Warsaw it appears as if we are being ignored in this thread.
I had another post here describing the situation with the F-35's before the "update" removed it. In short, I have no problem with 35-40 F-35's but 65 is just overkill. There won't be enough uses for those kind of planes for Canada. There's virtually no air to maintain superiority in except Canadian airspace. Canada hasn't been in a major air conflict since WWII; it's been mainly bombing runs for the past 50 years. Gone are the days where developed nations try to scare each other with an arms race.
Freelancer is right that The F-18's need to be replaced, but the F-35 is not the proper fighter to be replacing it with. A single engine stealth aircraft that has performance that isn't fitting of the high price point. $9 billion for the aircraft alone and another $9 billion for maintenance (excluding weapons). It wouldn't be such a waste if so many weren't being purchased all at one time. Maybe if they started off with half of the number they are going to purchase and then slowly phase out the rest of the F-18's. On top of that, this deal is single-sourced. There is no competition whatsoever to challenge the F-35. These are not good decisions being made.
Last edited by Amit; April 26th, 2011 at 04:06 PM.
Voted CPC yesterday.
The reason the F-35's cost so much is because they're generation 5 fighters, the electronics and avionics in these things is crazy. My friend who's at the Royal Military College of Canada working to become an Aerospace Engineer told me that they have there own proprietary wireless network package for cyber warfare and communications and such. He even said that one plane can be piloted from another over this wireless link, one pilot gives control to another in a different plane or on the ground in a flight-sim style station and that person can take over. He said we have some plans to have ground based pilots on-duty for all deployed aircraft, if the pilot has some kind of medical issues that prevent him from flying or needs to eject for some reason the ground controller can take over and fly the plane home. Not sure how accurate all of this is though.
Diverting funding that keeps people alive so you can get through school easier, no thanks.
Pssst, Amit, the F-35 is a multi-role fighter like the F/A-18. It is a more than suitable replacement. The F-22 is the air superiority fighter, not the JSF.
Anyways, fuck politics, needz moar gunz.
So I've decided that come Christmas, I am going to buy a Ruger Mark III. Prefereably a competition-grade model. They are cheap to shoot, fun to shoot, extremely reliable, and are very solid in the hand. You just can't go wrong with a Ruger.
Last edited by Warsaw; April 26th, 2011 at 08:04 PM.
It's not like I'm saying that we shouldn't buy them at all. I'm saying by them in smaller quantities so it doesn't hit the taxpayers so much. Also, recent developments by Lockheed-Martin report that there are considerable increases in price. So, that 2001 estimate of $9 billion for the fighters is looking more like $24 billion.
I agree, with Warsaw, though. Politics suck. I'll leave the rest of it out of this thread since the subject of guns is almost conservative in nature.
Last edited by Amit; April 26th, 2011 at 08:44 PM.
Also, new fighters keep our pilots alive more directly than an incubator. And I'm taking a part-time post secondary course while upgrading a final high-school course at the same time, it's a fucked up curriculum I know, but the course I'm upgrading has -100% to do with the post-secondary course I'm taking. Anyhow, point is that the price for the course seems more than reasonable. I have a part-time job right now though, and have had on and off full-time jobs for 3 years now so I have a decent amount of financial backing for myself in addition to the Education-fund my parents started when I was born.
I'm still living at home though, not sure about you. So my home expense is A LOT less then what most people pay for in post-secondary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)