|
PT6A posted:Can you even imagine a senator using maternity leave to avoid their highly paid barely-a-job job? The very thought makes me want to retch. How do you even get someone pregnant over skype, anyway?
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
MrChips posted:Well to be fair the CSeries is a fantastic product from a technical perspective; it has met or exceeded, often by a wide margin, the performance goals set by Bombardier when they were attempting to sell the aircraft, and it turns out the engine has exceeded its performance guidelines that, when presented with them in 2010, everybody in the industry thought were basically science fiction. Glad to hear the Americans made a fine engine for your gently caress up of a plane :P
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
They were also unable to break the frame during normal stress testing. The Pratt and Whitney engines are wonderful, no doubt, but the whole plane is really - - as far as is known from testing - - the best in its class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKt71whL_0I All you loving retarded pet owners take heed - when canada's economy becomes a smoke hole in the ground, you're probably going to drop rover off at the SPCA because you can't afford to pay the mortgage on your loving condo. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/oct/31/recession-pets-animal-sanctuaries http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207458/Dont-want-Crisis-rescue-centre-Britons-turn-backs-cats.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-pets-abandoned-since-the-start-of-the-financial-crisis-8269588.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Glad to hear the Americans made a fine engine for your gently caress up of a plane :P The geared turbofan is made in Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The geared turbofan is made in Quebec. And almost all of the research and development was done there too. St-Hubert is about the only Pratt office left in their entire company that can design an engine worth a drat anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
The only airline I can think of that was actually excited to buy the c series was Porter, and the NIMBYs put a halt to that poo poo. Pretty sure bombardier is done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:The only airline I can think of that was actually excited to buy the c series was Porter, and the NIMBYs put a halt to that poo poo. Nationalize production facilities, build our own fighter replacements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Nationalize production facilities, build our own fighter replacements. literally not possible anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Yes, the c series interceptor
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
You can take the windshield out for additional stealth capability Roll back the f35 u guys
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:literally not possible anymore. start from scratch all over again anyways knowing full well it'll take many years to see any results whatsoever, if only as a WPA-style makework initiative
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Nationalize production facilities, build our own fighter replacements. As others said it is unlikely. However, dassault has basically said that if Canada buys the rafale, they will give us the blueprints, and licenses and such so that the entire fighter can be built in Canada with Canadian industry, and they are willing to have Canadian firms sell them abroad, as long as they get a substantial cut of the profits. So, yeah, on the subject of cf-18 replacements, I'm very in favour of the Rafale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
I have zero faith in any defense procurement project not to be a colossal gently caress up of majestic proportions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Anyone who's kept up with the discussion and didn't fall for obvious frauds like Pierre Spray realizes that the f35 is the best option at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Anyone who's kept up with the discussion and didn't fall for obvious frauds like Pierre Spray realizes that the f35 is the best option at this point. Pierre Spay is indeed part of the fighter mafia who think things such as "radar" and "air to ground" is useless But the f-35 is a hog. We do not need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that A) we underspend in comparison to what Canadians generally want the CF to do and thus operate on a perpetual shoestring budget and B) we structure procurement in entirely the wrong way. Procurement shouldn't be done in huge lumps, it should be more spread out. While this is partially unavoidable for the aircraft purchases, it's entirely avoidable for the navy. Instead of deciding the we're going to build 15 new warships just as soon as we finalize the design, procurement should be structured so designers come up with a design every ten years or so incorporating lessons learned and newer technology and then one shipyard delivers 1 of these new ships every 18 months or so. It ensures that we have a permanent design team who learn their job well instead of a haphazard team thrown together every 40 years with entirely new people who have to relearn everything all over again. It ensures that there is one yard that know how to build warships and can hire and retain people for the long term. And it makes sure that the navy is never in the position again of having ancient ships falling apart and no new ones for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Pierre Spay is indeed part of the fighter mafia who think things such as "radar" and "air to ground" is useless How is it a "hog" compared to the other options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
I don't know anything about trains but is Bombardier Transportation considered to be good? When I was at Berlin's new rail station I couldn't help but notice this massive BOMBARDIER sign over the whole thing, and the entire trip I kept noticing Bombardier rail stuff. The entire trip the only Canadian brands I noticed were Bombardier and Canada Goose (and Isn't Bombardier just a German train company they bought anyway?).When they had the exhibition streetcar line along false creek for the Olympics they brought in two state of the art Bombardier streetcars to run along it and they were fantastic. It seemed like there was a moment in the summer when Bombardier Transportation was going to get spun off into its own entity with its own IPO, but that doesn't look that's going to happen now. It probably would have been good for that organization to be untethered from the airplane manufacturer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Coylter posted:How is it a "hog" compared to the other options. oh jeez i thought you were joking about stumping for the f-35, like i assume about everyone who does so, because giving people the benefit of the doubt is just courteous
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Hmm how is it a hog let's see It has 1 engine. We haven't had a single engine fighter since the f-104 lawn dart. It has very limited range without tanks, which makes the whole "stealth" thing kinda pointless. Oh here's a big one. IT CANNOT TANK FROM OUR TANKERS. IT LITERALLY DOES NOT WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
IT ONLY HAS ONE ENGINE
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Hmm how is it a hog let's see Here is a chart showing single engine fighters as more reliable than dual engine:  On the range point: The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous high-g performance, and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability.[495] It is expected to match an F-16 that is carrying the usual external fuel tank in acceleration performance.[496] Your point about the tankers is valid but couldn't we just adapt the tankers. This doesn't seem like something that would require changing the whole plane but instead change the feeding adapter. edit: I mean its not like engines just go out randomly all the time that having a backup makes a big difference. In fact in twin engine setups having an engine break will often break the second one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
.....this isn't nine gear crow's AC LP..... (Yes, it is the f-35 discussion there too. ) And yes, I am still stumping for Rafale, which has repeated undertaken teh kinds of missions Canada would use it's jet for, and yes, is still the drat best option IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Here is a chart showing single engine fighters as more reliable than dual engine: What's the actual value to Canada of having a state of the art stealth fighter? I can think of a lot of other things we could spend that money on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Comparing an f16 with new engines to the 30 year old f100s in the f15 is stupid And I think the f35 needs boom tanking we only have Drogue, can't convert it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
It's too cold to fly on the arctic with one engine. You need two so one will keep the other earn and vice versa
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:I have zero faith in any defense procurement project not to be a colossal gently caress up of majestic proportions. I think you just wrote the mission statement for Public Works. Individually - hard working and dedicated staff. Collectively - "a colossal gently caress up of majestic proportions". Symbol can be a variation of the West Coast First Nations Sisiutl - a two headed snake eating itself. Or perhaps updated to crawling up its own arsehole(s).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Here is a chart showing single engine fighters as more reliable than dual engine: If I'm reading this chart right, one of the five F-16 engine variants has had no failures, and all of them are more reliable than fighters designed in the 50's and 60's. The F-22 (0.58 failures per 1000 flight hours) and F-15 (0.48) are still more reliable than four of the five F-16 variants (0.92+), and none of these are planes that Canada is considering to replace our CF-18s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
We should buy surplus humvees and second hand Save money and act out blackhawk down
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:It's too cold to fly on the arctic with one engine. You need two so one will keep the other earn and vice versa http://www.livescience.com/49662-f35-extreme-weather-tests.html "While we are testing in the world's largest climatic testing chamber, we're pushing the F-35 to its environmental limits — ranging from 120 degrees Fahrenheit [48.8 degrees Celsius] to negative 40 degrees, and every possible weather condition in between," I take it that if it passes those tests it would be fine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Here is a chart showing single engine fighters as more reliable than dual engine: Is there anything else that Wikipedia article you copy-pasted can tell you about this? The tanker thing you so conveniently handwave away is literally a billion dollar problem. The cost of designing, testing and deploying a retrofit is enormous, especially considering nobody has ever fitted flying-boom tanker gear to an Airbus A310. Also, your engine point is completely invalid. In combat where aircraft are being shot at and damaged, maybe, but in normal peacetime operations it is good insurance to prevent a very expensive loss of aircraft and possibly aircrew; double engine failures are almost non-existent, if you break down the statistics. Since we can barely afford to buy new fighters, we sure as hell can't afford to lose any needlessly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Is there anything else that Wikipedia article you copy-pasted can tell you about this? Actually i'm not handwaving it at all. It's something i had not considered in Canada's case. If there is a good point of contention that might be it. It would have to be weighted against the price of procuring new tankers or adapting existing ones. As for engines just breaking down on their own that is very very rare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Still not clear on why Canada needs a stealth fighter to begin with when the money could be spent on something that is actually useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Still not clear on why Canada needs a military to begin with when the money could be spent on something that is actually useful. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Still not clear on why Canada needs a stealth fighter to begin with when the money could be spent on something that is actually useful. Ivan will never see us coming when we intercept those TU-95s in the Arctic Circle!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
Ricochet's Ethan Cox did something useful for once and dug up this old Rick Mercer clip from 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LguZQZei3pE&t=73s "Honestly, I don't know if the pipeline is a good idea or a bad idea, but the good news is I no longer have to look at both sides. None of us do! [PMSH] has made it perfectly clear: there's only one side to this issue, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy to Canada." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Still not clear on why Canada needs a stealth fighter to begin with when the money could be spent on something that is actually useful. Because we want to go around doing HOOAH BUSTING DOWN DOORS bullshit, trying to be MURICA LIGHT, when in reality all we need is something to shoo the Russians away and haul bombs every once in a while when we show up to bomb mud huts in the desert. So we don't need stealth, but we do need range and speed to cover our territory. Also, since most of that territory would result in near certain death for any aircrew downed in it, and is virtually bereft of any useful airports, two engines is almost a necessity as insurance to prevent loss of life and airframe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Just like I posted in the GBS thread, 99% of the time the tasks that get assigned to our air force could be achieved with a tacticlol version of an Air Tractor. Buy some of these for when our government demands the blood of goat herders with AKs and one squadron of Rafales so we can pretend we have the ability to fight off a Russian air assault.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
So proud to be Canadian right now!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 22:31
|
|