• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Re: OT: Canadian Politics


Hopefully they're gunning for the Rafales or the Typhoon. Those are both pretty sweet examples of advanced weapons hardware and have a high degree of reliability and service record under their belts.

Both are NATO tested and proven as well as they are primary French and British air superiority fighter of choice.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Hopefully they're gunning for the Rafales or the Typhoon. Those are both pretty sweet examples of advanced weapons hardware and have a high degree of reliability and service record under their belts.

Both are NATO tested and proven as well as they are primary French and British air superiority fighter of choice.


I'd be cool with either as long as it comes with their full avionics package, full technology package for the money. My qualm with the F-35 (beyond the obvious, that it was a completely untested system in the real world, that was having a **** of a time proving itself in controlled conditions), was that even for being balls deep in the program from the onset, there was a ton of high end US tech that our price (which was still ****ing significant) simply didn't include. So they wanted us to pay full pop for untested, dodgy technology? Umm...**** that.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

After doing some research into the F-35 my primary objection stems from the fact that they have a reduced loading capacity for munitions and missiles, a shorter operational range, and a significantly slower cruising speed.

But the biggest issue obviously stems from the fact that it's a single-engine aircraft. Given the vast distances of northern Canada and the amount of geography that our current CF-18s are expected to transverse effectively, it makes little sense to have a fighter with only one engine. That doesn't even begin to take into account the fact that there would be no-fail safe if it experienced problems dealing with low temperatures, which it most certainly would given our low autumn and winter temperatures at high latitude.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

more kissing babies. what a good guy.

BY5AjU6CcAAR13o.jpg:large
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Just wants to be loved. When love ain't around he reaches for a mickey or a pipe.
 
I sure wish the Royal Canadian Navy had one of these beauties. Its $13 billion sticker price represents the annual defence budget for the entirety of the Canadian Forces:

This weekend, the United States Navy christened what many claim is its greatest engineering achievement: the USS Gerald Ford supercarrier, the first in a completely new line of warships called the Ford class.

The ship, seated in a huge dock on the James River near the southern district of Newport News, Virginia, is the most technologically advanced, the most expensive, and one of the largest warships ever built. That's according to the Navy, but there's not much reason to doubt the assertions. The ship is huge. Rising out of the ocean to the height of a large office complex and stretching out toward the horizon as far as a couple football fields, it’s able to house a town’s population of more than 4,500 people, and, when it’s finally commissioned for duty on the high seas in 2016, it will weigh an astonishing 90,000 tons.

What’s more, the USS Gerald Ford — identified by its hull number, CVN 78, and known conversationally as "the Ford" — is also outfitted with electromagnetic catapults designed to shoot fighter jets into the sky (these had previously needed pneumatic systems; Ford-class carriers offered all-new technology), and the most advanced radar system ever deployed by the US military.


But all this heft and tech prowess isn’t cheap. At the moment, it’s estimated that the Ford will cost taxpayers at least $13 billion — an amount that, despite years of planning and calculation, has risen at least $2.3 billion since the ship’s construction costs were approved at a $10.5 billion budget in 2008. And it might rise higher still. While Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), the company contracted to construct the Ford, is confident it has built an aircraft carrier that will last well into the 21st century, high-profile critics such as Senator John McCain are asking whether the Ford is worth the cost and the monumental effort it will take to bring it to life.

Brian Nehrbass, the Ford’s Ship Design Manager at NNS, insists there’s a mountain of history one should understand before making any conclusions. He would know: as a designer with NNS, he’s worked on every iteration of the Ford project since it was introduced as a mere concept. That was back in 1996. At that point, the Navy’s state-of-the-art aircraft carriers were Nimitz-class — a fleet of 10 nuclear warships designed in the late 1960s and commissioned in May 1975.

The Nimitz class is still in operation to this day. But in March 1996, Navy officials anticipated they’d need "a new tactical aviation sea-based platform for the 21st century." By October 1998, a concept ship was authorized, with requests for a large deck that would hold 75 aircraft and a new nuclear propulsion plant. As designs progressed over the next decade, those requests became more precise and more numerous.

"Nimitz class was designed in an era when, in essence, manpower and sailors were free," Nehrbass says. "It was designed to operate with the draft. People were easy to get."

In 1975, the Navy included a total of 545,725 active-duty sailors. By 1996 that number had dropped to 419,075. Today, it’s even fewer; at 323,951, Navy personnel numbers have declined by about 41 percent since the first Nimitz-class carrier was commissioned. These warships were designed for 6,100 sailors. The next class would need to do more with fewer people. That meant deploying more planes faster, building longer-lasting and more advanced on-board tools, and generating more electricity to support these advanced tools.

With these requests in hand, NNS moved forward on its own. "The Navy’s ship specifications tell us what we must do and what we can’t do," Nehrbass explains. "Everything else is fair game." NSS used advanced 3D-modeling tools to put together a dream warship based on its constraints and its designers’ creativity. They arrived at some ambitious ideas.

While Nimitz-class designs used steam to keep ships running, the Ford will use electricity exclusively. That’ll allow many of the ship’s components to operate longer (because steam causes rust) and it’ll also allow for many innovations that have been desired among sailors for years, but will only make their operational debuts on the Ford.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/...st-advanced-most-expensive-warship-ever-built
 
The amount that the US spends on its military is nothing short of obscene. Especially considering their massive deficit and shitty social programs.
 
True, but a lot of East Coast workers in the shipyards of Virginia depend on the naval contracts for their livelihoods. If they weren't getting new ships to build on a regular basis they wouldn't have any employment.
 
I remember being in Newport News a couple times as a kid and seeing how massive the ships and the naval yards were, so it always kind of stuck with me.

Really amazing from a human engineering perspective even if they might be a little outrageous in terms of cost.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

You gotta think that he's rounding up his base in preparation for next year's election. That and trying to create some good news stories to combat the potential more damaging evidence against him that hasn't been released yet.

This guy is basically a villain now.
 
Last edited:
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

That hipster mom seems like she's there for the sole purpose of having her baby kissed by Ford, ironically.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

They need new jets. Stop bitching. There will be an open and transparent process for the bidding.

Well DUH! Of course they need new jets.
Our current aging fleet can fly in the arctic. One would assume the new ones should be able to.
The F35s can't.
So we need new jets, but not THOSE jets... stop lapping it up.
 
Back
Top