Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 02-05-2018, 04:46 PM   #761
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

More on the Liberal gag order concerning the Fighter Jet Replacement, throwing the concept of open and transparent right out the window

http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...n-jet-contract

Quote:
Companies interested in the Liberal government’s planned purchase of new fighter jets have been told not to talk to journalists despite claims by federal officials the process will be open and transparent.


Those company representatives taking part in the Jan. 22 industry day in Ottawa, which outlined initial details about the proposed $19 billion acquisition, were required to sign a form agreeing not to share information with the media, according to documents obtained by Postmedia.


“Your registration to this event acknowledges your agreement to not share information or materials obtained at the event with the media, and certifies that you are not a member of the media,” the form noted.
What's hilarious is that the reporter found out about this when this was forwarded by companies at the Industry Day that are concerned about the level of secrecy on a $19 billion dollar deal.

Quote:
But it is not the first attempt by the Liberals to crack down on what information might make its way to the public or news media about the multi-billion program.


In November 2016 it was revealed the Liberal government brought in an unprecedented gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program.


The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions undertaken by the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit as well as clandestine operations by the country’s spies, military sources say.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2018, 04:50 PM   #762
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Autralian F-18's will "work" out of cold lake after getting upgrades to their ejection seats and lighting oh and get their stress and fatigue issues looked at and fixed.

Oh and also the CF-18's that were expected to last until 2025 while Canada purchased new planes. . . add a minimum of +7 years to 2032.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 11:55 AM   #763
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

the sad state of the military, and why bother anymore

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...it-altogether/

Quote:
It was revealed over the weekend that the government intends to keep our aging CF-18 fighter planes in operation until 2032. But, like the Sea King helicopters, the planned retirement date for these jets has been pushed back before. There is no reason to believe the next government won’t try to keep them airborne for another decade after that.


And why not? It will cost us billions in maintenance to ensure these can fly well past their designed lifespan, but it would cost even more to replace them with modern fighter jets. And Canadians don’t really care one way or another. The state of the military is never a significant election issue. And when did you last see a public protest over another leaky frigate or more broken helicopters?
Quote:
In fact, it is long past time we simply disbanded the Canadian military altogether. That seems like a radical step, but it would require little actual movement—just the simple act of accepting this is where we already stand.
Quote:
This current government loves to breathlessly emote about our peacekeeping past, but is careful to avoid promising any actual troops. In November of last year, after side-stepping previous promises to make a significant UN deployment, the Prime Minister announced an initiative to increase the proportion of women deployed in peace operations–just not women from the Canadian military. Right now, there are 14 Canadian officers assigned to the UN, a record low; that is less than Honduras, Bhutan, and Armenia. Former Liberal senator Romeo Dallaire explained that this was a new enlightened policy that went beyond the “traditional boots on the ground.” So, why do we even need actual boots anymore?
Quote:
So, why don’t we just own it and admit the truth, as painful as it is: We do not have a functional military, and that’s the way we want it. Let’s implement this new “enlightened policy” by shutting down the Canadian Forces and declaring ourselves a post-military nation. We could join the ranks of Haiti, Andorra, and Vanuatu.


NATO might accept an annual payment in lieu of actual troops. (We won’t be able to donate any of our tanks or ships, however, unless they want them for scrap.) In return for staying in NORAD we could simply give the Americans a few Arctic islands; we’re not using them. Perhaps we keep a few soldiers for disaster response, but they don’t need guns or jets for that.
So my thoughts on this. Why the hell not?

I mean its not like we're living up to our Nato Obligations at all.

We're certainly breaking faith with the men and woman in uniform by asking them to do dangerous and life threatening things when its clear that we don't really care enough to give them the tools that they need to do it.

The current government breathlessly talks about peacekeeping, but they show a keen mis-understanding of the concept of modern day peace keeping. The day of the men and woman in Blue Berets acting as diplomats and social workers is effectively dead, replaced with the nebulous concept of Peace Enforcement, and being able to put a force in the field that is equipt to force the peace.

We after breaking out promise to send peace keepers to Africa (Thank god that public relations action was broken) instead we offered to train peace keepers, but frankly Canada hasn't been a significant contributor to peace keeping for 20 years, so we really don't have much to teach.

With the current failure of the Fighter Jet Replacement program and the purchase of basically structurally questionable F-18's from Austrialia, and the boon doogle that is occurring with the naval ship replacement program and the Cyclone Helicopter program, this government and the previous government have amazingly accelerated the rust out of the Canadian Forces.

With the latest court decision that is leading to a class action lawsuit by injured veterans that stated that Canada didn't have an obligation to take care of these men and woman its become clear that there's no point in putting anyone in danger.

I know that the Macleans article is a heavy bit of sarcasm dealing with a major problem that the Canadian Forces is rapidly becoming unfixable. It just is, and nobody is interested, so why do it?

I mean I'm sure that we can negotiate a payment plan with Nato. Since we're not really interested in Arctic Defense, lets put out a bid to China, America and Russia based around the defense of our waters

Our navy is broken and rusting with no command and control capability, limited air defense of our ships and 4 submarines that still have trouble diving and firing torpedoes, wouldn't it just be simpler to hand over the defense of Canada's coastline to our American Friends.

If young men and woman still want to wear the uniform and serve, work up a agreement with the American's that lets Canadians join the US Navy, Airforce, army or Marines. Of course they'd be deployable on American missions as well.

A few years back I posted a thread looking at the state of the Canadian Forces and what they needed going forward. At this point its now an impossible task, they've let things slide to far.

Do we want to get in a situation again where we end up deploying men and woman into a Nato Mission like we did in Afghanistan and then have to do a crash purchase after the fact?

None of this makes any sense in terms of geo politics. Certainly Canada would lose its international reputation with NATO and NORAD and even the UN. But its not like we have a stunningly great reputation now, so why does it matter?

And no this isn't some kind of twisted plea from me to make some kind of point about buying F-35, upgrading our combat vehicles, addressing our laughable lack of ground based anti-air defenses or upgrading or frigate navy to this century.

Personally I served in the bad old days when the Trudeau government basically spit on the military service and wanted a boy scout troop instead, and we went out and made do with what we had.

I know that there are a few others on this board with vastly more experience with me that will say the same thing.

But no soldier is going to want to soldier for a country that doesn't give a crap and is willing to throw the dice on their lives.

So lets cut out the lie here.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 12:10 PM   #764
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post

I mean its not like we're living up to our Nato Obligations at all.

Maybe Nato is asking for more than we are able to give right now.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 12:35 PM   #765
GoinAllTheWay
Franchise Player
 
GoinAllTheWay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
wouldn't it just be simpler to hand over the defense of Canada's coastline to our American Friends.
I don't like this idea in the least.

Gah.......this thread gets me so upset sometimes......

**edit**
That wasn't directed at you CC, rather the state of our forces.

Last edited by GoinAllTheWay; 02-06-2018 at 12:38 PM.
GoinAllTheWay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 08:01 PM   #766
btimbit
Franchise Player
 
btimbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
Exp:
Default

Selling 16 Griffons to the Philippines for $233 million

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKBN1FQ1GZ
btimbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 09:42 PM   #767
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
I really can't think of a time when the military or veterans were treated well, by either party in power.

It is reflective of Canadian's opinion overall of our military. The pubic just doesn't give a ####.

Never has never will.


Also the Ross Rifle is awesome, trust me........
What country does care about their military? The US?
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 09:08 AM   #768
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
What country does care about their military? The US?
I reckon the definition of "care" is flexible. If you care about your military you (as a nation) at least try to give them the tools/training for the mission. There are so countries that equip their military properly, or at least attempt to properly equip them.

To be clear, I can't think of any soldier I served with or met from any country that thought they were properly equipped.

I would suggest countries like the UK, Netherlands, Israel, Germany, France, USAUSAUSA of the top of my head at least take steps to ensure their military is properly equipped/trained.

I can't think of a time when the Canadian military was properly equipped for the job/mission. Maybe WW2, maybe. The military is forever using gun tape and good wishes to keep gear together and in use.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 02-09-2018, 11:02 AM   #769
Baron von Kriterium
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Baron von Kriterium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit View Post
Selling 16 Griffons to the Philippines for $233 million

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKBN1FQ1GZ
Sounds like Duterte will cancel the deal. That is probably a good thing. The optics wouldn't be good seeing a made-in-Canada-solution strafing a small village. The Care Bares in Ottawa would be binging Xanax if that happened.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Baron von Kriterium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 11:16 AM   #770
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Sounds like Duterte didn't like that there were too many conditions on the deal, like the whole not throwing people out the door in mid flight, and not being able to use it as a murder harvester.

I think he also wants to buy more Russian or Chinese made equipment.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 12:00 PM   #771
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Jesus

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/auss...jets-1.4530875

Quote:
It will be 2022 before the Royal Canadian Air Force receives all of the used Australian fighter jets the Liberal government intends to purchase, says senior defence official.


The plan was rolled out with much fanfare at the end of last year because the air force has faced — in the words of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — an "urgent capability gap" and is not able to meet its NATO and Norad commitments at the same time.


Pat Finn, who is in charge of the materiale branch of National Defence, told CBC News in a recent interview a final agreement is still months away.
He is confident, however, everything will come together.
Delivery is "staggered over three years," Finn said.
Quote:
No price tag for the Australian deal was released at the time of the formal announcement, which was made by Sajjan and Public Works Minister Carla Qualtrough.
Ongoing discussions

Finn said those details are still being worked out.


The Liberal government said in December the first used fighters, which were purchased by Australia around the same Canada bought its CF-18s, would arrive by January 2019.


Finn said the delivery schedule is being finalized, but he anticipates receiving the first two warplanes by the summer of that year.


Another one would follow by the end of the year, but much depends on the Royal Australian Air Force and how quickly it retires the fighters and the age of what's being offered.


"They, of course, release aircraft as they get aircraft," Finn said. "We do not necessarily want the oldest aircraft, so we would like to have an ongoing discussion."


He said there is some flexibility and if "summer '19 turns into" something a few months later because they can get a better jet, then it's something that can be negotiated.


The Australian government is in the process of seeking permission to sell the planes because they were originally manufactured in the U.S.



Once the Australian warplanes arrive in Canada, they will need to be given life-extension modifications that will bring them up to the standard of the CF-18s, which have been modified to continuing flying until 2025.


It stands in stark contrast to the urgency with which the Liberals initially painted the shortage of fighter aircraft.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 12:15 PM   #772
speede5
First Line Centre
 
speede5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

speede5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 01:45 PM   #773
Lubicon
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

I'm not sure what's worse - the incompetence of this government when it comes to national defence, or that we as Canadians continue to accept this incompetence and do not demand better for our military ( and ourselves by extension).
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Old 02-13-2018, 07:37 PM   #774
speede5
First Line Centre
 
speede5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Cool little video a friend of mine did on his recent tour of lockheed. So jealous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY4bw3RYv3g

How could you possibly buy used F-18's? It's mind bottling!
speede5 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to speede5 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2018, 08:21 AM   #775
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

A pretty good column on the Canadian Fighter Jet Replacement including the news that Boeing is in on the bid

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...mal-fuel-tanks

Really a couple of interesting points including that Lockheed Martin would submit bids on two possible aircraft, The F-35 and an upgraded version of the F-16.

One to follow would be that UK has submitted a bid to Belgium to replace their old F-16's with the Eurofighter Typhoon. This places it in direct competition with the F-35. Dassault and Saab have already dropped out.


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018...-against-f-35/
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 03:27 PM   #776
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Canadian Government - "So Mr Taxpayer, remember when we told you that the Interim Australian Fighters that we need to bridge a non-existant fighter gap would only cost us about $500 million?"

Taxpayer - "Yes"

Canadian Government - "we'll that parts true, kinda, but our plan to extend the life of our CF-18's that's gonna cost you."

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politi...8-4f19875acee8

Quote:
Canadians could be paying more than $1.5 billion extra as the operating life of the military’s aging CF-18 fighter jets is extended for another 14 years.


The jets were to be taken out of service after 2025, but as Postmedia recently reported, delays in the Liberal government’s plan to buy replacements means the jets will need to continue operating until 2032. While the Department of National Defence says it still has yet to figure out how much that will cost, a December 2014 report produced by DND and the Canadian Forces raised concerns about further extending the life of the CF-18s.


“Rough order of magnitude incremental costs for an Estimated Life Expectancy of 2030 are just over $1.5 billion and are primarily due to the requirement for a new structural life extension program needed to enable the CF-18 to be flown beyond its current safe life,” said the report, which was prepared for the previous Conservative government.


That roughly $1.5 billion would be on top of the $500 million the Liberal government has set aside to buy 18 used Australian F-18s as a stop-gap until it can acquire new planes.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2018, 11:24 AM   #777
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Canada has released the list of competitors for the fighter jet replacement program. Surprisingly Boeing made the list

http://canada.businesschief.com/lead...8-fighter-jets

  • Lockheed-Martin, F-35 stealth fighter
  • Boeing, F-18 Super Hornet
  • Airbus, Eurofighter
  • Saab AB, Gripen
  • Dassault Aviation, Rafale
Maybe a little bit about each plane


Lockheed Martin F-35


Current market cost - Expected cost by 2019 for the F-35A $85 million US



Description - Single Seat, Single Engine Muti-role 5th generation military aircraft. The F-35 is considered the state of the art aircraft for the next generation. Using a combination of stealth, highly advanced sensor and sensor fusion it gives pilots un unprecedented battlefield awareness. Combined with its inter-operability with other aircraft, vehicles and naval weapons pilots see a complete view of the battlefield.


Pro's - Most advanced sensor suite in the world, built around the AN/AGP - 81 active phase radar system, it outranges most radar systems in the world and is considered un-jammable. Also has 6 infra red sensor systems.



The Stealth system is considered to be extremely low maintenance. The aircraft links with everything, and self maintains through an advanced diagnosis and ordering system


Extremely upgradable to future tech including the ability to control multiple UAV's.


Cons - Single Engine might be a concern, however the reliability of the F135 Engine is extremely good and features what's called a stealthy afterburner. Not the fastest aircraft in the world, but it can get to mach 1.2 without afterburner for brief periods (150 miles) and mach 1.6 on afterburner


There are still bugs around the oxygen system and the extremely sophisticated helmet.







Year introduced: August 2016


Number Produced 268



Boeing F-18 Super Hornet (E)


Current Market Price - $70 million dollars US, (however when Canada approached Boeing about buying 18 Super Hornets they were quoted about $6 billion dollars or $333 million dollars per plane)


Description - Twin Engine Multi-role fighter, which is an upgraded and larger version of the venerable F-18. A fourth Generation evolutionary redesign of its older brother. It was designed to replace the F-14 Tom Cat


Pros - advances over the standard F-18 include an upgradeded AESA scanned array radar system and infra red tracking system. The engine has been improved to give 35% more thrust over the older F-18s. The helmet technology has been improved. It could almost be considered to be a 4.5 generation fighter as a lot of work has gone into reducing the radar cross section, while the fighter is bigger then the previous fighters. To improve its chances of survivability it incorporates a aggressive Electronic Counter Measures Suite. Maximum speed is mach 1.6 with burners engaged. Can carry extremely heavy loads because its not a stealth platform.


Cons -While it has a reduced radar cross section its not a overly stealthy plane. Its upgrade path is unclear for future tech. While it has some inter-operability, its not considered to be as battlefield aware as 5th generation fighters. While its an F-18 in spirit, Pilots will have to go through transitional training as it is a different fighter.


Year Introduced - 1999


Number built - 500


Airbus Eurofighter

Current Market Cost - Up to $110 million US


Description - Twin Engine, Multi-role, Canarad Equipped 4th generation fighter


Pros - Extremely agile at low speed and after - burner, through the use of Canards can keep the nose on the enemy. While not stealthy it has a reduced radar cross section, while it doesn't use weapons bays it does use recessed weapon attachments. Its also big on using passive sensor which are very advanced. Uses a Praetorian system to help pilots deal with and identify a threat, and incorporates all sensor data through a sensor fusion system called an attack and identification system. Uses the Captor-E scanned array radar as well as the Pirate infra-red tracking system. It has super cruise capability of up to mach 1.5 and at afterburner mach 2.



Cons - While its a extreme dog fighter, it isn't considered to be in the class of the F-35 or Raptor in terms of battlefield suitability unless it can close to dog fighting range. Original developed as a pure air superiority class, its air to ground is described as maturing. It lacks the advanced Inter-operability of American Aircraft. Questions around its up-gradability to future features. Both the F-35 and the Super hornet can carry heavier loads.



Year introduced 1994
Numbers built 600+




Saab AB Gripen E/F


Current Market Costs - Not really finalized. The Gripen C cost about $60 million dollars US, Its expected that the E will more then likely fall into the $85 million dollar range.



Description - A light Multi-role single engine 4th generation fighter.



Pros- Relatively inexpensive, however the Gripen E is still in its development phase. Called a smart fighter this is an upgrade to the excellent Gripen C series that came into play in the mid 90's. Uses the Raven Scanned Array radar as well as the Pirate Infra-red tracking system. Not stealth but has a improved radar cross section over the former Gripen C. Uses the new F414 engine which allows it to super cruise at Mach 1.1 with a air combat load, and possibly to mach 2 with burner.



Cons - A relatively light fighter, it can't carry the combat loads of the above fighters, in fact its leaded weight carried is a quarter of the above fighters. Still in development and possibly further behind then the F-35. Lacks the situational awareness and inter-operability of other planes.


Year Introduced - - - -

Numbers produced - test beds


Dassault Rafale

Current Market Costs - $84 million per plane for the C variant


Description - Twin Engine, Canard Equipt Delta Wing 4th generation fighter.


Pros - Extremely agile fighter banking on its aerodynamic instability. Also uses its canards extremely effectively in being able to keep nose on. A thrust vectoring engine is under development. While its not stealth it uses reduced radar cross section technology including the reduction of its tail. It also has ducted engines to reduce its infra-red signature. incorporates a passive home built radar system with a home built advanced RIBE2 Active scanning radar array and a home built Infra-red scanner. They combine these signals through a flight management system to give the plane a version of sensor fusion. Maximum speed of mach 1.8 however it doesn't have super cruise.


Cons - Last time that Canada looked at the Rafale its engined failed the cold weather testing. Without a soft ware re-write it will struggle to inter-operate with the United States. while it can carry a fairly heavy load, its air to ground ability was developed as a secondary aspect, so its considered immature. Its upgradability to future tech isn't great.


Introduced - 2001

number built 164
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 12:23 PM   #778
Violator
On Hiatus
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Exp:
Default

If were gonna buy old planes we mid aswell just buy nighthawks
Violator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 09:01 AM   #779
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

HMCS Calgary has a fuel transfer mishap and dumps 30,000 litre's of fuel in the Strait of Georgia

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...pill-1.4551467
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 09:10 AM   #780
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Fairly disappointing budget from a defense perspective.

As kind of predicted when the Government rolled out their shiny defense policy last year. Equipment replacement has been kicked way down the road.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fede...rity-1.4552967

I mean, the Cyber security spending is a good idea. But the rust out continues.

I expect a complete collapse of Armed Forces infrastructure in the next decade.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021