Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
azimuthaviation wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly. But when you come from a town where people are dying waiting to see a doctor because his arrival is delayed due to a NATO bombing campaign on his country only six months after seeing flames and smoke tower over the house you grew up in because of a lack of firefighting resources, our idea of defending the country will differ.
Ya, Canada is my country of origin...AuxBatOn wrote:Well this is Canada, not your country of origin.
AuxBatOn wrote:So show me the relationship between NATO bombing a country and your town not getting adequate health care.
His arrival was delayed several months by the war in Libya.A medical graduate in 2000, Abdullah attained two years post graduate training and practiced four years at the Medical Clinic in Messalina, Libya. Prior to starting at the local Health Care Center on Feb. 4, Dr. Algundi attended a three month assessment review in Stony Plain, Alberta.
There will always be people out there who think the military gets too much, no matter how old the equipment is or lack of training they get because of lack of funds.SAR_YQQ wrote:Lots of pots of money out there
You're getting your war machines mixed up. We leased a squadron of Leopard 2 tanks from a Scandinavian country.Gannet167 wrote:Canada did not even have heavy lift helos at that time. We were leasing them from Denmark, and a few people have remarked that some were the same serial numbers as the ones we sold off years ago.
Care to remind me how you feel about Israel and their ties to 9/11? I remember that thread (2.5 years ago now) , as if it was yesterday.azimuthaviation wrote:I agree wholeheartedly. But when you come from a town where people are dying waiting to see a doctor because his arrival is delayed due to a NATO bombing campaign on his country only six months after seeing flames and smoke tower over the house you grew up in because of a lack of firefighting resources, our idea of defending the country will differ.Gannet167 wrote:There's lots of things we could scrap to put money towards better initiatives. Defending the country should not be one of them.
I think you dreamed that.Gravol wrote:I remember that thread (2.5 years ago now) , as if it was yesterday.
check your 6Fine and fair enough, go ahead with this purchase. I haven't the foggiest if it is indeed the best route. Rest assured though other areas of the Military will suffer because there isn't the money, simply put the "credit card" is maxed out and just able to make the minium payments on the debt now. We are seeing that now as procurement is being scaled back...........frosti wrote:There will always be people out there who think the military gets too much, no matter how old the equipment is or lack of training they get because of lack of funds.SAR_YQQ wrote:Lots of pots of money out there
I think most people are still forgetting that there is a pool of money set aside for the next generation fighter. So whether it will be the F35 or whatever, the cost targets are all the same. It's ignorant to say that buying something other than a F35 will be cheaper in the long run, seeing how most of the alternatives (note, not competitors) will be long gone while the F35 program will still be turning out airframes. Fighter jets is something we desperately need right now, more so than anything else in the Armed Forces, maybe perhaps an actual Navy......55+ wrote:Fine and fair enough, go ahead with this purchase. I haven't the foggiest if it is indeed the best route. Rest assured though other areas of the Military will suffer because there isn't the money, simply put the "credit card" is maxed out and just able to make the minium payments on the debt now. We are seeing that now as procurement is being scaled back...........frosti wrote:There will always be people out there who think the military gets too much, no matter how old the equipment is or lack of training they get because of lack of funds.SAR_YQQ wrote:Lots of pots of money out there
So buying the F 35, a fighter that has a more expensive per unit acquisition cost, and a higher direct operating costs, and a more expensive maintenance regime than 2 of its competitors "will be cheaper in the long run" ......Wow the new math they teach in high school sure is amazing !frosti wrote:
I think most people are still forgetting that there is a pool of money set aside for the next generation fighter. So whether it will be the F35 or whatever, the cost targets are all the same. It's ignorant to say that buying something other than a F35 will be cheaper in the long run, seeing how most of the alternatives (note, not competitors) will be long gone while the F35 program will still be turning out airframes. Fighter jets is something we desperately need right now, more so than anything else in the Armed Forces, maybe perhaps an actual Navy......
To be fair, the fact that the F-35 will remain in production much longer than the other alternatives might make it cheaper in the long run.Big Pistons Forever wrote:So buying the F 35, a fighter that has a more expensive per unit acquisition cost, and a higher direct operating costs, and a more expensive maintenance regime than 2 of its competitors "will be cheaper in the long run" ......Wow the new math they teach in high school sure is amazing !
You have absolutely no facts to back up those claims. There hasn't been a comparison of life costs between the F-35 and other fighters, so anything said in the media is pure garbage. What is known, is Australia are buying theirs for $90m each.Big Pistons Forever wrote:
So buying the F 35, a fighter that has a more expensive per unit acquisition cost, and a higher direct operating costs, and a more expensive maintenance regime than 2 of its competitors
Wait, he is talking out of his ass though because he's being paid by Lockheed.Squadron Leader Harper was the first Australian to fly the fifth generation F-22 Raptor and Lieutenant Colonel Berke is the only pilot to fly both the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
“Stealth makes you unstoppable and reduces an adversaries situational awareness to almost zero,’’ Squadron Leader Harper said.
“The jet provides an exponential increase in survivability, reduces mission risk and increases the probability of mission success.’’
Lieutenant Colonel Berke said the old mantra of “speed is life, more is better’’ had been replaced by “information is life, more is better’’.
“Information is far more valuable than speed,’’ he said.
Two completely different aircraft with completely different mission profiles and sales restrictions. I don't expect you to do any research for yourself though... A lot easier to just post.BCpilot123 wrote:Just like the F-22 right?trampbike wrote:To be fair, the fact that the F-35 will remain in production much longer than the other alternatives might make it cheaper in the long run.Big Pistons Forever wrote:So buying the F 35, a fighter that has a more expensive per unit acquisition cost, and a higher direct operating costs, and a more expensive maintenance regime than 2 of its competitors "will be cheaper in the long run" ......Wow the new math they teach in high school sure is amazing !
I don't think either of us could know for sure.
I love feeding trolls...BCpilot123 wrote:Just like the F-22 right?trampbike wrote:To be fair, the fact that the F-35 will remain in production much longer than the other alternatives might make it cheaper in the long run.Big Pistons Forever wrote:So buying the F 35, a fighter that has a more expensive per unit acquisition cost, and a higher direct operating costs, and a more expensive maintenance regime than 2 of its competitors "will be cheaper in the long run" ......Wow the new math they teach in high school sure is amazing !
I don't think either of us could know for sure.
But similar to.......trampbike wrote: The F-22 was never supposed to be a multi-national program with thousands of planes to be sold...
So to answer your question: no, not like the F-22.
The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs
1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996
In 1994, the number was cut to 438 aircraft to enter service in 2003-2004
a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339
In 2003, the Air Force state the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277
In December 2004, the Department of Defense reduced funding so only 183 aircraft could be bought.
Trend...the law of diminishing ordersIn December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed (out of 8 test and 187 combat aircraft produced)
Exactly: it's just a question, since you really can't say right now that the F-35 is going to follow the same trend as the F-22...Tom H wrote: Question becomes will we see similar drops in orders?
Causing a similar increase in per aircraft costs.
Perfect Wikipedia warrior statement right here.davecessna wrote:This thread is hilarious. Bunch of Wikipedia warriors.
You buy Super Hornets. They will be relevant until drones wipe fighters off the face of the earth. Canada already has TONS of jobs related to CF-18 support and training programs.
Everything about the F-35 program is currently a questiontrampbike wrote:Exactly: it's just a question, since you really can't say right now that the F-35 is going to follow the same trend as the F-22...Tom H wrote: Question becomes will we see similar drops in orders?
Causing a similar increase in per aircraft costs.
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
