@YiuTeub And that is exactly why we need to join wars LMao. Oil is bitchin expensive...go check how bad it is in alot of Europe. We've always joined wars...just don't compare us to the US jeez....
@carbongecko are youy mental its called "google" look it up dummy and its a fighter by the way not a cargo plane go watch Top Gun and learn what a fighter jet is and looks like...
@midnightneonmatt wow telling me to look up a jet in top gun, when f-18s aren't even in that movie they used f-5s f-14s and a-4s so how bout this i step out of the radar room i was in when i wrote this and take a stroll down the flight line of NAS north island to see what some jets look Like or maybe tomorrow while i am working the tower i will request a jet to come in for the break so at eye level i can see what a fighter jet that i personally deal with easily 25-30 times a day looks like.
@carbongecko ok before i freak out please re-read my comment i told you to look up the f-18 and to go and watch top gun retard not look up Top Gun so when you get smart mesg me back homie. peace
@midnightneonmatt i have seen that movie enough times to have it memorized so don't use it as a reference for info cause it is not accurate to the actual navy and for your info the prefix c is not used with f because they do not go together in navy aviation cargo planes use c and f is fighter so cf is wrong, so; "slider, you stink."
@carbongecko i dont think you work any where else but a mcdonalds dude, if you couldint read my comment right... i doubt you work at any sort of airport or else i'm sure all the planes would have crashed into eachother because your just dumb as hell.
@jetwannabe Soft. The F-22 is still a better fighter jet. Go online and compare the stats yourself. The only thing the f-35 has, is VTOL ability, but if you've ever seen the Raptor take off...it's a shitload more effective (in terms of short take off), than the f-18 u see here (or f-18s in general).
F-35 is also going to be part of the USAF, so don't think I'm just tooting their horn. But the F-22 is just better!
Spectacular take off. With the hornets thrust it can be done, but, it was still a risky move. Had a engine flamed out,, well, It was good for the crowd, showed great flying skill and demonstrated the extremes the plane is capable of. I suggest you people who think it fake, watch the Blue Angels sometime. They do these kinds of maneuvers at every air show. The with a good pilot these are very versatile aircraft..
jpluke, as a tax paying CANADIAN,( maybe you should learn to spell it right), your tax dollars have lasted 30 years in these planes, time for some new ones.
@AznDuD333 america is a giant piece of shit, but they are still our friend, we have several military agreements with them, and our armed forces are integrated deeply, russia is the only one who could attempt to fight canada and america, so they are the only one who can be called a enemy
@AznDuD333 i know, 90% of canadian exports go 2 america, canada basicly exists to supply america... but canada and america going 2 war, i dont think will ever happen... america could just get what they want by asking, i doubt it would ever come down to combat, canadians are 2 smart for that shit, this isnt the middle east
@101andrewj Are you kidding, I would go to war with Canada for a Klondike bar. I would not use weapons or anything because Canadians are a great bunch of people and rock, but we could do nerf or laser tag. Loser buys the Klondike bars.
@101andrewj The Americans tried to go to war with Canada once before. That resulted in the American capital (including the White House) being burnt to the ground. Ask yourselves: why is the White House white? The answer: because of Canada. We've done it once. We can do it again.
@captainjeff86 i am well aware of what happened in 1812.. the area i live in, southern ontario, only ever saw 1 serious military conflict in its history, and thats when the americans thought they could invade it 200 years ago and ended up getting pushed back farther then their original borders and had their capital sacked for the effort... but days are different now, and altho a invasion is almost impossible, if it did happen, britian would not back us this time and america is much tougher now
@101andrewj lol canada would be screwed, we have no carrier's all the USA would have to do is put a carrier at each of our corners and we aint going anywhere....lol canada needs to fund some aircraft carriers, at leats this way we can say we have naval pilots. :o)
yea that's one huge reason.. very huge also any country that attacked Canada would have 0 right to do so, Canada is a peacekeeper so therefore the condemnation would be VERY thick.
@YiuTeub You mean like a UN approved NATO mission? Stupid uneducated lefty. Give your head a shake and get in touch with reality instead of the fairy tale world you are living in.
yea that's one huge reason.. very huge also any country that attacked Canada would have 0 right to do so, Canada is a peacekeeper so therefore the condemnation would be VERY thick.
@3dwardXP Nobody would attack Canada...that's like attacking the US, UK, and most, if not all of the EU. And then some. We already saw what happened when the US got attacked...2 countries completely buttfucked, and others being pissed on. Meanwhile, not a single hostile foreign military force has even come close to entering US borders. PIMP!
Grow up loser. So the a and the i got mixed up. I suppose in your perfect little world, you've never made a typo. Your so goddam smart, you should run for president (yes, I am aware, that in Canada, we have a Prime Minister, not a president, this would be my way of telling you to go away) .
@yynnmmbb If you watch any video on the CF-18 demo flight you will see it always starts with a "dirty roll" this is not fake but as real as the other videos you can see on the CF-18.
@yynnmmbb Right, because people who fake videos would put the annoying pests such as a fly going around the video at the beginning. Don't being a dumb ass and see the light, moron!
@OneSkiWonder The fucking fly was real moron. After take off , the camera man titls that lens to make it appear that the jet is flying at extreme angles... that he is really not.
In light of the latest crash, maybe our pilots should focus more on keeping these birds in the air, rather than trying to show off what the craft are capable of. As a tax paying Canadain, it would be nice to see my tax money surviving a little more.
@jpiluke The CF-18 reached the end of it's manufacturer's (McDonnell-Douglas, RIP) rated service life in 1997!!! The fact that we are still flying them is a testament of the people who service them and the stupidity of our politicians who waste billions on an unenforced gun registry and sponsoring (bribing) Liberals in Quebec. We should have had a replacement for the CF-18 14 years ago.
The oldest Hornets in our fleet will be 30 years old next year. Methinks we got our money's worth!
@FatFred2U everything in the military needs to be replaced, just wait until the bill for the navy and cost guard come in, most Canadians do not understand that this was a Liberal 90's problem that this government has to fix.
Don't be a fool, Top Gun. We bought the planes when the cold war was on. When the cold war ended, the pressure to upgrade our military capacity diminished with the GLOBAL STRATEGIC SHIFT away from nuclear stand-off between the major political powers. Post-9/11 upgrades kept the planes working in their interceptor roll into the 21st century (which is the only defensive role a Canadian government could credibly put forward). But you probably don't do nuance.
@fujihakyito Don't be a dumbass, then. If your going to spout rhetoric, at least try to understand the subject before you talk through the wrong orifice. The F-18 was never designed as an interceptor and Canada didn't start using it in that role until 1989. The upgrades that came onstream for the CF-18 between 1990 and 2001 were almost exclusively for the purpose of improving it's offensive capability. Those upgrades didn't increase it's lifespan, but mothballing 2/3 of the fleet for parts did.
You probably shouldn't use words like "rhetoric" when you don't have a handle on them. I made clear that the CF18's took on the interceptor role after the cold war, a role which became particularly significant after 9/11 (once again, it's the only defensive role a Canadian government could credibly posit in a post cold war environment). For some inexplicable reason, you haven't contested this claim (in fact, your response simply reinforced it).
@fujihakyito I never contested the claimed "interceptor role" (why would I, when I served 6 years in a "NORAD" squadron?) but rather stated that the F-18 was never designed for that mission, and that "upgrades" did nothing to improve it's inadequacies in that role The fact you lack the reading and comprehension skills to have understood that unsubtle difference goes a long way towards explaining why you seem determined to argue on subjects with which you have no knowledge or experience.
@fujihakyito The fact that you resort to the misuse of obscure vocabulary (did you even look-up "posit" before using it in a context that created a nonsensical and self-defeating statement?) and your inability to acquire relevant knowledge and experience, destroys any imaginary authority you assigned yourself in a role of "grammar queen".
rhe-to-ric (noun)
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast. see also: grandiloquence, grandiosity, empty talk,
This is where you case becomes all the more strained: Incremental Modernization of the planes began in 2001 and ended in 2006. These were obviously undertaken by a liberal government. So what upgrades are you talking about?
@fujihakyito How does my case become strained? I worked as an Air Weapons Systems Tech for 16 years. Eleven of those years were in CF-18 squadrons. The upgrades that occurred were not undertaken by a Liberal government, but rather in spite of it. It was, after all, that same government that cancelled the much needed replacement for our decrepit chopper fleet (and incurring $5B in fines and penalties for doing so), before it forced the Air Force to keep the obsolete CF-18's in service this long.
Once again, we're talking about Canadian defence spending in the 1990's, an era that was known to historians as "the end of history" because the triumph of the liberal capitalist strategic order (of which Canada is surely a part) was so absolute that there was no longer a threat that would justify cold war military strategy.
So are you suggesting that at the end of the cold war, with a hundred-plus planes in the arsenal and nothing even remotely resembling a cold war enemy or a credible threat to national sovereignty or the global strategic order, that the Mulrooney and Chretein governments should have undertaken a public tender for a new multirole fighters? Or should we have leased fighters from another NATO power? When should this process have begun? Should it have been transparent?
You don't even pay lip service to this historical reality, which is surely necessary to understand the last thirty years of Canadian military policy. Moreover, you don't articulate the need for fighter jets in terms of any national project or defensive necessity, you simply point to your personal frustrations with a government you didn't particularly like.
Also, you're using rhetoric as a pejorative. A better definition (say, one that isn't from an online dictionary) would probably make reference to the philosophical tradition from which that word emerged, viz Aristotle: "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". Put another way, rhetoric is a civic art, not a charge you level at message board opponents. And, incidentally, my usage of "posit" was entirely germane.
How would we have financed the plane-that-never-was? Would we have raised taxes? Cut other spending projects, military or otherwise? Wait til a more fiscally prudent government brought in surpluses (like, say, the Chretein government did in 2001)?
@fujihakyito Again your utter cluelessness is mind-boggling. The Liberals did raise taxes AFTER cancelling the CH-101 program. Between 1993 - 2003, the federal income tax rate was raised 31 separate times! Cancel programs? How about reneging on Education and Health transfers to the Provinces, or how about stealing from UIC, CPP, PSPF and other non-public funds? Keep drinking the LIEberal Kool-Aid that lets you believe that they actually balanced one single budget.
@FatFred2U And while the LIEberals began claiming they had produced a budget surplus in 1995 (not 2001 as you erroneously claimed) and onwards, Canada's true debt rose by $800B+ between 1993 - 2003 (or to put it another way, the national debt DOUBLED during the first ten years of the Chretian/Martin reign of error). Is this how fiscally "responsible governments" in the dreamworld of the LIEberal Party faithful?
@FatFred2U The LIEberals could have let the CH-101 program go ahead. Doing so would have created 5000 good-paying construction jobs for 2 years as well 1500 permanent HIGH-paying aerospace jobs. They killed not only those jobs, but billions in international sales that the CH-101 Program was negotiated to deliver, as well as losing out in tens of billions per year in federal taxes (income tax and export duties). Is this how your fiscally prudent government operates, LIEberal Moron?
@FatFred2U While the CH-101 Program would have cost the government very little, they decided to throw away thousands of good-paying jobs, tens of billions in tax revenue and prevented Canada form adding a vital component to it's aerospace infrastructure. And then to top-off the morony, they ended-up buying choppers to fill the role that the CH-101 was meant for. But instead we got an empty (useless) foreign-built platform at a cost greater than a fully-equipped Canadian-built CH-101!
@FatFred2U Does a fiscally responsible government waste $200 million on a FAILED reorganization at HRDC, mismanage $250 million on a FAILED Sponsorship Program, and more than $2 billion (and counting) on a FAILED Gun Registry? Does that fiscally responsible government kill thousands of good-paying (highly taxed) jobs that would have benefited our aerospace industry as well as our defense capability, only to buy an over-priced, inferior, foreign-built product?
My god, man. Have we entirely lost the question of the tender or leasing of planes, then? Can you answer a direct question, or do you need to resort to histrionic rages to get your thinking out? Should we have initiated a tender at the end of the cold war with a hundred-plus planes in the arsenal? Should we have leased fighters? What should the Chretein and Mulrooney governments have done about the obsolescing fighters?
And if you're going to cite economic data, you should probably source it, because a lot of your figures strain credibility. Canada's true debt rose by 800 billion between 96 and 03? What does that even mean? What economic index measures "true debt"? The Crackpot Institute for Regression and Fallacy? How is it calculated? Did the parliamentary budget officer ignore this heinous misrepresentation of the state of the nations debt? Did all subsequent policy analysis overlook it?
I'd invite you to read Thomas Courchene's policy paper "Balanced Budgets". It is googleable, and it demonstrates a sophisticated, credible, objective (and, indeed, critical) analysis of the books during and after the Martin years. Given that Courchene is a chair of financial and economic policy at Queens, and that it was sponsored by the Woodrow institute, you won't find a more impeccable analysis. It makes clear the reality of the surpluses, and directly addresses methodological criticisms.
You've mistaken me for a liberal supporter. I am not. But I'm certainly not satisfied with the idea that the issue of the cf-18's obsolescence is simply a problem of mismanagement by the Liberal party, because you still haven't offered any sensible rationale for the purchase of new fighters during the Chretien years. I've given you ample opportunity to, and I've tried to stimulate you into answering the question (you know your profession, no doubt). But still, you evade your rhetorical duties.
I haven't even really contested the dominant understanding that the military suffered neglect under Chretein's stewardship (I remember the Seaking debacle, you don't really need to cite it). All I've done is question the logic that would insist on the purchase of new fighters at the end of the cold war. And all you've done by way of response is attack the Liberal Party of Canada. Which is why you and I are still engaged in this absurd pissing contest.
Almost the same manouver taking off as when I flew from Stockholm to Lulea in Sweden. The plane used for the flight was a 737-600. It was a comfortable take off.
I pull that move in BF3 all the time... :-)
MrStoneClark 4 days ago
id crash lol..
thats awesome though!
Novababy790 2 weeks ago
Best pilots in the world!
noftchks1 2 weeks ago
lol i was at that airshow!!!!!!!!!
Dutchman931 1 month ago
Enjoy that 100+ per barrel oil.
YiuTeub 1 month ago
@YiuTeub You sound like a whiny dipper.
78logistics 1 week ago
@YiuTeub And that is exactly why we need to join wars LMao. Oil is bitchin expensive...go check how bad it is in alot of Europe. We've always joined wars...just don't compare us to the US jeez....
Haseeebo 1 day ago
SICK!!
NordicThunder24 2 months ago
That's how they get through a Tim Hortons drive-thru...
SenorSpode 3 months ago
Eh, no big deal... the F-15c used to do the same thing.. but, retracting the gear while rolling
otis77276 4 months ago
what the hell is a cf-18??? what kind of cargo can it carry? maybe it is c for canadian?
carbongecko 5 months ago
@carbongecko A 'Canadian' version of the F/A-18--basically.
Or what you saw in the video ;)
PhysicsTowerTeam 5 months ago
@carbongecko are youy mental its called "google" look it up dummy and its a fighter by the way not a cargo plane go watch Top Gun and learn what a fighter jet is and looks like...
midnightneonmatt 2 months ago
@midnightneonmatt wow telling me to look up a jet in top gun, when f-18s aren't even in that movie they used f-5s f-14s and a-4s so how bout this i step out of the radar room i was in when i wrote this and take a stroll down the flight line of NAS north island to see what some jets look Like or maybe tomorrow while i am working the tower i will request a jet to come in for the break so at eye level i can see what a fighter jet that i personally deal with easily 25-30 times a day looks like.
carbongecko 2 months ago
@carbongecko its not cf-18 its canfrc-18
carbongecko 2 months ago
@carbongecko The military term for it is CF-188, the manufacturers term is CF-18. This is the RCAF.
killmachine234 2 weeks ago
@killmachine234 It's adapted from the F-18 or FA-18. Don't knw if you already knew that, but I thought I'd throw it in anyway :)
Haseeebo 1 day ago
@carbongecko ok before i freak out please re-read my comment i told you to look up the f-18 and to go and watch top gun retard not look up Top Gun so when you get smart mesg me back homie. peace
midnightneonmatt 2 months ago
@midnightneonmatt i have seen that movie enough times to have it memorized so don't use it as a reference for info cause it is not accurate to the actual navy and for your info the prefix c is not used with f because they do not go together in navy aviation cargo planes use c and f is fighter so cf is wrong, so; "slider, you stink."
carbongecko 2 months ago
Comment removed
midnightneonmatt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@carbongecko i dont think you work any where else but a mcdonalds dude, if you couldint read my comment right... i doubt you work at any sort of airport or else i'm sure all the planes would have crashed into eachother because your just dumb as hell.
midnightneonmatt 2 months ago
CANADIAN BOYS EH.
wil69r 5 months ago
just wait till the f-35 ;)
jetwannabe 5 months ago 6
@jetwannabe Soft. The F-22 is still a better fighter jet. Go online and compare the stats yourself. The only thing the f-35 has, is VTOL ability, but if you've ever seen the Raptor take off...it's a shitload more effective (in terms of short take off), than the f-18 u see here (or f-18s in general).
F-35 is also going to be part of the USAF, so don't think I'm just tooting their horn. But the F-22 is just better!
With love from Ontario nigga.
Haseeebo 1 day ago
and thats the older f-18...not bad
Mondscheinfpv 6 months ago
0:9 secs 6 inches from a tail strike.
Tacman556 6 months ago
I prefer strong thrust during a dirty roll
kunz82414 7 months ago
looks like weak thrust
stalkingalizee 8 months ago
Spectacular take off. With the hornets thrust it can be done, but, it was still a risky move. Had a engine flamed out,, well, It was good for the crowd, showed great flying skill and demonstrated the extremes the plane is capable of. I suggest you people who think it fake, watch the Blue Angels sometime. They do these kinds of maneuvers at every air show. The with a good pilot these are very versatile aircraft..
GunBroker100 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That jet doesn't even exist anymore lol
implosion222 9 months ago
O CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EugeneTV1 9 months ago
THE SOUND OF FREEDOM!!
Toronto324 10 months ago 21
@Toronto324 The sound of my ass after a Party Box at Taco Bell.
RADIOACTIVEBUNY 7 months ago
Красиво. Всегда бы военная техника использовалась только в развлекательных целях.
SantaBremor 11 months ago
jpluke, as a tax paying CANADIAN,( maybe you should learn to spell it right), your tax dollars have lasted 30 years in these planes, time for some new ones.
lebl468 1 year ago
@lebl468
i think what he's saying is that instead of buying over priced american planes, why not wait for the cheaper and more capable russian planes?
AznDuD333 1 year ago
@AznDuD333 because, america is our friend, giving our money to our enemys to supply us with their inferior planes is beyond a stupid idea
101andrewj 1 year ago
@101andrewj
russia is not the enemy, america is not the friend.
AznDuD333 1 year ago
@AznDuD333 america is a giant piece of shit, but they are still our friend, we have several military agreements with them, and our armed forces are integrated deeply, russia is the only one who could attempt to fight canada and america, so they are the only one who can be called a enemy
101andrewj 1 year ago
@101andrewj
as history says, agreements don't do shit, they're only using us for the oil, they have invaded us before, they will do so again.
AznDuD333 1 year ago
@AznDuD333 i know, 90% of canadian exports go 2 america, canada basicly exists to supply america... but canada and america going 2 war, i dont think will ever happen... america could just get what they want by asking, i doubt it would ever come down to combat, canadians are 2 smart for that shit, this isnt the middle east
101andrewj 1 year ago 23
@101andrewj
well, there will be a time when americans try to rip us off.
AznDuD333 1 year ago
@AznDuD333 That comment of your is going to be US $0.95. It is due on 4-28-11. If payed late add an extra $0.02. Thanks for flying American.
ntrudr800 10 months ago
@101andrewj Fuck your self.
sarzamineiran 6 months ago
@sarzamineiran allah has led you astray, dont hate me for it
101andrewj 6 months ago
@101andrewj Are you kidding, I would go to war with Canada for a Klondike bar. I would not use weapons or anything because Canadians are a great bunch of people and rock, but we could do nerf or laser tag. Loser buys the Klondike bars.
expleshi 5 months ago 12
@expleshi LMAO! Best comment ever! Totally agree!
sgtliam10 4 months ago
@101andrewj The Americans tried to go to war with Canada once before. That resulted in the American capital (including the White House) being burnt to the ground. Ask yourselves: why is the White House white? The answer: because of Canada. We've done it once. We can do it again.
captainjeff86 3 months ago
@captainjeff86 i am well aware of what happened in 1812.. the area i live in, southern ontario, only ever saw 1 serious military conflict in its history, and thats when the americans thought they could invade it 200 years ago and ended up getting pushed back farther then their original borders and had their capital sacked for the effort... but days are different now, and altho a invasion is almost impossible, if it did happen, britian would not back us this time and america is much tougher now
101andrewj 3 months ago
@101andrewj And then we gave them alaska for a birthday present
GeorgeVeld 3 months ago
@captainjeff86
No we can't.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@101andrewj Well at least we dont have to worry about our oil now that we are selling it to china insted of the usap.s Us can't pay the bill anyway
GeorgeVeld 3 months ago
@101andrewj You are correct. Canada and the United States are the very best of friends on the planet.
inilledra 3 months ago
@inilledra............ dont forget Mexico and China! hahahahaha
dooalittledippsy 2 months ago
@101andrewj I am Canadian and I have to agree.
TheLincolnWorld 2 months ago
@101andrewj lol canada would be screwed, we have no carrier's all the USA would have to do is put a carrier at each of our corners and we aint going anywhere....lol canada needs to fund some aircraft carriers, at leats this way we can say we have naval pilots. :o)
midnightneonmatt 2 months ago
@101andrewj
yea that's one huge reason.. very huge also any country that attacked Canada would have 0 right to do so, Canada is a peacekeeper so therefore the condemnation would be VERY thick.
3dwardXP 2 months ago
@3dwardXP We used to be peace keepers. Now we join wars.
YiuTeub 1 month ago
@YiuTeub You mean like in WW1and WW2 and Korea?
nakawick 2 weeks ago 2
@nakawick No, like Libya.
YiuTeub 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
nakawick 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YiuTeub You mean like a UN approved NATO mission? Stupid uneducated lefty. Give your head a shake and get in touch with reality instead of the fairy tale world you are living in.
nakawick 2 weeks ago
@YiuTeub Briefly. And we should be proud of that role too. But we've always fought for what's right.
Mattman4698 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@101andrewj
yea that's one huge reason.. very huge also any country that attacked Canada would have 0 right to do so, Canada is a peacekeeper so therefore the condemnation would be VERY thick.
3dwardXP 2 months ago
@3dwardXP Nobody would attack Canada...that's like attacking the US, UK, and most, if not all of the EU. And then some. We already saw what happened when the US got attacked...2 countries completely buttfucked, and others being pissed on. Meanwhile, not a single hostile foreign military force has even come close to entering US borders. PIMP!
Haseeebo 1 day ago
@lebl468
Grow up loser. So the a and the i got mixed up. I suppose in your perfect little world, you've never made a typo. Your so goddam smart, you should run for president (yes, I am aware, that in Canada, we have a Prime Minister, not a president, this would be my way of telling you to go away) .
jpiluke 6 months ago
fake ass video
yynnmmbb 1 year ago
@yynnmmbb you are either blind or really dumb
TheAdolfHparodies 1 year ago
@yynnmmbb If you watch any video on the CF-18 demo flight you will see it always starts with a "dirty roll" this is not fake but as real as the other videos you can see on the CF-18.
denmalski 1 year ago
@yynnmmbb Haha!!!!~ Oh God. I love you trolls.
RenpikaRozen 1 year ago
@yynnmmbb how is it fake ? blind idiot..
Toronto324 10 months ago
@yynnmmbb Right, because people who fake videos would put the annoying pests such as a fly going around the video at the beginning. Don't being a dumb ass and see the light, moron!
OneSkiWonder 9 months ago
@OneSkiWonder The fucking fly was real moron. After take off , the camera man titls that lens to make it appear that the jet is flying at extreme angles... that he is really not.
yynnmmbb 8 months ago
Comment removed
QAFtuvok101 6 months ago
Répondre à cette vidéo... Then how come the clouds don't move ?
QAFtuvok101 6 months ago
In light of the latest crash, maybe our pilots should focus more on keeping these birds in the air, rather than trying to show off what the craft are capable of. As a tax paying Canadain, it would be nice to see my tax money surviving a little more.
jpiluke 1 year ago
@jpiluke You can focus all you want with an engine failure, it isn't going to fix it self through pilot skill.
meeswak 1 year ago
@jpiluke The CF-18 reached the end of it's manufacturer's (McDonnell-Douglas, RIP) rated service life in 1997!!! The fact that we are still flying them is a testament of the people who service them and the stupidity of our politicians who waste billions on an unenforced gun registry and sponsoring (bribing) Liberals in Quebec. We should have had a replacement for the CF-18 14 years ago.
The oldest Hornets in our fleet will be 30 years old next year. Methinks we got our money's worth!
FatFred2U 6 months ago
@FatFred2U everything in the military needs to be replaced, just wait until the bill for the navy and cost guard come in, most Canadians do not understand that this was a Liberal 90's problem that this government has to fix.
Baseshocks 5 months ago
@FatFred2U
Don't be a fool, Top Gun. We bought the planes when the cold war was on. When the cold war ended, the pressure to upgrade our military capacity diminished with the GLOBAL STRATEGIC SHIFT away from nuclear stand-off between the major political powers. Post-9/11 upgrades kept the planes working in their interceptor roll into the 21st century (which is the only defensive role a Canadian government could credibly put forward). But you probably don't do nuance.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@fujihakyito Don't be a dumbass, then. If your going to spout rhetoric, at least try to understand the subject before you talk through the wrong orifice. The F-18 was never designed as an interceptor and Canada didn't start using it in that role until 1989. The upgrades that came onstream for the CF-18 between 1990 and 2001 were almost exclusively for the purpose of improving it's offensive capability. Those upgrades didn't increase it's lifespan, but mothballing 2/3 of the fleet for parts did.
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
You probably shouldn't use words like "rhetoric" when you don't have a handle on them. I made clear that the CF18's took on the interceptor role after the cold war, a role which became particularly significant after 9/11 (once again, it's the only defensive role a Canadian government could credibly posit in a post cold war environment). For some inexplicable reason, you haven't contested this claim (in fact, your response simply reinforced it).
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@fujihakyito I never contested the claimed "interceptor role" (why would I, when I served 6 years in a "NORAD" squadron?) but rather stated that the F-18 was never designed for that mission, and that "upgrades" did nothing to improve it's inadequacies in that role The fact you lack the reading and comprehension skills to have understood that unsubtle difference goes a long way towards explaining why you seem determined to argue on subjects with which you have no knowledge or experience.
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@fujihakyito The fact that you resort to the misuse of obscure vocabulary (did you even look-up "posit" before using it in a context that created a nonsensical and self-defeating statement?) and your inability to acquire relevant knowledge and experience, destroys any imaginary authority you assigned yourself in a role of "grammar queen".
rhe-to-ric (noun)
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast. see also: grandiloquence, grandiosity, empty talk,
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
@Baseshocks
This is where you case becomes all the more strained: Incremental Modernization of the planes began in 2001 and ended in 2006. These were obviously undertaken by a liberal government. So what upgrades are you talking about?
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@fujihakyito How does my case become strained? I worked as an Air Weapons Systems Tech for 16 years. Eleven of those years were in CF-18 squadrons. The upgrades that occurred were not undertaken by a Liberal government, but rather in spite of it. It was, after all, that same government that cancelled the much needed replacement for our decrepit chopper fleet (and incurring $5B in fines and penalties for doing so), before it forced the Air Force to keep the obsolete CF-18's in service this long.
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
Once again, we're talking about Canadian defence spending in the 1990's, an era that was known to historians as "the end of history" because the triumph of the liberal capitalist strategic order (of which Canada is surely a part) was so absolute that there was no longer a threat that would justify cold war military strategy.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
So are you suggesting that at the end of the cold war, with a hundred-plus planes in the arsenal and nothing even remotely resembling a cold war enemy or a credible threat to national sovereignty or the global strategic order, that the Mulrooney and Chretein governments should have undertaken a public tender for a new multirole fighters? Or should we have leased fighters from another NATO power? When should this process have begun? Should it have been transparent?
fujihakyito 3 months ago
You don't even pay lip service to this historical reality, which is surely necessary to understand the last thirty years of Canadian military policy. Moreover, you don't articulate the need for fighter jets in terms of any national project or defensive necessity, you simply point to your personal frustrations with a government you didn't particularly like.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@FatFred2U @FatFred2U
Also, you're using rhetoric as a pejorative. A better definition (say, one that isn't from an online dictionary) would probably make reference to the philosophical tradition from which that word emerged, viz Aristotle: "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". Put another way, rhetoric is a civic art, not a charge you level at message board opponents. And, incidentally, my usage of "posit" was entirely germane.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
How would we have financed the plane-that-never-was? Would we have raised taxes? Cut other spending projects, military or otherwise? Wait til a more fiscally prudent government brought in surpluses (like, say, the Chretein government did in 2001)?
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@fujihakyito Again your utter cluelessness is mind-boggling. The Liberals did raise taxes AFTER cancelling the CH-101 program. Between 1993 - 2003, the federal income tax rate was raised 31 separate times! Cancel programs? How about reneging on Education and Health transfers to the Provinces, or how about stealing from UIC, CPP, PSPF and other non-public funds? Keep drinking the LIEberal Kool-Aid that lets you believe that they actually balanced one single budget.
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U And while the LIEberals began claiming they had produced a budget surplus in 1995 (not 2001 as you erroneously claimed) and onwards, Canada's true debt rose by $800B+ between 1993 - 2003 (or to put it another way, the national debt DOUBLED during the first ten years of the Chretian/Martin reign of error). Is this how fiscally "responsible governments" in the dreamworld of the LIEberal Party faithful?
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U The LIEberals could have let the CH-101 program go ahead. Doing so would have created 5000 good-paying construction jobs for 2 years as well 1500 permanent HIGH-paying aerospace jobs. They killed not only those jobs, but billions in international sales that the CH-101 Program was negotiated to deliver, as well as losing out in tens of billions per year in federal taxes (income tax and export duties). Is this how your fiscally prudent government operates, LIEberal Moron?
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U While the CH-101 Program would have cost the government very little, they decided to throw away thousands of good-paying jobs, tens of billions in tax revenue and prevented Canada form adding a vital component to it's aerospace infrastructure. And then to top-off the morony, they ended-up buying choppers to fill the role that the CH-101 was meant for. But instead we got an empty (useless) foreign-built platform at a cost greater than a fully-equipped Canadian-built CH-101!
Brilliant!
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U Does a fiscally responsible government waste $200 million on a FAILED reorganization at HRDC, mismanage $250 million on a FAILED Sponsorship Program, and more than $2 billion (and counting) on a FAILED Gun Registry? Does that fiscally responsible government kill thousands of good-paying (highly taxed) jobs that would have benefited our aerospace industry as well as our defense capability, only to buy an over-priced, inferior, foreign-built product?
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid kid.
FatFred2U 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
My god, man. Have we entirely lost the question of the tender or leasing of planes, then? Can you answer a direct question, or do you need to resort to histrionic rages to get your thinking out? Should we have initiated a tender at the end of the cold war with a hundred-plus planes in the arsenal? Should we have leased fighters? What should the Chretein and Mulrooney governments have done about the obsolescing fighters?
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@FatFred2U
And if you're going to cite economic data, you should probably source it, because a lot of your figures strain credibility. Canada's true debt rose by 800 billion between 96 and 03? What does that even mean? What economic index measures "true debt"? The Crackpot Institute for Regression and Fallacy? How is it calculated? Did the parliamentary budget officer ignore this heinous misrepresentation of the state of the nations debt? Did all subsequent policy analysis overlook it?
fujihakyito 3 months ago
I'd invite you to read Thomas Courchene's policy paper "Balanced Budgets". It is googleable, and it demonstrates a sophisticated, credible, objective (and, indeed, critical) analysis of the books during and after the Martin years. Given that Courchene is a chair of financial and economic policy at Queens, and that it was sponsored by the Woodrow institute, you won't find a more impeccable analysis. It makes clear the reality of the surpluses, and directly addresses methodological criticisms.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
You've mistaken me for a liberal supporter. I am not. But I'm certainly not satisfied with the idea that the issue of the cf-18's obsolescence is simply a problem of mismanagement by the Liberal party, because you still haven't offered any sensible rationale for the purchase of new fighters during the Chretien years. I've given you ample opportunity to, and I've tried to stimulate you into answering the question (you know your profession, no doubt). But still, you evade your rhetorical duties.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@fujihakyito
Woodrow institute = Woodrow Wilson institute
fujihakyito 3 months ago
@fujihakyito
I haven't even really contested the dominant understanding that the military suffered neglect under Chretein's stewardship (I remember the Seaking debacle, you don't really need to cite it). All I've done is question the logic that would insist on the purchase of new fighters at the end of the cold war. And all you've done by way of response is attack the Liberal Party of Canada. Which is why you and I are still engaged in this absurd pissing contest.
fujihakyito 3 months ago
Almost the same manouver taking off as when I flew from Stockholm to Lulea in Sweden. The plane used for the flight was a 737-600. It was a comfortable take off.
mekkorr 1 year ago
Nothing "Insane" about it! The Flight Computer can easily handle this roll!!!
MSTLOM 1 year ago
thats nuttz
TheZetaReticulan 1 year ago
Ehh nice maneuver, but I prefer Bud Granley's snap roll on take-off in his T-6 Harvard
jazzysource93 1 year ago
I didn't even know they were capable of that wow
supramanz 1 year ago
da pauraaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sierracoswort 1 year ago
I WAS THERE IT WAS AWESOME
CardboardAmmo 2 years ago
love those takeoffs, but prefer the dirty roll to be done later on in, i like the BA jacked solo takeoff better at 380 knots
MetaliCanuck 2 years ago