Who cares about the long gun registry?

[mmmnaked]

As for cheaper alternatives being useless....drones keep being mentioned. As I already mentioned, the US uses drones for border patrols, uses them for targeted bombings. Why can't we?

.

LOL and who exactly is mentioning the drones? Which IDIOT thinks theres a drone out there capable of even 1/10th of what the F35 is?

And which drone, mr. Expert? The MQ-9? At $150M per system? With nonexistent avionics and radar? With almost non existent armament? With no capability whatsoever to track incoming missiles?

Please man, humour us some more...

[afong56]

The guy who makes up numbers wants sources? that's quite funny.

The Germans bought a bunch of Eurofighters about 5 years ago, look up how much they paid.

The Rafal cost the French around 70 million euros back in 2008, excluding development costs!

The Gripen is NOT competitive, not by a long shot. It's also 20 years old.. but I suppose you think it's prudent to replace our aging CF-18s with slightly less aged Gripens, to save 50%... gee I wonder where that would put us 10-15 years from now

The F/A-18E/F? Less expensive, but also LESS PLANE for your money. Smaller payload, smaller operational combat radius (a big one for Canada, as you may imagine), and most importantly, far far inferior electronics, radar, and avionics.

The F-35 has all the latest and greatest radar and avionics technology. It's also touted as having full 360 degree situational awareness (AN/AAQ-37) which can detect and track rockets upwards of 800 miles away. Will Saab () build this into the Gripen if we ask? hahaha

But yeah, you obviously already knew this since you did all the procurement research ahead of our own specialists, and can say with absolute certainty that the F-35 is "overpriced" and a "boondoggle".



Reading. Do it.

f35: $145+mil usd/per (estimated cost to canada). factor in development costs, etc, and we're closer to $200mil usd/per
rafale: $80-90mil usd/per
typhoon: $141mil usd/per
gripen: $50mil usd/per
superhornet: $66mil usd/per

of course, you apparently know all of this already, since you've actually done the research, right? lol. still waiting on your sources.

the f35 cost is ESTIMATED, because by the time they get built and in service for canada, it'll be way higher than that.

do the grade two math if you can, and note how much more expensive the f35 already is. just wait till we have to replace them, maintain them, etc. that's when a multiplier effect will kick in. then again, with all of this "latest and greatest" toys comment, your arguments do have a grade school ring to them. . .

. . .as for the specialists. LAUGHABLE. harpo's cons only listened long enough to get the answers they wanted, and ignored the rest. keep reading son, there were/are plenty of specialists both in canada and abroad who think the f35 is the wrong plane for canada. not that you or harpo would bother listening, lol. . .

i repeat:

no due diligence
misleading canadians
committing to a money pit
writing a blank cheque

nothing you have written challenges these facts

[mmmnaked]

I repeat: you're clueless and ignorant if you think a Gripen or Superhornet is competitive at all with the F35.

Advocating the purchase of 20 year old technology to replace our 30 year old jets is the ultimate in stupidity and carelessness. Thank GOD people like you arent actually in charge of money!!!

[afong56]

Spending 0.5% of our annual federal budget on some new jets TOTALLY means our education and health will suffer. We're DOOMED without that 0.5%.

attempting to trivialize this massive waste of money by presenting it as a trifling amount is weak sauce.

it is doubly insulting to those who are still unemployed after the 2008 downturn, and the manufacturing sector right here in southern ontario that has gotten the short end of the stick while harper continues to payoff his oil buddies with stimulus money.

laughably weak argument.

[mmmnaked]

Laughably weak is your attempt to trivialize our borders and our natural resources.

More laughable is your suggestion that we buy old tech to replace our even older tech, just to save 0.2% in our annual budget, meanwhile risking our national security and sovereignty.

[afong56]

I repeat: you're clueless and ignorant if you think a Gripen or Superhornet is competitive at all with the F35.

Advocating the purchase of 20 year old technology to replace our 30 year old jets is the ultimate in stupidity and carelessness. Thank GOD people like you arent actually in charge of money!!!

seriously? that's the best you can come up with?

whatever plane canada ends up with doesn't necessarily have to be competitive with the f35.

it has to be competitive with the plane that we're defending against.

with a combat range of 600miles, which of england, australia, italy, netherlands, turkey, and israel should we expect an f35 attack to come from? norway and japan are already backing away from their commitments to the f35 due to unchecked rising costs (gee, sounds like SOME governments are showing fiscal prudence)

lol, i could joke about our careless waste of taxpayers' dollars too, but seeing what harper's government has been up to, your logic would fit right in with them.

btw, what are you basing the f35's capabilities on? the laundry list of as-of-yet unresolved shortcomings in the plane? the concerns about flying a single engine jet in our north? the it's not-so stealth capability?

or how about the fact that it's a money pit and the single most expensive option out there?

[mmmnaked]

Who says we're defending against a plane?

You're way out of your element. But I'm happy that my arguments have persuaded you to at least do a BIT of reading about the platform which you so vehemently oppose. I can see you've visited wikipedia, that's a start!!!


Hint: it has to be VERSATILE. That's the true assessment of value in such a purchase. You don't buy a military jet for one specific, narrow requirement. When it's your go-to weapon in the air, it needs to do everything well... and the F-35 does it all, and most of it better than the competition. But its new, it OBVIOUSLY has kinks which need to be worked out. The USA didn't become a military superpower yesterday, and they certainly didn't become one by using old technology.

[mmmnaked]

Fun fact: CF-18 cost in 1977, $35 million. In today's money? $124 million

It's sad that you guys get so roped up by the partisan politics and media BS... you can't look past the *SHOCK* of such large numbers. (BILLIONS! MY GOD, that MUST be too expensive!)

Im out.

[afong56]

Who says we're defending against a plane?

You're way out of your element. But I'm happy that my arguments have persuaded you to at least do a BIT of reading about the platform which you so vehemently oppose. I can see you've visited wikipedia, that's a start!!!


Hint: it has to be VERSATILE. That's the true assessment of value in such a purchase. You don't buy a military jet for one specific, narrow requirement. When it's your go-to weapon in the air, it needs to do everything well... and the F-35 does it all, and most of it better than the competition. But its new, it OBVIOUSLY has kinks which need to be worked out. The USA didn't become a military superpower yesterday, and they certainly didn't become one by using old technology.

so now we're defending against an invasion or a naval attack?

lol, your hare-brained ideas are ridiculous.

first, making any comparison to the u.s. in terms of military spending is asinine. why even mention it. we don't need to be a military superpower, nor do we need bleeding-edge technology to accomplish what we need.

second, versatile? lol, this ought to be good. so mr. i'm-in-my element, please share with us what capabilities/roles this f35 super-plane accomplishes so well that it is clearly the only one that should be considered? i am willing to wait a long, long time for your detailed answer here. i am particularly interested in knowing what scenarios you envision canada needing to possess air superiority in.

third, now that we agree that the f35 is clearly the most expensive option, i'd like to know what your sources are. . .yes, the credible ones since you have spouted numbers without attribution.

fourth:

f35--no due diligence
misleading canadians
committing to a money pit
writing a blank cheque

[afong56]

Fun fact: CF-18 cost in 1977, $35 million. In today's money? $124 million

It's sad that you guys get so roped up by the partisan politics and media BS... you can't look past the *SHOCK* of such large numbers. (BILLIONS! MY GOD, that MUST be too expensive!)

Im out.

good to know you can read wikipedia.

now i'd like to know what source you base $124million on. if you are actually 'out', then congrats on accepting when you are wrong. that's a shade better than harper when they screwed up on this file.

finally,

harpo and the f35:
no due diligence
misleading canadians
committing to a money pit
writing a blank cheque

[jc100]

It's gone quiet.......the Chinese/Russians must be coming.

[BusaBob]

edit.

i was going to wade in, but on second thoughts, why bother...

[RockerGuy]

edit.

i was going to wade in, but on second thoughts, why bother...

We want to hear your opinion, Mr Bob

[grahamsn]

f35: $145+mil usd/per (estimated cost to canada). factor in development costs, etc, and we're closer to $200mil usd/per
...

May I ask where those cost estimates came from?

[Diesel]

I'm still wondering how all of this F35 talk got into a long gun registry thread?
Does the death of the LGR mean that any guns on the F35 don't need to be registered? If so, sign me up for one! Do they take Pepsi points, or is that just for Harriers?