Just finished reading a book on the Avro, what a shame we went from a manufacturing major power after WW2 to where are today, buying junk from China, not just once but again and again.
Printable View
Just finished reading a book on the Avro, what a shame we went from a manufacturing major power after WW2 to where are today, buying junk from China, not just once but again and again.
The Avro was the most embarrassing foreign affairs/defense boondoggle ever committed by a Conservative government. John Diefenbaker literally took his orders from Washington to trash the program. Then,to add insult to injury,the Americans poached most of our aerospace engineers for NASA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
No need to wonder why your post T 21 was the last comment by a pro conservative. Hard to argue with those facts.
Several people I used to work with were employed by A V Roe when the program was cancelled. To this very day,they'll never vote for a Conservative. Someone once posted that just because they're a member of any particular party,it doesn't mean they agree with everything they do. Actually,I think it was Gilroy.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Me as well. I do not always agree with all the policies of those I vote for. I feel that it would be impossible.
Canada has used jet that are 30 years out of date.... Arctic is melting... and Russia....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPU3BjjWHg
While Justlied has Chinese troops training in Canada and it seems his important item on his agenda is a shave and his hair dyed.
Lets make fancy socks turdeau take the first ride!! then hit the eject button!!Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Well, I can remember a fellow trying to commit suicide in a CF 101 inside the hangar. Ejection seats were found to be defective, so I wouldn't try that.Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpygeezer
Remember those broken-down subs Chretien bought from the Brits that only one of which got out of dry dock? Well,now,the Liberals want to scrap them and buy newer ones. Gee,what could possibly go wrong? This story keeps getting more and more bizarre with these mutts.
Used obsolete jets, preceded by used obsolete submarines and vets ask too much .... do I see a Liberal trend here?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Last I saw only 1 was capable of firing a torpedo and atleast 2 were in long term dry dock for work....
Any of the German, Swedish or Japanese subs bought new would have worked off the shelf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ou6FZdahI
https://thedailycanada.com/royal-can...bmarine-fleet/
Questions about the costs and benefits of submarines have circulated since Canada bought four second-hand vessels from Britain in 1998. The government at that time argued it was getting a bargain by paying only $750 million for the four Victoria-class vessels.
Yet the vessels have since spent more time in dock for repairs and maintenance than at sea, with Ottawa sinking billions of dollars into the fleet over the past 20-plus years to address a series of problems and incidents including fires and faulty welding.
The most recent incident saw HMCS Corner Brook suffer what may have been permanent damage last year after an errant test damaged the submarine’s main ballast tank. Corner Brook previously ran aground in 2011, while a fire broke out on board in 2019.
The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...risk-1.1334667
The report provides a scathing account of the "inferior vessels" since the first sub, HMCS Victoria, entered service in the Canadian navy in 2000.
...
While in service with the British navy for four years, the subs spent 1,077 days at sea. But after 13 years in service with the Canadian navy, the boats have spent only 783 days patrolling, the report said.
...
"The best-before date of Canada's Victoria-class is approaching, perhaps as soon as 2023,'' warns the report.
783 days in 13 years .... that works out to 15 days a year per sub or 60 days if the 783 is each.... 2 functional 2 months out of 12 or more likely based on the usage of the word "boats", implying total 2 weeks out of 52 weeks by. Hmmmm.... if you want to be in the Canadian Navy and always be at home port maybe a submariner is for you.
I wonder if there is any data available on the jets actual usage....
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...ally-for-rcaf/
Eighteen of the 25 will eventually be flying, while the other seven will be used for spare parts and testing.
So 8 of the jets will fly 160 hours a year.... out of 25 purchased. :whacked: