Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s


Recommended Posts

Old jet, the An-124. There are no 'new' ones at the moment and it is still pie in the sky that they'll go back into full production. Dream on, I say.

So what fighter/strike aircraft other than the F-35 do you have in mind for Canada?

I'm not an expert...I just want to see value for dollars spent in an open competition and that includes Russian planes, the Ruskies are not our enemies...

I think the F35 is way to expensive, it's no faster than any of it's competiton, it doesn't have significant range advantage, we have no enemies with weapons that require us to have it...for Artic patrols there are other options at a significantly lower price that will do the same job,...for the F35 price estimated we probably get a 80 Super Hornets, 80 or so A-10s, a new Arctic Polar 8 Ice breaker and a 3 or 4 new Antonovs...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

this isn't the type of plane that will have huge demand so there will never be a constant production line...

You will save a considerable amount of money buying an aircraft that is currently in production over one where you have to pay for the line to be cranked up to produce a very small number just for you.

you and Wilber are clinging to old info for the sake of an argument...I'm sure the Boeing 747's of 1970 have been significantly updated electronically over 40yrs as well...the newer Antonovs and those being refurbished have Honeywell avionics and a crew of 4...the Galaxy C5 has a crew of 7 to fly the thing properly...C-17 crew of 3...with Boeing having tentative plans to assemble the Antonov for the American market I doubt very much language is an issue...

but the entire point of my posts is excluding competitors from the bidding process, "a no-bid contract" based on past political disputes and false information and assumptions...it's our tax dollars being spent irresponsibly ...

The 747 has been updated considerably over the years but that is Boeing updating a Boeing, a totally different thing. The big changes in the 747 over the years have been avionics, engines, aerodynamics and some stronger structure to accommodate heavier weights and greater use of composite materials. Typical upgrades for most aircraft with long production runs. The electrical, hydraulic and flight control systems are still basically the same as the original and are of a specification common to all western built aircraft.

You also disregard the problem of main deck pressurization on the Antonov which restricts carrying live cargo to low altitudes. Correcting this would require a complete redesign of the fuselage structure and cargo doors resulting in a heavier aircraft resulting in poorer performance and load carrying capability than the current model unless major changes were also made to wing design and power plants. The Antonov can lift what it does in part because of compromises made elsewhere in its design. This is one compromise that cannot be corrected with a modification. This is not to say it can't or won't ever be done but it will be a huge job for whoever does and will a 30 year old design be worth it.

So Boeing has tentative plans for the Antonov. So what? Maybe they will and maybe they won't, what will they eventually do and how long will we have wait to find out and finally get one if we decided we want it? We only require four aircraft, no one is going to build anything special for us. For us to have them do so would be so expensive, off the rack the C-17's would look like a steal in comparison. Boeing won't do anything with the Antonov unless and until they foresee enough customers to make it profitable. The C-17 is here, now and is doing its job very well. Also, the whole thing was originally designed and built by McDonnell Douglas, now a part of Boeing.

The C-17 only takes 2 pilots to operate. It didn't have to be modified, it was designed that way from the beginning. The third crew member is a load master who's sole responsibility is the cargo.

The fact is, the C-17 is currently the most capable and versatile aircraft of its type in the world. Hands down. If that is what you want and need, why go through the farce of getting people to compete for a contract you know you won't be awarding them.

I can see why there is some debate over the F-35 although I do think it is probably the right choice. The C-17 was a no brainer.

Edited by Wilber
Link to post
Share on other sites

You will save a considerable amount of money buying an aircraft that is currently in production over one where you have to pay for the line to be cranked up to produce a very small number just for you.

Russia has plans for 20 if canada ordered four that's 20% of Russias, like the C5 Galaxy(130) there aren't many of these planes being made...at likely 200 mill each these aren't small orders...a 777 comes in at about 200 mill...a C17 200-250 mill
The 747 has been updated considerably over the years but that is Boeing updating a Boeing, a totally different thing. The big changes in the 747 over the years have been avionics, engines, aerodynamics and some stronger structure to accommodate heavier weights and greater use of composite materials. Typical upgrades for most aircraft with long production runs. The electrical, hydraulic and flight control systems are still basically the same as the original and are of a specification common to all western built aircraft.
that wasn't the point, DOP wanted to use an old model as an example which isn't releaistic ..
You also disregard the problem of main deck pressurization on the Antonov which restricts carrying live cargo to low altitudes. Correcting this would require a complete redesign of the fuselage structure and cargo doors resulting in a heavier aircraft resulting in poorer performance and load carrying capability than the current model unless major changes were also made to wing design and power plants. The Antonov can lift what it does in part because of compromises made elsewhere in its design. This is one compromise that cannot be corrected with a modification. This is not to say it can't or won't ever be done but it will be a huge job for whoever does and will a 30 year old design be worth it.
I don't at all, the planes have different uses, it's apples and oranges, it's what the buyer thinks will work best for their needs, the C17 carries 50 more passengers but doesn't have the same heavy lift capabilites...if you want strictly passenger numbers go with a 747...
So Boeing has tentative plans for the Antonov. So what? Maybe they will and maybe they won't, what will they eventually do and how long will we have wait to find out and finally get one if we decided we want it? We only require four aircraft, no one is going to build anything special for us. For us to have them do so would be so expensive, off the rack the C-17's would look like a steal in comparison. Boeing won't do anything with the Antonov unless and until they foresee enough customers to make it profitable. The C-17 is here, now and is doing its job very well. Also, the whole thing was originally designed and built by McDonnell Douglas, now a part of Boeing.
so what?, it demonstrates despite the criticism from forum experts the experts at Boeing think it's a great plane and will build it if there is demand for it's heavy lift capability...and from my reading it cheaper than the C17
The C-17 only takes 2 pilots to operate. It didn't have to be modified, it was designed that way from the beginning. The third crew member is a load master who's sole responsibility is the cargo.
3 or 4 crew, insignficant...
The fact is, the C-17 is currently the most capable and versatile aircraft of its type in the world. Hands down. If that is what you want and need, why go through the farce of getting people to compete for a contract you know you won't be awarding them.
the same reason everyone car shops, to find the vehicle best suited for your individual needs...why does Canada have the F18 and not the F15 or F16?
I can see why there is some debate over the F-35 although I do think it is probably the right choice. The C-17 was a no brainer.
if the C17 was the only tender than it was a no brainer.. and it was, the C17 was the only plane that could be delivered on short notice...no Antonov could be built in the required timeline, nor could Airbus deliver ... it was the only plane available not because it was the best tendered option... Edited by wyly
Link to post
Share on other sites
wyly: for the F35 price estimated we probably get a 80 Super Hornets, 80 or so A-10s, a new Arctic Polar 8 Ice breaker and a 3 or 4 new Antonovs...

Why not throw in the Panavi Tornado and the Dassault Mirage for a complete maintenance nightmare?

I'm not an expert...I just want to see value for dollars spent in an open competition and that includes Russian planes, the Ruskies are not our enemies...

They're not our friends, either. As mentioned...if you want Russian aircraft in your airforce, my suggestion is that you're living in the wrong country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We played hockey with the Soviets, too.

I think that's a wee bit different. I'm not saying that they're our friends, I'm saying that I'm not really understanding why they would want us on the council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia has plans for 20 if canada ordered four that's 20% of Russias, like the C5 Galaxy(130) there aren't many of these planes being made...at likely 200 mill each these aren't small orders...a 777 comes in at about 200 mill...a C17 200-250 mill

Plans shmanz, we need aircraft yesterday. So far there have been over 200 C-17's built. Only 58 Antonovs. What the hell does a 777 have to do with anything? They will build over a thousand of the things before they shut down the line.

that wasn't the point, DOP wanted to use an old model as an example which isn't realistic ..

The Antonov is an old model. It first flew 28 years ago.

I don't at all, the planes have different uses, it's apples and oranges, it's what the buyer thinks will work best for their needs, the C17 carries 50 more passengers but doesn't have the same heavy lift capabilites...if you want strictly passenger numbers go with a 747...

The C-17 is far more versatile. It can't lift as much as a C-5 either but it is still in production and the C-5 isn't. You could fill a C-17 with hundreds in an emergency evacuation because you can pressurize the whole aircraft. You would be SOL with the Antonov unless you wanted to fly at low altitude. For the rare occasions that you need something really big moved, hire an Antonov. People don't need moving vans because they move once and a while but many of them need pickup trucks. The C-17 can move any main battle tank in the world. I don't see the need for much more. The 747 is totally unsuited to this application, that's why the C-5 was built.

plane and will build it if there is demand for it's heavy lift capability...and from my reading it cheaper than the C17

so what?, it demonstrates despite the criticism from forum experts the experts at Boeing think it's a great

No one disputes it is a great heavy lift aircraft but that is all it does better than the C-17.

3 or 4 crew, insignficant...

Tell that to any airline executive. Why do you think they design aircraft to be operated by fewer and fewer crew members? You obviously have no clue what it costs to train and keep current flight crew members, never mind what it costs to pay, feed, house and maintain them in the field.

the same reason everyone car shops, to find the vehicle best suited for your individual needs...why does Canada have the F18 and not the F15 or F16?

You assume that because tenders weren't asked for that no comparison was made. You may be right but I doubt it.

if the C17 was the only tender than it was a no brainer.. and it was, the C17 was the only plane that could be delivered on short notice...no Antonov could be built in the required timeline, nor could Airbus deliver ... it was the only plane available not because it was the best tendered option...

And your point is? Thanks for making mine. You finally admit the C-17 was the best aircraft available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the single source contract was entered into because in effect there is ONLY one contractor that meets the specification requirements for the newest generation of stealth fighter jets, and all others have decided to bow out of research and development or have put their expertise into development of this particular aircraft, including Canada's aerospace industry who has already benefited from the research and development. All other NATO participants are signed on for this particular aircraft so it would make sense for Canada to have the same aircraft and access to the same parts when required.

Or are we looking at another Chretien deal where the contract ends up being cancelled costing the people of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation fees and then have the same government contract with the same firm to build similar

helicopters at twice the money as was originally contracted and get inferior aircraft? Let's also not forget about the submarines that Jean Chretien bought for our navy, and in which one brave Officer was killed and several others injured during an on-board fire before the subs even made it back to a Canadian port. By the way, are any of them even seaworthy yet?

The Liberals simply put, have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to anything military, and for that matter neither do the NDP or the Bloc-heads. Given their druthers, Canada would have no military.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plans shmanz, we need aircraft yesterday. So far there have been over 200 C-17's built. Only 58 Antonovs. What the hell does a 777 have to do with anything? They will build over a thousand of the things before they shut down the line.

I'll dumb down my posts in the future just for you

The Antonov is an old model. It first flew 28 years ago.
and the C-17 flew 20 yrs ago, (wow that's an amazing 8 yrs differences :rolleyes: ) and 747 flew 40 some years ago and they're still being built...and the C-17 is scheduled to go out of production in 2013, no wonder Boeing is looking at assembling a better plane under license, the Antonov....your research and logic sucks
The C-17 is far more versatile. It can't lift as much as a C-5 either but it is still in production and the C-5 isn't. You could fill a C-17 with hundreds in an emergency evacuation because you can pressurize the whole aircraft. You would be SOL with the Antonov unless you wanted to fly at low altitude. For the rare occasions that you need something really big moved, hire an Antonov.
carries hundreds? I checked the specs for Canada's CC-177, it carries 102 wow that's an astonishing 20 more than the Antonov, for an aircraft expert you either don't much or you BS...
People don't need moving vans because they move once and a while but many of them need pickup trucks. The C-17 can move any main battle tank in the world. I don't see the need for much more. The 747 is totally unsuited to this application, that's why the C-5 was built.
no the CC-177 is a moving van and not the best or the least expensive...the CC-130J Hercules is the pickup of the Canadian Forces...

civilian planes are converted to military use all the time which is why the 747, if you want maximum passenger load a converted civilian option is best, heavy lifters are wasted on passengers, very inefficient...

No one disputes it is a great heavy lift aircraft but that is all it does better than the C-17.
it flies three times as far, in fact it could fly to Afghanistan non-stop the CC-177 needs refueling and it's faster...and ya it carries a hell of alot more than the CC-177
Tell that to any airline executive. Why do you think they design aircraft to be operated by fewer and fewer crew members? You obviously have no clue what it costs to train and keep current flight crew members, never mind what it costs to pay, feed, house and maintain them in the field.
no clue that's you dude, the military is not an airline company profit is not the order of the day, no one gets laid off...whether the guy is on the ground or in the air he gets paid, it has no effect on the bottom line of an organization that has people standing around doing nothing all day and doesn't need to show a profit..and the cost to feed and house them is the same regardless...
You assume that because tenders weren't asked for that no comparison was made. You may be right but I doubt it.
no I'm right, the CC-177 were supposed to go to the US airforce they were a rush purchase, the government wouldn't wait for delivery of other bids....
And your point is? Thanks for making mine. You finally admit the C-17 was the best aircraft available.
you haven't made a single point mr "expert", the CC-177 was the only plane available at the time not the best...

and despite all your twisting and ducking and you haven't justified a no-bid contract...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the single source contract was entered into because in effect there is ONLY one contractor that meets the specification requirements for the newest generation of stealth fighter jets, and all others have decided to bow out of research and development or have put their expertise into development of this particular aircraft, including Canada's aerospace industry who has already benefited from the research and development. All other NATO participants are signed on for this particular aircraft so it would make sense for Canada to have the same aircraft and access to the same parts when required.

wrong...and there is no actual contract

ya lets buy a plane we don't need for any enemy we don't have at double the price of a suitable replacement for the CF-18...oh ya that make a lot of sense..

Link to post
Share on other sites

and the C-17 flew 20 yrs ago, (wow that's an amazing 8 yrs differences :rolleyes: ) and 747 flew 40 some years ago and they're still being built...and the C-17 is scheduled to go out of production in 2013, no wonder Boeing is looking at assembling a better plane under license, the Antonov....your research and logic sucks

Yet the C-17 is a much more modern aircraft. One generation newer.

carries hundreds? I checked the specs for Canada's CC-177, it carries 102 wow that's an astonishing 20 more than the Antonov, for an aircraft expert you either don't much or you BS...

That's 102 fully equipped paratroops and their equipment. The AN-124 is seldom if ever used for paratroops. Yes the C-17 could hold hundreds in a get out of Dodge evacuation of Saigon type scenario. The only consideration would be how many you could pack in, not if you could keep them alive once you got airborne. The Antonov can only pressurize it's main cargo deck to 3.75 PSI. Normal pressurization for passengers at altitude is in the 7 PSI range, meaning the Antonov would have to cruise at low altitude, severely restricting its range, ability to fly over high terrain and adverse weather.

no the CC-177 is a moving van and not the best or the least expensive...the CC-130J Hercules is the pickup of the Canadian Forces...

civilian planes are converted to military use all the time which is why the 747, if you want maximum passenger load a converted civilian option is best, heavy lifters are wasted on passengers, very inefficient...

It is the best all rounder which is what we need. The 747 is unsuited to military heavy lift because the cargo deck is too high requiring special equipment for loading and unloading, it has no short field or gravel capability and no tail door for air drops. But what the heck, lets buy Antonovs and 747's.

it flies three times as far, in fact it could fly to Afghanistan non-stop the CC-177 needs refueling and it's faster...and ya it carries a hell of alot more than the CC-177

Great Circle distance from Trenton to Kandahar is 10800 KM. The AN-124's range with a full load is 5,900 KM.

no clue that's you dude, the military is not an airline company profit is not the order of the day, no one gets laid off...whether the guy is on the ground or in the air he gets paid, it has no effect on the bottom line of an organization that has people standing around doing nothing all day and doesn't need to show a profit..and the cost to feed and house them is the same regardless...

You think the military works for nothing and costs nothing to train? They actually cost a lot more to train than civilian crews. Right, no one gets laid off so you still have to keep them employed and current even if you aren't using them. Operational pilot turnover in the military is much higher than airlines even if people stay in the military when they have finished operational flying. Try and find a 55 year old military line pilot who has spent ten years on one type. You won't. Military pilots are also paid much better than they used to be. Although the top rates may be higher in some cases, these days it will take a civilian airline pilot several years before they start to make the same as a military pilot. Either way, going from a three to a four person crew represents a 33 percent increase in crewing costs.

no I'm right, the CC-177 were supposed to go to the US airforce they were a rush purchase, the government wouldn't wait for delivery of other bids....

Exactly, we needed aircraft and no one else had them. How many airforces operate the AN-124? One, Russia. If it is so great why hasn't anyone else ordered it? You totally disregard how important it is to operate similar types as your allies. If one of our C-17's breaks, chances are it will be in a place where we are operating with one of our allies. Instead of waiting for a part to come from Trenton (if they have one), Kiev or somewhere else in the place formerly known as the Soviet Union, chances are we will be able to walk across the ramp and borrow one from the Yanks, Brits, Aussies or some other C-17 operator. IE Kandahar and Weisbaden. The US being the largest operator also has the most bases scattered around the world where parts and service would be available. During joint operations parts can be pooled at a common base. Each military can be responsible for supplying certain spares for all operators. This cuts down on the number of parts each must stock at every base they operate from and the number of spares they have to buy in total. Airlines which operate a common type have done this in the past.

As the sole military operator of the AN-124 other than the Ruskies, we would be on our own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have no doubt as to the quality of the C17 my only point was this cold war fixation we have that prevents us from looking at other aircraft...the american military has no issues with using the Antonov, Boeing may be going into production of the plane so apparently it's good enough for them, are you suggesting Boeing and the Pentagon know nothing about planes?...do Canadians know something about planes that the Americans don't?...seems to me we have still cold war issues that the americans are beginning to leave behind....

__________________

wholesale electronics

Halter Wedding Dresses

Link to post
Share on other sites

have no doubt as to the quality of the C17 my only point was this cold war fixation we have that prevents us from looking at other aircraft...the american military has no issues with using the Antonov, Boeing may be going into production of the plane so apparently it's good enough for them, are you suggesting Boeing and the Pentagon know nothing about planes?...do Canadians know something about planes that the Americans don't?...seems to me we have still cold war issues that the americans are beginning to leave behind....

Boeing may be going into production. When and what will they be producing. How many Antonovs has the US military ordered? They have no problem hiring Antonov operators but how many have they offered to buy? They also make extensive us of their domestic carriers to move their personnel. Other than Russia, what other militaries have ordered it or even expressed interest? There is also considerable opposition at home to having their aircraft assembled elsewhere. Even the Russians say that the US military acquiring the 124 would be a "political" decision. Just what the military needs, another political decision.

Any decision made by a Canadian government to take a flier on something that Boeing may or not build to some unknown specification sometime in the future would be soundly condemned by the opposition and rightly so. Like the navy's helicopters, we could easily still be waiting almost 20 years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing may be going into production. When and what will they be producing. How many Antonovs has the US military ordered? They have no problem hiring Antonov operators but how many have they offered to buy? They also make extensive us of their domestic carriers to move their personnel. Other than Russia, what other militaries have ordered it or even expressed interest? There is also considerable opposition at home to having their aircraft assembled elsewhere. Even the Russians say that the US military acquiring the 124 would be a "political" decision. Just what the military needs, another political decision.

Any decision made by a Canadian government to take a flier on something that Boeing may or not build to some unknown specification sometime in the future would be soundly condemned by the opposition and rightly so. Like the navy's helicopters, we could easily still be waiting almost 20 years later.

do your research....Russia is irrelevant in the matter since Antonov is an Ukranian company...5 countries operate the Antonov many other prefer to lease it extensively including NATO and the USA for two simple reasons 1st-it's moves a lot of cargo... 2nd-it's cheaper to lease than to buy or build, the C-17 I believe cost $2-billion to develop...no more C5's are planned, C-17 is done in 2013,so leasing the Antonov becomes a very attractive option...american political problems are due to potential lost jobs not the plane itself, the airforce also wanted Airbus to replace it's tanker and cargo/passenger fleet it beat out an inferior bid from an american company, but again jobs are an issue and it's stalled... Edited by wyly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the C-17 is a much more modern aircraft. One generation newer.

which has been updated along the way as would be the Antonov 124 to the new Antonov 124-210
That's 102 fully equipped paratroops and their equipment. The AN-124 is seldom if ever used for paratroops. Yes the C-17 could hold hundreds in a get out of Dodge evacuation of Saigon type scenario. The only consideration would be how many you could pack in, not if you could keep them alive once you got airborne. The Antonov can only pressurize it's main cargo deck to 3.75 PSI. Normal pressurization for passengers at altitude is in the 7 PSI range, meaning the Antonov would have to cruise at low altitude, severely restricting its range, ability to fly over high terrain and adverse weather.

hundreds you claimed, "HUNDREDS"...the C-17 is rarely if ever used as a paratroops, our military uses the CC-130 for that and it doesn't believe in using paradrops anyways...now you have us evacuating Saigon situations :lol: once in a lifetime situation involving americans like that's ever going to happen to Canada, now your desperately clutching at straws...

It is the best all rounder which is what we need. The 747 is unsuited to military heavy lift because the cargo deck is too high requiring special equipment for loading and unloading, it has no short field or gravel capability and no tail door for air drops. But what the heck, lets buy Antonovs and 747's.
747 was an example of a 40yr old plane that has been upgraded which in your dream world happens only on american planes...the Airbus 330 is an commercial airliner design that has been converted to military use as a tanker, troop and cargo carrier...for troop transport a airline conversionis the most cost effective means of moving troops..
Great Circle distance from Trenton to Kandahar is 10800 KM. The AN-124's range with a full load is 5,900 KM.

I quoted empty loads for both planes....checking other websites the An 124-100 is nearly double the distance 15,250KM,the C-177, 8,700km, the An 124-210 is better yet...with a full load the C-177 80 tons-4,450km, with a 3/4 load 80 tons the AN124 8,000km...and checking the Canadian forces info the C177 normally flies with a 40ton load, at 40 tons the Antonov 124-100 could fly from Trenton to Kandahar without refueling....the antonov is the better plane...
You think the military works for nothing and costs nothing to train? They actually cost a lot more to train than civilian crews. Right, no one gets laid off so you still have to keep them employed and current even if you aren't using them. Operational pilot turnover in the military is much higher than airlines even if people stay in the military when they have finished operational flying. Try and find a 55 year old military line pilot who has spent ten years on one type. You won't. Military pilots are also paid much better than they used to be. Although the top rates may be higher in some cases, these days it will take a civilian airline pilot several years before they start to make the same as a military pilot. Either way, going from a three to a four person crew represents a 33 percent increase in crewing costs.
they get paid whether sitting in the plane or on their arse back in Trenton...and the Antonov 124-210 would have a crew of 3...
Exactly, we needed aircraft and no one else had them. How many airforces operate the AN-124? One, Russia.
no research ability? five countries operate the An-124-100...
If it is so great why hasn't anyone else ordered it? You totally disregard how important it is to operate similar types as your allies. If one of our C-17's breaks, chances are it will be in a place where we are operating with one of our allies. Instead of waiting for a part to come from Trenton (if they have one), Kiev or somewhere else in the place formerly known as the Soviet Union, chances are we will be able to walk across the ramp and borrow one from the Yanks, Brits, Aussies or some other C-17 operator. IE Kandahar and Weisbaden. The US being the largest operator also has the most bases scattered around the world where parts and service would be available. During joint operations parts can be pooled at a common base. Each military can be responsible for supplying certain spares for all operators. This cuts down on the number of parts each must stock at every base they operate from and the number of spares they have to buy in total. Airlines which operate a common type have done this in the past.

$200 million to buy versus how much to lease? Canada had no issues leasing them the problem was not being able to get them on short notice... how many countries ordered the C5 Galaxy? none...parts are not an issue they can be delivered anywhere in the world in a day..
As the sole military operator of the AN-124 other than the Ruskies, we would be on our own.
repeat this as often as you like it won't make it true... Edited by wyly
Link to post
Share on other sites

As of today, Canadians suppliers may not have the chance to bid and if they do get the chance to bid there's no guarantee that they will GET the work. The cost for the fighter is going up, even though the US is trying to keep it down.Debates are really going to be long on this one. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/cost+worries+news+suppliers/3588645/story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this article about the "spin" on this topic the Tories are doing, a must read. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/stealth-jets-brought-to-you-by-a-spin-machine-on-steroids/article1729089/

Topaz that is not an article that was a commentary piece, nothing but opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this article about the "spin" on this topic the Tories are doing, a must read. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/stealth-jets-brought-to-you-by-a-spin-machine-on-steroids/article1729089/

that's all been pointed out on this forum, much if not all of it in this thread...I beginning to suspect journalists are coming here to steal our opinions...the conservative spin is childishly obvious except to the conservative masses that just eat that crap up...russian invasion of two bombers driven off by Dear Leader Captian Canada and his sidekick Peter MacKay :rolleyes: ...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...