So we're having an election or something

[Demonblade]

Have any of you tried out the CBC Vote Compass? Thoughts on it? I found it a little simplistic, but I like the idea. It kind of cuts through the rhetoric and gives you a vague idea of where the paries lie in relation to the issues you find important.

I took the test and was not in the least surprised that my economic stance is as far left as the Green Party, but I am only slightly less socially liberal than the actual Liberal party. There's still no way that I am voting Green in this election, but I now live in a riding which is firmly Conservative, so it really doesn't matter which way I vote. :(

[TrueMetis]

Are there any numbers for that? And in time the same fate will happen to the F-35s, so all in all I fail to see how this is a point in their favor.

It's only happening because we should have replaced the F-18's ten years ago. Upgrades or not airframes aren't supposed to last this long.

As for number's theoretically we have 80 planes that could be used in combat, the rest being for training or reserve. We managed to send all of 7 planes to Libya to help out. Draw your conclusion from that. It's like the Seaking helicopter they've become so old the amount of maintenance they need is ridiculous.

Where is that mentioned? And if LM really did give that price, then our DoD really was deliberately lying when it publicly announced that the F-35s would cost only about $17 billions.

The original price LM gave was about 50 million a plane.

In 2001, when the development began, the F-35 procurement cost had been projected to be $50.2 million per aircraft in base-year 2002 dollars.

My link

So it actually would have won a competitive bid process.

Since you claim that unmanned drones will soon replace fighters, why spend so much money on F-35s in the first place? Why do we absolutely need our new, soon-to-be-replaced fighters to be fifth generation bleeding cutting edge? We're not likely to be going up against the US or Europe anytime soon, are we? Instead of the ultra-expensive F-35, we could buy a stopgap, proven fourth generation multirole fighter like the F-16 until the first fighter-equivalent drones become operational, and then spend big money on those.

Unmanned drones as the main stay in the air force is still 20-30 years off. China, and Russia are developing planes that can compete with F-35 and they are exporting them without any real regard to whose hand they end up in. These planes would absolutely destroy the 30 year old F-16 which is a worse plane that what we are flying right now. It's also not a true Mutlirole aircraft like the F-35 but a day fighter that was turned into one.

According to the F-16's Wikipedia page, improved versions of it are still being produced for export customers, and it costs only about $19 millions a pop, so we could buy about eight Falcons for the price of a single F-35. True, the additional costs for maintenance and armament would probably mean fewer than eight Falcons for every one F-35, but even so for $30 billions we could certainly afford several Falcons, added costs and all, for every F-35 we currently intend to buy. Or, better yet, we buy, say, just 130 Falcons, and then we wait for the first fighter drones.

Cool how we'll have lot's of cheap shitty planes, worked for countries like Russia in that past right? Well actually we won't even have that, we'll have a few shitty planes.

[Insert Edit]

Talk radio here in Alberta is talking up the 'blue' wave sweeping Toronto and Ontario provincially. And if that pattern moves over to the federal side, Harper could even get his majority.

Ontarians?

Alberta will vote conservative in droves, just like it always does. So I'll be pissing away my vote, just like I always do. :)

[kairparavel]

Have any of you tried out the CBC Vote Compass? Thoughts on it? I found it a little simplistic, but I like the idea. It kind of cuts through the rhetoric and gives you a vague idea of where the parties lie in relation to the issues you find important.

I took it just for fun though I haven't been resident in my riding (or Canada) for over eight years.

No surprise to anyone who knows me, I am furthest away from the Harperites and closest to the Liberals.

Talk radio here in Alberta is talking up the 'blue' wave sweeping Toronto and Ontario provincially. And if that pattern moves over to the federal side, Harper could even get his majority.

Ontarians?

Alberta will vote conservative in droves, just like it always does. So I'll be pissing away my vote, just like I always do. :)

Toronto? Harper? Bueller?

I understood the Ontario backlash post-sponsorship scandal, but really, I can't see the province going blue across the board.

Could I vote, I'd vote Liberal.

Whatever happened to the good old days when the thing was set once the polls closed in Ontario, and we could all go to bed knowing a Liberal was in charge as things were closing up out west? <sigh>

[Nas!]

I scored a little left of the Green Party on both axes, but, as usual, they will get my vote (even despite Ignatieff imploring me not to throw away my vote). I always vote for the party with which I am most closely aligned politically, in case God is watching me in the voting booth. I suspect the big winner this time around will be the Voter Apathy Party, and that they will form a strong majority, as usual.

[Noroldis]

As for number's theoretically we have 80 planes that could be used in combat, the rest being for training or reserve. We managed to send all of 7 planes to Libya to help out. Draw your conclusion from that. It's like the Seaking helicopter they've become so old the amount of maintenance they need is ridiculous.

My conclusion is that if we theoretically have 80 planes that can be used in combat and only managed to send 7 (I thought it was 6?) of them to be part of the coalition, then having only 65 planes total means that there will come a time when we won't be able to send even 7 of them on foreign expeditions.

The original price LM gave was about 50 million a plane.

[…]

So it actually would have won a competitive bid process.

It would have won a competitive bid process then, I agree. However, in light of the fact that the F-35 will apparently cost over 150 million a plane now, we really should have taken a long, hard look at whether we need fighters that expensive, and if there might not be viable as well as cheaper alternatives, before we shackled ourselves to the F-35.

China, and Russia are developing planes that can compete with F-35 and they are exporting them without any real regard to whose hand they end up in. These planes would absolutely destroy the 30 year old F-16 which is a worse plane that what we are flying right now. It's also not a true Mutlirole aircraft like the F-35 but a day fighter that was turned into one.

[…]

Cool how we'll have lot's of cheap shitty planes, worked for countries like Russia in that past right? Well actually we won't even have that, we'll have a few shitty planes.

Concerning Russia, first you state that it's developing a plane that can compete with the F-35 and 'absolutely destroy the F-16,' and then you point out that Russia has a historical preference for quantity over quality resulting in 'lots of cheap shitty planes.' This looks like a contradiction to me. Besides, how do we know that the planes the Russians and the Chinese are developing will actually be able to compete with the F-35? It would hardly be the first time a fighter failed to meet its design goals. And how long will it be before those Russian and Chinese planes enter mass production and service, anyway?

Also, I can't help but remember that all militaries are fond of overemphasizing the threat posed by a potential foe's hardware so as to justify pouring lots and lots of their country's tax dollars into their own hardware. Additionally, what are the chances we'll get pulled into a fight with the Chinese, or the Russians, or whoever buys those planes you say they're developing, without the US and/or the rest of NATO to back us up?

Finally, how is the latest export version of the F-16 worse than the F-18s we're using now? But if you find the Falcon so objectionable, then maybe we could have considered the French Rafale instead? That one is still about 60 million less expensive than the F-35, and a genuine multirole fighter as well.

[Shryke]

Toronto? Harper? Bueller?

I understood the Ontario backlash post-sponsorship scandal, but really, I can't see the province going blue across the board.

Could I vote, I'd vote Liberal.

Whatever happened to the good old days when the thing was set once the polls closed in Ontario, and we could all go to bed knowing a Liberal was in charge as things were closing up out west? <sigh>

I this point I have no respect for any Ontarian that votes Conservative, considering they've spent the last like 4 years talking shit about the province and saying how no one should ever invest here cause we are terrible.

[Insert Edit]

Toronto? Harper? Bueller?

I understood the Ontario backlash post-sponsorship scandal, but really, I can't see the province going blue across the board.

Could I vote, I'd vote Liberal.

Whatever happened to the good old days when the thing was set once the polls closed in Ontario, and we could all go to bed knowing a Liberal was in charge as things were closing up out west? <sigh>

I should have included some more details. And in Toronto, they were crowing specifically about the election of the mayor, Rob Ford, who ran on a conservative agenda. And how (according to them) that Ontario outside of Liberal strongholds was definitely tinging blue.

Anyway, if Harper could steal some seats in Ontario, and continue his strong showing in the west, he could see a majority.

My take? We're going to see another minority government.

[Lord of Oop North]

I should have included some more details. And in Toronto, they were crowing specifically about the election of the mayor, Rob Ford, who ran on a conservative agenda. And how (according to them) that Ontario outside of Liberal strongholds was definitely tinging blue.

Anyway, if Harper could steal some seats in Ontario, and continue his strong showing in the west, he could see a majority.

My take? We're going to see another minority government.

I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate from the election of Rob Ford.

People were pissed off, and Ford capitalized by running on a populist campaign. He's a douchebag, to be sure, but he told the people what they wanted to hear, and they gave in. Simple as that.

I'd be really surprised if Ontario went blue. I don't think the same level of rage exists among Ontarios against the federal government, as there was rage among outer-torontonians against the city council.

[Aemon Stark]

Yeah, Rob Ford is irrelevant (and an asshole, but we can talk about him in another thread), or at least not especially important. It's not as David Miller's two decisive victories paved the way for an NDP breakthrough in Ontario.

[Shryke]

There's actually been talk that backlash against him could hurt the Conservatives.

[Lord of Oop North]

Good ol' Tommy Boy! Did he just chunk his pants?

[kairparavel]

Yeah, Rob Ford is irrelevant (and an asshole, but we can talk about him in another thread), or at least not especially important. It's not as David Miller's two decisive victories paved the way for an NDP breakthrough in Ontario.

We will never forget Bob Rae.

I was young and in my first year of college.

I thought I knew it all.

I didn't know anything.

[TrueMetis]

My conclusion is that if we theoretically have 80 planes that can be used in combat and only managed to send 7 (I thought it was 6?) of them to be part of the coalition, then having only 65 planes total means that there will come a time when we won't be able to send even 7 of them on foreign expeditions.

With planes that don't require tons of maintenance theoretically those 65 planes could fly more often than the 130 or so we have now.

It would have won a competitive bid process then, I agree. However, in light of the fact that the F-35 will apparently cost over 150 million a plane now, we really should have taken a long, hard look at whether we need fighters that expensive, and if there might not be viable as well as cheaper alternatives, before we shackled ourselves to the F-35.

112 million for the F-35A varient the one we are buying (With some modification to make it better suited to Canadian operations), the F-35C variant is the one that costs 150 million. Only the US is allowed to buy that one.

You seem to need to take a long hard look at what you actually know about the plane we are buying.

Concerning Russia, first you state that it's developing a plane that can compete with the F-35 and 'absolutely destroy the F-16,' and then you point out that Russia has a historical preference for quantity over quality resulting in 'lots of cheap shitty planes.' This looks like a contradiction to me. Besides, how do we know that the planes the Russians and the Chinese are developing will actually be able to compete with the F-35? It would hardly be the first time a fighter failed to meet its design goals. And how long will it be before those Russian and Chinese planes enter mass production and service, anyway?

What countries aren't allowed to change tactics? Or they can't do both at the same time? Russia has done quantity over quality but every so often they come up with a high quality product. The Tanks they are building prove that. So what's the contradiction? Anyway planes like the Sukhoi PAK FA are being designed specifically to compete with the F-35. They will be entering service around the same time.

Also, I can't help but remember that all militaries are fond of overemphasizing the threat posed by a potential foe's hardware so as to justify pouring lots and lots of their country's tax dollars into their own hardware. Additionally, what are the chances we'll get pulled into a fight with the Chinese, or the Russians, or whoever buys those planes you say they're developing, without the US and/or the rest of NATO to back us up?

I have a hard time accepting that the Canadian military would do that considering they've been constantly fucked over on the budget so they probably wouldn't risk that because it would result in their budget being slashed again if it was found out. As for threat Russia is constantly buzzing our Artic airspace, how's that for a threat? And yes NATO will back us up but we've still got to, you know, help. NATO is a two way street and we've rarely been puling out weight recently.

Finally, how is the latest export version of the F-16 worse than the F-18s we're using now? But if you find the Falcon so objectionable, then maybe we could have considered the French Rafale instead? That one is still about 60 million less expensive than the F-35, and a genuine multirole fighter as well.

The airframe is still the same even in the upgraded F-16's or it wouldn't be an F-16. No matter how many upgrades you add you will never get over the airframs limitations.

As for the Rafale, it's not a stealth aircraft and that's a huge problem. Like it is with the Eurofighter.

[Nas!]

My heart is an F-35--

stealthy and expensive

it bombs infidels

with love.

[Lord of Oop North]

I'm fairly certain that the majority of Canadians don't give a shit about having F-35s, and likely don't see it as all that necessary. All your talk of tactics and shit is irrelevant. Owning a bunch of super-expensive jets to ward ruskies out of the arctic is probably not a very efficient use of taxpayers' dollars, and that money could be better spent elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that Harper awarded a no-bid contract, and that should definitely be discouraged, because deals like that are ripe for corruption.

[TrueMetis]

I'm fairly certain that the majority of Canadians don't give a shit about having F-35s, and likely don't see it as all that necessary. All your talk of tactics and shit is irrelevant. Owning a bunch of super-expensive jets to ward ruskies out of the arctic is probably not a very efficient use of taxpayers' dollars, and that money could be better spent elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that Harper awarded a no-bid contract, and that should definitely be discouraged, because deals like that are ripe for corruption.

The vast majority of Canadians don't give a shit about most of the things that happen in Canada. The fact is the Canadian Armed Forces need new planes, and that's going to happen no matter what. Anyway AFAIK all the money to pay for the F-35's is coming from the Military budget anyway.

[Lord of Oop North]

And that's fine. But I just think that you should probably be more concerned about the process that was used to acquire those planes, and a little less aroused by the specifications of the aircraft.

[TrueMetis]

And that's fine. But I just think that you should probably be more concerned about the process that was used to acquire those planes, and a little less aroused by the specifications of the aircraft.

The two planes that are options have a 20 million dollar difference in price so I'm not to worried about needing a competitive bid.

Of course at this point neither the Eurofighter nor F-35 have prices that are totally locked in so who knows what will happen.

[Salome the Persian Witch]

Harper has actually had lunch with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes at least once, so Harper can't be ignorant of Fox News or its modus operandi. I'm sure he would love Canadians to be as gullible as Fox News' target audience.

Great Link Nord! (And here I was talking to Trisky with preconceived notions about how interested someone in the U.S. would actually be in wanting the minutia!) :thumbsup: