses such as "there is really nothing out there that can do the job and is a huge savings in cost" at best need to be contextualized, and at worse, are blatantly false.

http://bgr.com/2015/07/01/f-35-f-16-fighter-dogfight-test/

Personally, when suppliers are screwing you over, sometimes it is better to move away even if there is not cost savings due to prior incompetence. Within reason, it because a question of principal.

Okay, I looked at your link and as soon as I saw the first line that said "The Army spent more than $1 trillion on the F-35 airplane program" I knew that this was a poorly researched fluff piece. The US Army is not involved in the F35 program, it is a USAF, USN and USMC initiative.

As for the cost of the F35 compared to the Super Hornet, Griffin, Eurofighter or Rafale, well after you take off fuel, infrastructre, maintenance, pilots and midlife upgrades and the industrial offsets the prices likely evenout pretty close.

O-tacular · #**1347** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't know how many of you have had a chance to listen to the most recent ICC LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture. Calgary's Mayor Naheed Nenshi delivered an exceptional speech about the Canada we want. While I thought it couldn't get any better, last evening's CBC Ideas podcast had snips of the lecture with comments from John R Saul, and then an interview with Nenshi. This is really a must listen item for anyone serious about participating the elections.

Tuesday September 29, 2015
Doing the Right Thing
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/doing-the-right-thing-1.3247353

Wow. That actually had me misty eyed a couple times, particularly on the parts about the 2013 flood and the refugees at Connaught school at the end. For everyone going on and on about this niqab issue I implore you to listen to this. Do it while you drive or whenever you have time. It's worth it.

Why can't you contribute more of this kind of positive stuff in the Calgary forum suburbia?

jmt18325 · #**1348** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

they are better than the American planes.

Since...never.

caltrane74 · #**1349** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Since...never.

• Video Link

Elmira Guy · #**1350** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Why can't we buy Russian jets, they are cheaper and they are better than the American planes.

While it's true that the Russians have somewhat reduced the technological gap with regards to western designed aircraft, they are not yet on par. Though their Sukhoi PAK FA currently under development MAY outperform the F-35.

Regardless though, why would we buy aircraft from a country with whom we still have some degree of animosity? What if they deny us access to parts? Also, none of our/NATO-standard missiles would operate with their aircraft.

Sorry, but it's not only an infeasible idea, it's a bad one.

Migs · #**1351** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Why can't we buy Russian jets, they are cheaper and they are better than the American planes.

Better? No way. Look at the newest Russian Sleath fighters, the T-50 is a ripoff of the F-22. Look at the older American F-15. It has a 104-0 dogfight record, mostly against Russian designed airplanes. If you want the best fighter jets, always go American.

Migs · #**1352** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

• Video Link

Russian pilots saying their planes are better? Cmon you gotta find a better source than that.

F-15 Eagle has a 104-0 record in real wartime combat. There is no debate.

SignalHillHiker · #**1353** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 9:42 PM**

CBC's riding debate for my riding is tonight. Where NDP incumbent Jack Harris is expected to get 75% of the vote.

Why bother?

Anyhow, no Conservative. CBC notes:

Quote:

Conservative candidate Deanne Stapleton was invited to attend, but declined.

NDP Jack Harris, Liberal Nick Whalen, Communist Sean Burton, Green David Peters.

I'm going to watch just to see what the Communist says.

JHikka · #**1354** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I'm going to watch just to see what the Communist says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Communist Party of Canada

The truth is that with rational planning and a commitment to environmental sustainability, we could do so much better. People need good jobs, a livable salary, affordable housing, cheap and efficient public transportation, free and equal access to all levels of education, and comprehensive healthcare. Achieving those things is well within the capacity of this country by cutting military spending, nationalizing our energy sector, and making corporations pay.”

http://communist-party.ca/seanburton

Sounds like a party that would do well if only this forum was voting.

CanSpice · #**1355** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

CBC's riding debate for my riding is tonight. Where NDP incumbent Jack Harris is expected to get 75% of the vote.

Why bother?

Anyhow, no Conservative.

Ha, I just finished writing a post about our invisible Conservative candidate.

I'd love to see a Conservative supporter try to defend the invisibility policy. We're electing these people to represent us in the House of Commons and they can't even be arsed to show up in front of 50 of their constituents? 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that.

JHikka · #**1356** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I'd love to see a Conservative supporter try to defend the invisibility policy. We're electing these people to represent us in the House of Commons and they can't even be arsed to show up in front of 50 of their constituents? 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that.

But you're not electing them, at least not in Newfoundland. It's a chicken and egg scenario...are they not getting elected because they don't show up or do they not show up because they aren't getting elected?

Elmira Guy · #**1357** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migs

Better? No way. Look at the newest Russian Sleath fighters, the T-50 is a ripoff of the F-22. Look at the older American F-15. It has a 104-0 dogfight record, mostly against Russian designed airplanes. If you want the best fighter jets, always go American.

I agree with this, but pilot training was also a big factor in the success rate of the F-15 in your example. I don't think any (if so, very, very few) of the Russian aircraft involved in those engagements were piloted by Russian/Soviet pilots. Not disputing what you've said, but think it warranted mentioning.

CanSpice · #**1358** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

But you're not electing them, at least not in Newfoundland. It's a chicken and egg scenario...are they not getting elected because they don't show up or do they not show up because they aren't getting elected?

You're not electing the Communist either, but he shows up.

Migs · #**1359** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmira Guy

I agree with this, but pilot training was also a big factor in the success rate of the F-15 in your example. I don't think any (if so, very, very few) of the Russian aircraft involved in those engagements were piloted by Russian/Soviet pilots. Not disputing what you've said, but think it warranted mentioning.

That's a good point & it is worth mentioning, western pilots are by far the most skillfully trained.

Another important point that needs to be made. US builds F-15's, Russians come out with identical SU-27. Americans build F-18, Russians come out with identical Mig-29. Americans build F-22, Russians come out with identical T-50. Americans come out with F-35, the Chinese come out with the identical J-31. There is no debate, Americans build by far the best warplanes, adversaries are always a step behind.

JHikka · #**1360** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You're not electing the Communist either, but he shows up.

It's his personal choice as a candidate whether to show up or not. He feels that showing up will do his campaign well, whereas the Conservative does not. End of story. Candidates don't have any responsibility or requirement to show up, they're not technically representing you as a candidate; only seeking to do so as an elected official.