So we're having an election or something

[Salome the Persian Witch]

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

Some of our urban centres vote red... just not my riding. :crying:

And a frickin' "He didn't come back for you" commercial just came on (after several other nasty ones in a row). I'm pretty darn pissed off that Harper's bringing that shit to our airwaves. AGAIN! :tantrum:

[Noroldis]

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.

How do we know that the F-35s will require less maintenance than the F-18s? The F-35 is full of new technologies, which helps explain why its price has ballooned so much. Isn't it an acknowledged trend that the more sophisticated and complex a plane is, the more in hours and money it costs to maintain?

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.

I'm looking at the F-35's Wikipedia page right now, and the unit cost for the F-35A is stated to be 144,7 million per unit as the sale cost for delivery (presumably to the US Air Force) in 2015. So what's your source for the 112 million? And what will be the cost of those modifications you mention, I wonder? Also, if the price for our variant is indeed 112 million instead of 144,7, then doesn't that mean that despite the colossal 30 billion we'll be blowing on those birds, we won't actually be getting all the bells and whistles?

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

I know that 112 million is still over twice the cost of the initial bid you mentioned, which should raise questions for people concerned about their tax dollars. I also know that 112 million, which unless I'm wrong means we'll be getting a "low-tech" variant, is a little over 20 million costlier than the Rafale's most expensive version.

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.

What new tanks are those? The last I'd heard of new Russian tanks was that the T-95 had been abandoned.

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.

Again, how do we know the PAK FA will actually be able to compete with the F-35? Just because the Russians say it will? Oh, and 2015 is the year the PAK FA is planned to enter service. Given the deteriorated state of Russia's military industries since the fall of the USSR, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual date turned out to be a number of years later.

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.

How is it a certainty that our military's budget would be slashed? They could simply claim that their threats estimates were based on what they honestly believed to be genuine and valid information. You know, the same excuse Bush used when the WMDs weren't found in Irak and which didn't result in slashes to the US military budget. As you pointed out, the vast majority of Canadians don't give a shit about most of the things that happen in Canada, so I can't imagine there would be public outcry demanding budget cuts for the military.

As for threat Russia is constantly buzzing our Artic airspace, how's that for a threat?

I call that saber-rattling and posturing on the Russians' part, and in no way a valid reason to be spending so much money on the F-35.

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.

Rarely pulling our weight recently? What do you call 155 of our soldiers dying in Afghanistan and all the money and resources we've poured into that debacle, which is a NATO-supported operation? And if the Russians ever start getting serious about fighting us, do you really think the US at least won't back us up, if only out of national security reasons?

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

So to you stealth capability is an absolute must, even though we don't know whether the PAK FA will actually/fully live up to its design goal of being stealthy?

[Noroldis]

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:

Thanks, SSW. This and the Conservatives' many (mis)deeds have me made me view them more and more as the Canadian version of the Republican party. *shudder*

[Insert Edit]

Some of our urban centres vote red... just not my riding. :crying:

And a frickin' "He didn't come back for you" commercial just came on (after several other nasty ones in a row). I'm pretty darn pissed off that Harper's bringing that shit to our airwaves. AGAIN! :tantrum:

It works. So we'll be seeing more and more of it. Sadly.

--

One of the few times I DIDN'T vote for a non-winner in Alberta was voting for Sheldon Chumir provincially. Edmonton does put some Libs or ND's into play though.

[Insert Edit]

Thanks, SSW. This and the Conservatives' many (mis)deeds have me made me view them more and more as the Canadian version of the Republican party. *shudder*

I had a poli sci prof a long time ago, who said that an American democrat is more right than a Canadian conservative. I tend to agree.

[TrueMetis]

How do we know that the F-35s will require less maintenance than the F-18s? The F-35 is full of new technologies, which helps explain why its price has ballooned so much. Isn't it an acknowledged trend that the more sophisticated and complex a plane is, the more in hours and money it costs to maintain?

Because it's a new airframe a new airframe will always be easier to maintain than an old one. This is where most of the maintenance on a plane comes from, not the radar or the weaponry or even the engine because they can be taken out a replaced if need be. The airframe cannot.

I'm looking at the F-35's Wikipedia page right now, and the unit cost for the F-35A is stated to be 144,7 million per unit as the sale cost for delivery (presumably to the US Air Force) in 2015. So what's your source for the 112 million? And what will be the cost of those modifications you mention, I wonder? Also, if the price for our variant is indeed 112 million instead of 144,7, then doesn't that mean that despite the colossal 30 billion we'll be blowing on those birds, we won't actually be getting all the bells and whistles?

My mistake the current cost will be about 138.5 million a plane. My link The modifications consist of a drag chute and a refuelling probe. And the "bells and whistles" you mention are modifications to allow STOVL or to become carrier based neither of which Canada has any use for.

I know that 112 million is still over twice the cost of the initial bid you mentioned, which should raise questions for people concerned about their tax dollars. I also know that 112 million, which unless I'm wrong means we'll be getting a "low-tech" variant, is a little over 20 million costlier than the Rafale's most expensive version.

"low tech" compared to what? It's still got all the important parts which is why we are getting it. In any event the cost for pretty much all planes fluctuates wildly in the development stage. The price won't really be locked in until production begins. We also haven't signed an actual contract yet.

What new tanks are those? The last I'd heard of new Russian tanks was that the T-95 had been abandoned.

To bad that was the one I was thinking about.

Again, how do we know the PAK FA will actually be able to compete with the F-35? Just because the Russians say it will? Oh, and 2015 is the year the PAK FA is planned to enter service. Given the deteriorated state of Russia's military industries since the fall of the USSR, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual date turned out to be a number of years later.

We don't for sure, but if it can't that's even better.

How is it a certainty that our military's budget would be slashed? They could simply claim that their threats estimates were based on what they honestly believed to be genuine and valid information. You know, the same excuse Bush used when the WMDs weren't found in Irak and which didn't result in slashes to the US military budget. As you pointed out, the vast majority of Canadians don't give a shit about most of the things that happen in Canada, so I can't imagine there would be public outcry demanding budget cuts for the military.

The US and Canada are entirely different when it comes to military budgets. Just look at the Canadian military budget in the past, it's only recently that's it has gotten to a decent level. If the Canadian military screws up on budgetary thing the liberals will want it slashed. Like they always do.

I call that saber-rattling and posturing on the Russians' part, and in no way a valid reason to be spending so much money on the F-35.

I disagree because if we are shown not to have a presence in the north we could lose our claim to a lot of potential resources.

Rarely pulling our weight recently? What do you call 155 of our soldiers dying in Afghanistan and all the money and resources we've poured into that debacle, which is a NATO-supported operation? And if the Russians ever start getting serious about fighting us, do you really think the US at least won't back us up, if only out of national security reasons?

A fucking joke is what I call it, as I remember when we entered Afghanistan having to bum rides off other countries, of having no decent armour until we got the Leopard 2 tanks, of still not having enough helicopters. Most of those deaths were preventable and only happened because of budget cuts that left our military lacking, or using outdated, equipment.

So to you stealth capability is an absolute must, even though we don't know whether the PAK FA will actually/fully live up to its design goal of being stealthy?

Who cares if the PAK FA is? We aren't buying it. The F-35 on the other hand has a radar signature the size of a golf ball. Which is incredibly important in any mission a jet fighter may take. Like say the bombing runs ur CF-18 are participating in.

[Monday]

The propaganda has really nauseated me these last couple eletions. The conservatives especially seem to be of the mind that if they keep repeating their messages ( :bs: ) often enough and with enough feigned righteous indignation that people will just accept it as fact. Has the rhetoric and propaganda always been this bad here in Canada or was I just not paying enough attention before?

[Shryke]

I'd say the Conservatives have been notably worse then what I've seen over the past 10-20 years.

[Nas!]

On a related note: Elizabeth May has been excluded from the leader's debate again. Thoughts?

[kairparavel]

On a related note: Elizabeth May has been excluded from the leader's debate again. Thoughts?

Marco Dubé, a spokesman for the broadcast consortium that hosts the debates, confirmed the group decided unanimously that a formal proposal will only be made to the leaders of recognized parties in the House of Commons — Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois.

"The representation of parties in the House was one important factor, but we're not going to give more information on the other criteria," Dubé said.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ns-debates.html

I don't know. On the one hand, they are an official party and people do vote for them, but on the other hand, she honestly poses no threat for PM. Of course neither do Duceppe or Layton. So while debate is just that, and not a televised vote, they might as well just invite Harper and Iggy into a pit of Jello and see how it all ends.

[TrueMetis]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ns-debates.html

I don't know. On the one hand, they are an official party and people do vote for them, but on the other hand, she honestly poses no threat for PM. Of course neither do Duceppe or Layton. So while debate is just that, and not a televised vote, they might as well just invite Harper and Iggy into a pit of Jello and see how it all ends.

It would probably be a more effective way of doing it than what we got now. Shit we could charge money and make some on the election for a change.

[Monday]

On a related note: Elizabeth May has been excluded from the leader's debate again. Thoughts?

It's disappointing. I enjoyed hearing her speak at the round table discussions last election. The Greens have a lot of great ideas and I find Elizabeth May a real breath of fresh air.

[Noroldis]

Because it's a new airframe a new airframe will always be easier to maintain than an old one. This is where most of the maintenance on a plane comes from, not the radar or the weaponry or even the engine because they can be taken out a replaced if need be. The airframe cannot.

I concede on this point, then. However, I also keep in mind that sooner or later, the F-35s' airframes will also start deteriorating and require more maintenance, and since we'll have less than half the initial number of F-18s we started with, it means we'll be able to keep even fewer birds in the air.

My mistake the current cost will be about 138.5 million a plane. My link The modifications consist of a drag chute and a refuelling probe. And the "bells and whistles" you mention are modifications to allow STOVL or to become carrier based neither of which Canada has any use for.

138.5 million? Yeowch. The Rafale's 90 million is looking more and more attractive. Oh, and I thought that the A variant of the F-35 we intend to buy is the basic, conventional takeoff and landing one, with the F-35B being the one with STOVL and the F-35C being the carrier-based one. No need for modifications then (and thank God, considering its basic price).

In any event the cost for pretty much all planes fluctuates wildly in the development stage. The price won't really be locked in until production begins. We also haven't signed an actual contract yet.

Looks to me like the price of the F-35 has gone only one way throughout its development, and that's upward. So if it changes yet again until production begins, then IMO it's a fair bet that the F-35 will be even more expensive than it is currently projected. This doesn't reassure me in the least.

The US and Canada are entirely different when it comes to military budgets. Just look at the Canadian military budget in the past, it's only recently that's it has gotten to a decent level. If the Canadian military screws up on budgetary thing the liberals will want it slashed. Like they always do.

The military has already screwed up majorly concerning the F-35's cost. If the Liberals would like us to look at possible alternatives like the Rafale before irreversibly committing to the F-35, I'm all for it. But even if the Libs want to use this particular incident to slash the military's budget, they certainly won't be able to do it after this election, when everyone is asking not if the Conservatives will lose power, but if Harper will finally get the majority he so wants.

I disagree because if we are shown not to have a presence in the north we could lose our claim to a lot of potential resources.

We would have a presence with the Rafale as well. But even with the F-35, IMO we'll be no match for the Russians if they decide to seriously press their territorial claims against us. Even in its current decrepit state, their navy is still a lot larger and more powerful than ours.

A fucking joke is what I call it, as I remember when we entered Afghanistan having to bum rides off other countries, of having no decent armour until we got the Leopard 2 tanks, of still not having enough helicopters. Most of those deaths were preventable and only happened because of budget cuts that left our military lacking, or using outdated, equipment.

I fail to see how this proves we're not pulling our weight regarding NATO. Yeah, we went in with subpar and/or too little equipment, but we've been in Afghanistan since early 2002 as part of a NATO-sanctioned operation (when our commitment was supposed to end in 2003). We are an actively participating member of NATO, even if we don't have the same military resources as larger countries (in terms of population and wealth) like the UK, France, Germany and the US.

Who cares if the PAK FA is? We aren't buying it. The F-35 on the other hand has a radar signature the size of a golf ball. Which is incredibly important in any mission a jet fighter may take. Like say the bombing runs ur CF-18 are participating in.

You're the one who pointed out earlier that the PAK FA was being designed to compete with the F-35, so after looking at the PAK FA's projected features I assumed you wanted the F-35 at least in part because its eventual Russian counterpart might also have stealth capability. My mistake. But 138.5 million per plane just so we can play hide-and-seek with the Russians in the north or occasionally drop bombs on dictators' thugs seems quite expensive when we could do the same with the Rafale at 90 million. Considering the price difference and our colossal national deficit, I'd rather go with the Rafale, even if it means putting our pilots at somewhat more risk during those rare live fire situations.

[Ser Reptitious]

Wow, sure didn't take the Conservatives long to become embroiled in yet another scandal!

From the article:

In 2009, Togneri, parliamentary affairs director for Christian Paradis, then minister of public works, allegedly blocked access-to-information requests. The federal information commissioner investigated the case, and the matter was referred to the RCMP. It was a big story, linked to the Bev Oda scandal, the in-and-out election fraud charges, the Bruce Carson illegal lobbying allegations and, finally, that pesky "contempt of Parliament" that brought the government down last week.

You would think the Conservatives would be extra-careful, especially in a riding that's too close to call, the only riding in Alberta held by the opposition.

Togneri was spotted Monday night in Beaumont, as Hastman triumphantly introduced his former boss -Stephen Harper. It turns out, Togneri was working on the Hastman campaign. By Monday morning, Hastman's triumph had been replaced by a PR disaster.

Linda Duncan's reaction is spot-on:

"The funny thing, to me, is that people are surprised," said NDP MP Linda Duncan, the target of all this Conservative attention. "We don't hear much about what's going on in Ottawa (in Edmonton), but for me to hear another person under an RCMP investigation is involved in the Conservative campaign? My response is: whatever.

"Togneri is part of the whole scandal that brought the government down. He's the latest in a long line. It's part of the lack of ethics in that party. They're reneging on the whole reason they said they had to bring down the Liberal government: transparency and ethics."

ETA: It'll be interesting to see whether this will get some national attention and if so whether this will turn the focus of the campaign back to ethics. I sure hope so, because if average voters start paying attention on that front, the Conservatives are dead in the water.

[Salome the Persian Witch]

ETA: It'll be interesting to see whether this will get some national attention and if so whether this will turn the focus of the campaign back to ethics. I sure hope so, because if average voters start paying attention on that front, the Conservatives are dead in the water.

We can only hope.

Oh, and this http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/income-splitting-wont-help-families-in-need/article1960063/

And a fun one for me: http://abortionmonologues.blogspot.com/2011/03/women-go-find-another-guy-harper-is-no.html

[TrueMetis]

I concede on this point, then. However, I also keep in mind that sooner or later, the F-35s' airframes will also start deteriorating and require more maintenance, and since we'll have less than half the initial number of F-18s we started with, it means we'll be able to keep even fewer birds in the air.

I expect us to replace them before they get as bad as the F-18's but considering our history on that point you may be right.

138.5 million? Yeowch. The Rafale's 90 million is looking more and more attractive. Oh, and I thought that the A variant of the F-35 we intend to buy is the basic, conventional takeoff and landing one, with the F-35B being the one with STOVL and the F-35C being the carrier-based one. No need for modifications then (and thank God, considering its basic price).

The modifications are so they can land at the bases up north which have smaller runways and so they can be refuelled in air. Both are a must in any plane we buy and neither come standard in any of the planes we are buying IIRC.

Looks to me like the price of the F-35 has gone only one way throughout its development, and that's upward. So if it changes yet again until production begins, then IMO it's a fair bet that the F-35 will be even more expensive than it is currently projected. This doesn't reassure me in the least.

Well generally prices go down when production begins so I expect the same here.

The military has already screwed up majorly concerning the F-35's cost. If the Liberals would like us to look at possible alternatives like the Rafale before irreversibly committing to the F-35, I'm all for it. But even if the Libs want to use this particular incident to slash the military's budget, they certainly won't be able to do it after this election, when everyone is asking not if the Conservatives will lose power, but if Harper will finally get the majority he so wants.

Good point, though I wouldn't say the military screwed up when they were given the costs by LM. So either LM was wrong or they lied. I don't see the screw up being on the militaries part.

We would have a presence with the Rafale as well. But even with the F-35, IMO we'll be no match for the Russians if they decide to seriously press their territorial claims against us. Even in its current decrepit state, their navy is still a lot larger and more powerful than ours.

Well our Navy is going through a long refit and we are getting some icebreaker IIRC specifically for that reason. It probably wouldn't be enough if Russia launches a full scale invasion but most of Russia fleet can't handle the Artic.

I fail to see how this proves we're not pulling our weight regarding NATO. Yeah, we went in with subpar and/or too little equipment, but we've been in Afghanistan since early 2002 as part of a NATO-sanctioned operation (when our commitment was supposed to end in 2003). We are an actively participating member of NATO, even if we don't have the same military resources as larger countries (in terms of population and wealth) like the UK, France, Germany and the US.

Yes and we are doing a lot better but for most of that time the military resources as a percentage we've had were smaller (% GDP). And even now that the military budget is at a good amount we have to spend a lot to modernize. I'm not saying we aren't doing well in Afghanistan but we should be doing a lot better. Though perhaps I shouldn't have said we aren't pulling our weight, Canada has always punched above our weight, the problem is we are usually put in a lower weight class than we should be.

You're the one who pointed out earlier that the PAK FA was being designed to compete with the F-35, so after looking at the PAK FA's projected features I assumed you wanted the F-35 at least in part because its eventual Russian counterpart might also have stealth capability. My mistake. But 138.5 million per plane just so we can play hide-and-seek with the Russians in the north or occasionally drop bombs on dictators' thugs seems quite expensive when we could do the same with the Rafale at 90 million. Considering the price difference and our colossal national deficit, I'd rather go with the Rafale, even if it means putting our pilots at somewhat more risk during those rare live fire situations.

The money is coming out of the military budget which has already been allocated so it will not increase the deficit. Oh and pilots don't just cover themselves with their planes they cover every friendly on the ground to. Air support if really important.

[Noroldis]

The modifications are so they can land at the bases up north which have smaller runways and so they can be refuelled in air. Both are a must in any plane we buy and neither come standard in any of the planes we are buying IIRC.

Thanks for the info. But I can't help but note that those modifications will drive the F-35s' cost even higher.

Well generally prices go down when production begins so I expect the same here.

Even if prices go down somewhat, I can't imagine the F-35s will cost less than twice their initially projected 50 million cost. That's all the reason I need to give the Rafale serious consideration. And hey, if we played our cards right with Dassault and the French, we might get the Rafale at a lower cost, too.

Good point, though I wouldn't say the military screwed up when they were given the costs by LM. So either LM was wrong or they lied. I don't see the screw up being on the militaries part.

Well, then this is more ammunition for the military to defend itself with should the Libs or other opposition parties call them out on the F-35's cost increase. (It would be interesting to launch an investigation of LM to determine whether or not they deliberately underbid on the F-35's initial cost so as to insure they'd win over Boeing and knew full well all along that the final price was certain to be more than twice and perhaps as much as three times that initial cost.)

Well our Navy is going through a long refit and we are getting some icebreaker IIRC specifically for that reason. It probably wouldn't be enough if Russia launches a full scale invasion but most of Russia fleet can't handle the Artic.

Even when that refit is completed (which is expected to occur when, anyway?), do you think we'll be able to face off against the Russian navy? Though considering the rate at which the Russian fleet is apparently currently deteriorating, we might indeed be capable of doing so, at least for surface ships… which brings us back to not absolutely needing the F-35 specifically to assert our territorial claims in the north. Anyway, if the Russians built transport ships capable of handling the Arctic and mounted a full-scale invasion of Canada, I simply cannot envision the US at the very least letting that happen… and the US Navy is fully capable of handling the Russians.

The money is coming out of the military budget which has already been allocated so it will not increase the deficit.

But if we were buying Rafales instead of F-35s, the money thus saved could be allocated to modernize other parts of our, as you point out, under-equipped military. Also, production of our Rafales could begin right now as opposed to the F-35's starting in, what, 2016?

Oh and pilots don't just cover themselves with their planes they cover every friendly on the ground to. Air support if really important.

True. But then again, how many times did our F-18s perform real air support missions? And throughout our F-18s' entire operational history, how many did we lose to enemy fire?

[haLobEnder]

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 have. It say's I'm closest to Green, but I tend to vote NDP and don't foresee that changing any time soon -- especially as the current NDP candidate in my riding is someone I knew back in high school that I have a lot of respect for.

What that chart does put into perspective is why we should have a coalition government running Canada, and not have the Conservatives throwing the term around like it's the boogieman.

We have a majority of Canadians voting for parties that are not that far apart on many social/fiscal issues, and yet we're being governed by a party that has the opposite views of this majority just because we got it in our heads that one party rule is 'fair' rule.

On a related note: Elizabeth May has been excluded from the leader's debate again. Thoughts?

Not surprising. It just further goes to show you how undemocratic our current electoral system is and how complicit our media is in keeping it that way.

[Lord O' Bones]

I have. It say's I'm closest to Green, but I tend to vote NDP and don't foresee that changing any time soon --

I took it out of boredom. Granted, at the end it was all No opinion and Don't know, but excepting that I would apparently be a Liberal and furthest from Conservative.

Does this translate at all to the US parties?

ETA: The chart makes it look like I'd be a Centrist. Are you Liberals a centrist party?

[haLobEnder]

I took it out of boredom. Granted, at the end it was all No opinion and Don't know, but excepting that I would apparently be a Liberal and furthest from Conservative.

Does this translate at all to the US parties?

ETA: The chart makes it look like I'd be a Centrist. Are you Liberals a centrist party?

It's difficult to compare US parties to Canadian ones. The Democrats are probably further right on many social and fiscal issues than any of our center-left parties, but not quite as right-wing as our Conservatives. The Republicans on the other hand are probably more socially conservative than our Conservative party, if only because they (like the Liberals) are trying to be a catch-all party and know the Canadian people would never support them if they tried to repeal things like gay rights, the right to abortions, etc.

As for the Liberals, as the adage goes, they 'campaign on the left, govern on the right'.

I knew at least one former Liberal MP who was very proud of this motto, don't know why as to me it makes them sound like a bunch of hypocrites.

My admittedly cynical view on the matter is that they're a party of no firm political ideology that will say whatever they need to say in order to get into power, and once their they do whatever benefits them and their buddies.