|
No one mentioned this, but if you lose your only engine over the Canadian Arctic you're dead. We don't have a working coast guard to save our pilots.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
EvilJoven posted: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. Strangely charming in its horrifying ugliness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted: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. Super Tucanos for everyone you say
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Good. We save money when we reduce the number of pilots in the cf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Pretty sure bombardier is done. This is the overwhelming public sentiment, but with their backlog, assets and functional transportation division (which rivals aerospace), I'm suspicious that the image is being leveraged to secure sweet federal dollars. The Chinese buyout offer last year, for half the company, was enough to pay off all debts + a couple billion and leave aerospace intact. I bought 20k shares at 90 cents last week, and while the odds of losing that money are non-zero, I'm simultaneously confident in Bombardier's recovery and willing to lose that money. edit: I should add that all of their recent dealings included options to buy-back full control/profit. Wasting fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:literally not possible anymore. Not with that attitude. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
This is a company that can't sell its airplanes and hosed up so royally the TTC's streetcars that they don't fit in the goddamn barns, and have horrid quality issues. I work in manufacturing, in a QA role. I would be ashamed to put out garbage product like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:This is a company that can't sell its airplanes and hosed up so royally the TTC's streetcars that they don't fit in the goddamn barns, and have horrid quality issues. No doubt, there are problems. Your view is justified but simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Well the streetcar is an endemic problem, the direct result of going with the lowest bidder, who is then forced to cut costs in order to achieve their pricing goal while ignoring overall cost of quality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Bombardier doesn't deserve much of a pass on the streetcar issue -- the bidding system was designed with requirements that all but guaranteed they'd win the contract. Lack of quality control in Mexico and obstinate management (or union, depending on your politics) in Thunder Bay led to the issues here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Well the streetcar is an endemic problem, the direct result of going with the lowest bidder, who is then forced to cut costs in order to achieve their pricing goal while ignoring overall cost of quality. Imagine if they were 5 the generation stealth street cars
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Wasting posted:I'm simultaneously confident in Bombardier's recovery and willing to lose that money. I love this investment strategy. If Bombardier could just lock in Alicia Keys as their creative director, I think their made in Canada comeback will be guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
No one mentioned the other issue I brought up with Bombardier, especially with regard to the C-Series, which is that the aircraft procurement market tends to have a lot of political involvement. No one's rushing to ingratiate themselves to Canada they same they would to a European consortium, China, Japan, or (if you're in the CIS) the Russians. Whether the C-Series is better than the competition is irrelevant in a lot of cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Bombardier has the capability and capacity to actually be a real force in multiple areas. Too bad their management and ownership have the IQ of plankton. e: Actually Im pretty sure that sums up every Canadian company left. Except Hootsuite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
I already put my money where my mouth is. We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Bombardier has the capability and capacity to actually be a real force in multiple areas. Too bad their management and ownership have the IQ of plankton. Thankfully not mine. We tend to see where the tide is going and adjust accordingly. New sales dropping off? Focus on refurbishment. Buy smaller companies making speciality products and use our industrial capability to increase production. Spend a boatload on R&D to break into new markets. It's pretty nice to work for a Canadian company that doesn't rest on its laurels and actually innovates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
I just slammed the door in the face of a Melanie mark canvasser
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Our next war absolutely needs stealth. Also it might be on the moon so let's make sure it can get to the moon too. It's idiotic to double down on previous earth wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Coylter posted: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. A Super Hornet runs about $60 mil, flyaway cost, and since we already fly F-18s there's a lot of interoperability with training, weaponry, tankers, etc. This is what Australia bought to replace their aging F-18s. The Eurofighter and Rafale both run about $100 mil flyaway cost. More expensive, but potentially more capable, and in the case of the Rafale there might be more industrial offsets than buying an off-the-shelf option from Boeing. The per-unit cost of an F-35 is currently about $100 mil, WITHOUT THE ENGINE. Also apparently you have to buy a giant-rear end $400K helmet to make it work, which has the unfortunate side effect of turning everyone who ejects from the cockpit into Goose from Top Gun. We don't need a stealthy plane, we don't need a VTOL plane, and we sure as hell don't need a completely unproven plane. Oh, and a second engine would be nice, just in case. Here, read this thread: Lightning II never strikes the same place twice Also a much more in-depth look at Foxtrot Alpha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:Yes, great idea, let's only plan for the next conflict/war by completely doubling down on our experiences in the last one. Worked real well for Afghanistan when we came in and operated like we're breaking through the Fulda Gap. The problem with Afghanistan is that we went there in the first place. A shitload of people are dead, a lot of resources we could have used on something worthwhile have been wasted, and if anything we're less safe than ever. Having a poo poo air force may be the best way to avoid getting dragged into the next insane American imperialist adventure and that's totally fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
So afghanistan, syria, bad. Oh wait now we're not invited to high level military meetings? ummmm but we're a g8 country and u need 2 respec
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:Yeah that's pretty naive to think Canada won't send its military abroad because the CAF won't have the proper equipment. Hell, I'm pretty sure that sending the CAF with improper equipment is literally the rule of thumb, so I don't know where you got that idea. Perhaps the sane response here is to let the CAF continue as a welfare program / reserve snow shoveling brigade for those really bad blizzards that come along once a decade or so rather than wasting more money on an air force that will, at best, prove useless and, at worst, will actively contribute to making the world a worse place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:I don't think getting an aircraft can do more than one thing is planning to invade the moon. Note I'm also not really a big fan of the F-35. It's pretty naive to think Canada will send its military abroad to fight anyone who has any capability beyond mounting cannons to pickup trucks with steel plate welded on the sides with a little slightly more advanced 1970s era Soviet export weaponry mixed in. The big punch up between us and China or Russia or North Korea just isn't going to happen at this point and if it does having a handful of stupidly expensive planes is going to make no difference in the conflict. Buying top of the line first strike multirole stealth fighters is loving retarded. Buying the garbage plane the USA is trying to sell us is so far beyond loving retarded you can't even see loving retarded from where that piece of poo poo airplane is permanently parked because it's not airworthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
The F-35 isn't even a good plane for the USA given its insanely stupid attempt at being all things to all forces rather than having specialized airframes, but that's a reflection of America's own problems with procurement. Any one of the four primary options on the table (Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, and F-35--I guess you could probably include the Gripen here too if you wanted) would be more than capable of what the Canadian Air Force actually has to do, which is patrolling the Arctic and occasionally taking part in other countries' overseas military adventures. Since any of them would do, it seems self-evident to me that the best thing to do is pick one that's been proven through years of use in another country and isn't horrifically expensive, so that we can either a) save money and spend it on better things; or b) buy more planes if we're unwilling to cut the defence budget. I think either of those criteria rules out the F-35, which from everything I've read appears to be the most expensive and simultaneously least reliable option, with the least benefits to Canada when compared to Dassault's willingness to locate the entire Rafale production process in Canada. We would be stupid to pick the F-35 just because our military top brass really loves rubbing shoulders with the American top brass and they want to have the same toys to play with. The F-35 is an enormous boondoggle that the US can't get out of due to sunk costs, but that isn't true for us and we absolutely could choose a better plane--although this would require a modicum of actual leadership from our military and political elites, so it may be a bridge too far to expect anything other than the worst possible option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Hey you dumb asses. We need the f35 because we need to integrate into us military supply chains because the cf, if ever deployed is just as proxy. Holy gently caress it's not hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Hey you dumb asses. We need the f35 because we need to integrate into us military supply chains because the cf, if ever deployed is just as proxy. Holy gently caress it's not hard A pretty good argument against the F-35 is that it integrates into US supply chains and therefore not having it discourages us from getting involved in US military adventures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Well then maybe you chicken hawk motherfuckers should shut the gently caress up about the glorious cf
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:They weren't from Peterborough not that it matters since you can find stupid people of all ages pretty much anywhere That particular stretch of the Ottonabee river is nasty - so many eddies and undercurrents, and unexpected drop-offs. Seems like every decade there's a drowning on that river - be it from divers off the parkdale bridge, or swimmers at the old Inverlea beach site, or boaters that tip and don't wear a lifejacket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Can't wait for our new rafale squadrons to precision bomb humanitarian aid into war torn regions. Romeo dallaire didn't plus his pants on a park bench for nothing after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Can't wait for our new rafale squadrons to precision bomb humanitarian aid into war torn regions. Romeo dallaire didn't plus his pants on a park bench for nothing after all. You had me at everything up to Dallaire Don't bad mouth that man you prick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:You do realize there is the potential conflicts anywhere along the spectrum in between "Afghanistan pick up trucks" and "Full-blown Nuclear war with Russia and China", right? I mean okay, don't get the F-35, but if you honestly think all we need are just air-to-ground stuff because "Well, last conflict was Afghanistan, so every conflict after that will be the same It may be a spectrum, but since we can't even handle the former, the latter is pretty much going to proceed without us. If you're that concerned about fighting tomorrow's war then why not just build a massive drone fleet, because we're not going to be doing air-to-air dogfighting against a modern enemy in whatever rickety tins we manage to procure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:36
|
|
"
|
Because drones aren't there yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Because drones aren't there yet. And neither is the F35. We're not fighting tomorrow's war, we can't even fight today's war, and frankly it's unclear why we should be focusing the pitiful resources we spend on CAF on doing so. Edit: To be clearer, I think there's an important conversation to be had about the role of the CAF, and I think it would be worth entertaining the possibility that maybe Canada doesn't have a place on the front lines. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:You had me at everything up to Dallaire I hope you secretly hate Dallaire and were cleverly baiting CI into attacking him because now we're probably gonna be hearing about what a shithead he is for the next six to twelve months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I hope you secretly hate Dallaire and were cleverly baiting CI into attacking him because now we're probably gonna be hearing about what a shithead he is for the next six to twelve months. But...he's not a poo poo head? In any way? Is CI just gonna make stuff up or something? Seriously, how do you attack a guy like Romeo Dallaire and not feel like human garbage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:But...he's not a poo poo head? In any way? Is CI just gonna make stuff up or something? Maybe he smoked weed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
MA-Horus posted:But...he's not a poo poo head? In any way? Is CI just gonna make stuff up or something? gently caress the army, and its generals, imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:35
|
|
