[-Wario-]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The Apache is one type of attack helicopter. There are others.

The French Tiger would be a nice one to look at.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I'm all for nuclear subs and icebreakers.

Mulroney promised us some of those in the 80ies. I would be all for it. Canada is still trying to keep face and retain its northern territories. With russia and Denmark knocking at our door. We needed a fix yesterday.



IMO -> Canada should be looking at the SuperHornet, Typhoon or the Rafale.

[uwish]

hum, 2 Billion for the gun registry or new attach helos for the military? you decide.

[-Wario-]

the first 2 billions are gone... so we know where our attack helicopters are

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The Apache is one type of attack helicopter. There are others.

I'm all for nuclear subs and icebreakers.

I'm sure there are. Just like the jets the country would put out a contract and accept bids. No guarantee we won't get dicked around like we are with the Cyclones though but thats another story.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I personally would be willing to stomach a tax increase for the express purpose of equipping the CF.

However that isn't going to happen.

I said the exact same thing 5 years ago. I would stomach a deficit as long as it was for purchasing equipment for the military. You are right, it didn't happen.

The why is a point of contention. Many on this forum blamed every single bit of lack of military spending entirely on the Libs (as they did with deficits). Throughout the plethora of government announcements of mothballed projects or spending reductions the complaints were leveled at "the government", and not at the CPC.

Notice the distinction. I've taken a number of people to task for this because when the voters who strongly support increased military spending don't seem to be all that outraged when its the Cons short changing the military. All that means is that Harper never has to worry about loosing the "military vote" so he will do exactly what he has done and cut the military spending in light of financial woes and the Liberals (and NDP) have no reason to ever even think about such a military increase because it gains them nothing in way of support.

So far only Bootlegga has tabled his support contingent on higher levels of military support and only he has addressed the real reason why none of the parties support the increases so many want. Eyebrock has tempered his anti-Liberal stance (at least from a few years ago) and stated that if the Libs put forth a quality military proposal he would be inclined to vote them.

Have you written your MP and said your support for him is contingent upon him/her lobbying for increased military spending? I wrote my MP that support for him was contingent upon supporting abortion rights in the wake of the Liberals actions over the foreign health care bill.

Personally I think they should institute a "military premium" akin to Ontarios health care premium that will go directly to military purchases and will be verified through public documents.

[uwish]

I will be the first to admit (and have posted before) that NO government has done right by the military. They are all talk but when they get in, they do nothing (or very little).

That being said however: I will give praise for the C-17, and the new hercs, and the re-introduction of the Chinooks.

Now all we need is a better equipped year round arctic capable Navy. Then we will be on our way. Until then, it is only lip service.

I remember reading in The Calgary Herald that the government was awarded a Naval contract but I can't find any details.

UPDATE: This is what I read about http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3-a_eng.asp?id=811

[Bacardi4206]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

I agree with Qball, I'd much rather attack helicopters IMO. Maybe place a bid for lower numbers of multi-purpose jets than by some attack helicopters to fill the role of what is most likely suspected for the CF's future. Attack helicopters are awesome and fill such a great air to ground role. They would have been a great asset had we had some of our own in Afghanistan.

Why not attack helicopters in addition to new fighters?

Both are needed, one should not come at the expense of the other.

I already stated that above in the quote, "Maybe a bid for lower numbers of multi-purpose jets than buy some attack helicopters".

I agree though that both are needed.

[Newsbot]

Title: Harper bending to U.S. on sole-source fighter purchase, documents reveal
Category: Military
Posted By: Scape
Date: 2010-06-11 06:16:15
Canadian

[Arctic_Menace]

What do we care about negative reactions elsewhere? I want my military to get the best bang for it's buck, and I'm not confident the F-35 is it.

[saturn_656]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

I agree with Qball, I'd much rather attack helicopters IMO. Maybe place a bid for lower numbers of multi-purpose jets than by some attack helicopters to fill the role of what is most likely suspected for the CF's future. Attack helicopters are awesome and fill such a great air to ground role. They would have been a great asset had we had some of our own in Afghanistan.

Why not attack helicopters in addition to new fighters?

Both are needed, one should not come at the expense of the other.

I already stated that above in the quote, "Maybe a bid for lower numbers of multi-purpose jets than buy some attack helicopters".

I agree though that both are needed.

Acquiring lower numbers of fighters and diverting the saved funds to attack helos would be "one coming at the expense of the other".

[Arctic_Menace]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Regina Regina:

What happened to the "need" to have a twin engine fighter?

Probably has something to do with the $160 million we've already invested in the F-35.

According to wikipedia, Canada has contributed $475 million and then there's this lovely paragraph...

$1:

Canada

Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from its beginning, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level 3 participant along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002, making them an early participant of the JSF program.[157]

Canada's rationale for joining the JSF project was not due to an urgent need to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18 Hornets; instead, it was driven primarily by economics.[157] Through Canadian government investment in the JSF project, Canadian companies were allowed to compete for contracts within the JSF project, as there were fears that being shut out from industrial participation in such a large program would severely damage the Canadian aviation industry.[157] Joining also furthered Canadian access to information regarding the F-35 as a possible contender when it eventually plans to replace the CF-18 Hornet fleet. Improved interoperability with major allies allowed the DND to gain insight on leading edge practices in composites, manufacturing and logistics, and offered the ability to recoup some investment if the government did decide to purchase the F-35.[157]

As a result of the Canadian government investment in the JSF project, 144 contracts were awarded to Canadian companies, universities, and government facilities. Financially, the contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canadian JSF involvement from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Regina Regina:

What happened to the "need" to have a twin engine fighter?

Probably has something to do with the $160 million we've already invested in the F-35.

According to wikipedia, Canada has contributed $475 million and then there's this lovely paragraph...

$1:

Canada

Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from its beginning, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level 3 participant along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002, making them an early participant of the JSF program.[157]

Canada's rationale for joining the JSF project was not due to an urgent need to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18 Hornets; instead, it was driven primarily by economics.[157] Through Canadian government investment in the JSF project, Canadian companies were allowed to compete for contracts within the JSF project, as there were fears that being shut out from industrial participation in such a large program would severely damage the Canadian aviation industry.[157] Joining also furthered Canadian access to information regarding the F-35 as a possible contender when it eventually plans to replace the CF-18 Hornet fleet. Improved interoperability with major allies allowed the DND to gain insight on leading edge practices in composites, manufacturing and logistics, and offered the ability to recoup some investment if the government did decide to purchase the F-35.[157]

As a result of the Canadian government investment in the JSF project, 144 contracts were awarded to Canadian companies, universities, and government facilities. Financially, the contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canadian JSF involvement from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.

Very interesting numbers. I was wondering where the Canadian economic payback for the $9 billion was.

People questtion wikipedia but I find it's fine.

[Arctic_Menace]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Very interesting numbers. I was wondering where the Canadian economic payback for the $9 billion was.

People questtion wikipedia but I find it's fine.

Wikipedia is fine for generic information. The shady part of wikipedia is when it comes to articles about the Armenian genocide, Israel and Palestine, etc. Sensitive and divisive issues are the ones most tampered with but there are people who will edit articles according to their values. For example, the article on the theory of evolution used to be edited to say it is merely a theory and should be taught alongside creationism. It actually said that at one point.

[Bruce_the_vii]

That's a good story about the evolution bit. Thanks for the post. I certainly don't mind articles with a bias, as long as I can make it out. I have a drinking buddy that says that Wikipedia may be controversial but show me, just where is it wrong.

[bootlegga]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Very interesting numbers. I was wondering where the Canadian economic payback for the $9 billion was.

People questtion wikipedia but I find it's fine.

Wikipedia is fine for generic information. The shady part of wikipedia is when it comes to articles about the Armenian genocide, Israel and Palestine, etc. Sensitive and divisive issues are the ones most tampered with but there are people who will edit articles according to their values. For example, the article on the theory of evolution used to be edited to say it is merely a theory and should be taught alongside creationism. It actually said that at one point.

Wikipedia is usually even fine for those issues, unless someone has tampered with the page just prior to your visit. I've seen studies that have noted that Wikipedia is as accurate (or more) than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Despite this, universities are loath to let students cite it as a source, which I don't agree with (as long as it's not the only source cited - that I would have a problem with).

What Wikipedia is fantastic for is providing background information (usually with lots of sources and links to follow up on) on the topic a person is trying to understand.

[EyeBrock]

Wiki is just lazy and second rate research. It's ok for the odd internet debate but it lacks academic accountability, hence it's lack of credibility in the universities.

Brittanica is way better, but it is just an encyclopedia. I wouldn't use either as a source in any paper I'd write.