War isn't funny. You're a terrible person.
F35
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
invictus43
Well-known member
Canada's military is a loooong way from a superpower. But if you're going to have a military and participate in NATO and UN operations, you have to at LEAST have SOME capability. We have CF-18's..we provide air support as part of our obligation to NATO, UN and yes, to the US..we're pretty good at it. They need to be upgraded at some point..the US is pretty good at building planes. The US would like us to shoulder some of the cost of developing the F35. We also get spin-off jobs from it. Are there other places to spend money? Yeah..what's important? I'm not an expert. I assume upgrading our CF-18's needs to be done at some point.
The problem is, whenever there is a big purchase, one government tries to slate another government and show how wasteful it is. So we start..then stop and PAY to cancel the orders..just for public points. It's insanity. Same thing happened with the Cormorant..
Didn't we go through this in the 80's with the nuclear sub debacle??
The entire planet was routinely patrolling inside our borders under the Arctic and instead of deploying subs, we built Icebreakers so as to make nice holes for them to announce their presence and wave hello.
(Isn't this like taking a jab in the face in your own kitchen?)
The entire planet was routinely patrolling inside our borders under the Arctic and instead of deploying subs, we built Icebreakers so as to make nice holes for them to announce their presence and wave hello.
(Isn't this like taking a jab in the face in your own kitchen?)
We're canadians, we're supposed to be nice
Good post. The REAL problem is political posturing and ******** partisan games. It's a shame the governing parties all feel like they HAVE to be against eachother 100% of the time, otherwise they're not doing their jobs
I'm no military nut or 'procurement expert' either, but I can read and I can see value in the F-35. It's a value which goes beyond just the aircraft itself. It's a value which we wouldn't get if we purchased any of the other jets on offer.
How do we price that value? Well that's a different matter altogether. Is it overpriced at $15 billion over 20 years? Personally, I don't think so. It's less than half of one percent of our annual federal spending... and for that we get 60 of the absolutely latest and greatest jets which money can buy. This commitment goes back 15 years, and such large procurements transcend the current economic and political climate. It's a purchase which will affect our military landscape for the next 30 years. When you buy something slated to be in service that long, you really should try to get the best that money can buy.
+1.
F35 isn't a good jet at all for Canada. First, we don't need all that fancy radar proof equipment, second, single engine aircraft like F-15 and F-16 have a lot of trouble up north. We already had to back up the USAF in Alaska because they blew up a bunch of engines for their F-16. We need a dual engine fighter and we need new fighter. Then which one is the best, I don't know, I,m just fixing them.
About "Canada need to defend himself from china, usa, russia". I'm sorry but we signed agreement that allow the state to take over Canada in case of crisis. But we do need to patrol the territories, otherwise anybody can claim those territories as theirs. Danemark tried this a couple years ago, we had to send a ship before they reached one of the island.
About "Canada need to defend himself from china, usa, russia". I'm sorry but we signed agreement that allow the state to take over Canada in case of crisis. But we do need to patrol the territories, otherwise anybody can claim those territories as theirs. Danemark tried this a couple years ago, we had to send a ship before they reached one of the island.
currently the f35 is no engine....
gone is the cold war over ideology.
now the wars are over resources (not just oil).
Against my better judgement, I'm asking you to name that agreement and quote the passage that supports your statement.
OpenGambit
Banned
Someone had to do it =D
IMO it is not should we buy new fighter planes, it is should we buy the F35. The current F18s are EOL and we cannot expect to keep them going for ever. We can replace them with the new super hornet or the euro fighter and meet our needs for a much lower price. To patrol the arctic we need longer range and dual engine, we do not need stealth. Both of these planes have the F35 beat in these categories and they can be had for ~half the real F35 price. Many of the F35 features do not play a real world roll in Canada's defense, I do not see it as the logical choice.
The people here saying we are too small to need fighter planes are actually the ones quoting outdated cold war ideology (the same outdated cold war ideology that cancelled the Arrow in favour of nuclear equipped bomarcs, only to buy different planes from the US later anyways). Future conflicts are not likely to be all out (we will not be fighting Russia or the US in a all out war, at least not for long). What we need to do is patrol our borders, specifically the arctic and support our own troops WHEN we send them into "peace keeping" combat.
Things we need the planes for but in some cases hope we don't (and the real list is actually longer, this is just a sample):
-Sovereignty patrols in the Arctic (as required by international law), otherwise just hand it over and get on with it (of course functioning submarines could also do part of this but....).
-Intercept possibly and actually hijacked airliners (do we want the US deciding shoot or not?).
-Patrol shipping/fishing areas for unauthorized foreign entities (can also be done with an Aurora).
-Support our own ground troops and navy in conflicts.
-Meet our NATO and NORAD commitments.
Maybe we can outsource (isn't outsourcing the buzzword of the day) some of these to other countries, but do you really expect them to do it for free (and I am not just talking about money here)? The "cost" here will be much more than the billions we are talking about.
We should also keep in mind the other aspect to military power, meeting military commitments, etc. This is foreign policy and trade.
If we want Canada to influence what is happening in the world (and this does not mean blindly supporting the US) we need to have some skin in the game, if we have no military to commit we have NO say in what happens. Sure under the UN that is not how it is supposed to work but it is how it works.
For trade, what a country does and does not do impacts their trade. Like it or not. Sitting on the sidelines negatively impacts trade (soft wood lumber, Iraq...), choosing the wrong side also does. The military is a bargaining chip is world politics. I am not talking about right and wrong here, just facts.
I am sure in the utopian world none of this is true, but the world is more complicated than a simpleton hippy view.
The best military is one you never need to use, the worst is one that is not their when needed.
The people here saying we are too small to need fighter planes are actually the ones quoting outdated cold war ideology (the same outdated cold war ideology that cancelled the Arrow in favour of nuclear equipped bomarcs, only to buy different planes from the US later anyways). Future conflicts are not likely to be all out (we will not be fighting Russia or the US in a all out war, at least not for long). What we need to do is patrol our borders, specifically the arctic and support our own troops WHEN we send them into "peace keeping" combat.
Things we need the planes for but in some cases hope we don't (and the real list is actually longer, this is just a sample):
-Sovereignty patrols in the Arctic (as required by international law), otherwise just hand it over and get on with it (of course functioning submarines could also do part of this but....).
-Intercept possibly and actually hijacked airliners (do we want the US deciding shoot or not?).
-Patrol shipping/fishing areas for unauthorized foreign entities (can also be done with an Aurora).
-Support our own ground troops and navy in conflicts.
-Meet our NATO and NORAD commitments.
Maybe we can outsource (isn't outsourcing the buzzword of the day) some of these to other countries, but do you really expect them to do it for free (and I am not just talking about money here)? The "cost" here will be much more than the billions we are talking about.
We should also keep in mind the other aspect to military power, meeting military commitments, etc. This is foreign policy and trade.
If we want Canada to influence what is happening in the world (and this does not mean blindly supporting the US) we need to have some skin in the game, if we have no military to commit we have NO say in what happens. Sure under the UN that is not how it is supposed to work but it is how it works.
For trade, what a country does and does not do impacts their trade. Like it or not. Sitting on the sidelines negatively impacts trade (soft wood lumber, Iraq...), choosing the wrong side also does. The military is a bargaining chip is world politics. I am not talking about right and wrong here, just facts.
I am sure in the utopian world none of this is true, but the world is more complicated than a simpleton hippy view.
The best military is one you never need to use, the worst is one that is not their when needed.
Another thing to consider, with the wealth differential and political landscape in the US we should be more worried about civil unrest in the US escalating to a civil conflict than being invaded by the US. Our military will be needed not to intervene but to keep it south of the border as much as possible. Hopefully this is not a likely scenario but it is much more likely than being invaded (at least today).
I know a fair bit about aviation, but instead of going into all that, I am only going to assume that General / Admiral Natynczyk and Peter McKay know what Canada and it's pilots needs, not the forum members.
According to quite a lot of other experts ...they don't. I wouldn't trust McKay as far as I could punt him off a cliff with a big stick.
You should stay in the conversation. Just leave those guys till the end.
Sovereignty patrols in the Arctic (as required by international law), are carried out by Police and Military Rangers. If you increased that number by 100K people and vehicles you still wouldn't have line of sight in any area the size of Canada. Along it's coast. It's undefendable from intrusion. It's also unpopulated. So, aircraft is the only thing that covers it.
Intercept possibly and actually hijacked airliners (do we want the US deciding shoot or not?). is their job to shoot theirs and our job to shoot ours. Not that many get shot, then it's our SOF to take the airliners on our ground, same for them.
Patrol shipping/fishing areas for unauthorized foreign entities (can also be done with an Aurora) is a Coast guard job. A viable response on waterways but CG doesn't have "threat" to big ships. It can point at them.
Support our own ground troops and navy in conflicts. At the current time we are not in an offensive roll anywhere.
Meet our NATO and NORAD commitments........Same thing. the question is whats the cheapest safest way to do so. If you ask troops they say Helicopters. Fast air is nice but it can't give you a ride.
The world has 30K fighter aircraft of which Canada has 100. The US 3500 Russia 2000 China 1500
We are 48th on that list.
Our 1984 Reliant K car needs to be scrapped but the roof needs to be done and it's going to cost $20K which might as well be billions so, do we buy a new car or fix the roof......... even though the other bills are due?
Money is relative.
The US can't attack Canada. It's amicicide. They would have to blow up a building and claim it was John Guy and I don't know who would believe them on a global level. If you can't control a population with distinctive apperance and dress (Iraq), how do you do it when you don't know who is American?
We are a first world nuclear Country. Smart enough to flatten NYC if we felt we needed to build something to do it. delivered in a Pizza Hut truck.
Also, they are selling us their stuff. Threats don't say "here are our 'best' planes". Get in bed and lets split the cost of this unproven tech...
Only threat I see is to land claims and resources. Nobody has taken anything yet. A fly over by an A-10 would put more fear into anyone IMO but those are old too..... like traiding the Reliant for a 72 Olds...
Old stuff that I wish they had new stuff of...
Twin engine thrust vectoring ,engages air and ground targets, 18K ceiling 3300KM range.... 1.6 mach
Sorry for my poor English, the word was way too strong
But we have a lot of agreement where we share our military with the state and theirs with ours. I will try to find a reliable source, the thing date from Paul Martin.invictus43
Well-known member
Pretty much.. "STOP! Or else...I'll yell stop again!!" :-D
100% we have to show up and do our little bit...can't be a fence sitting lefty
