I was replying with reference to the main use that Canadian armed forces might be used for in the future which is probably going to be protecting territorial waterways in the north. I do hope we get out of the aggressor role we've found ourselves dragged into to impress our southern neighbors. Peacekeeping is what should have always been the focus.
|
|
|
Who cares about the long gun registry?
- Thread starter Duster929
- Start date
I guess it's because that one makes sense.
Peacekeeping is a laudable endeavour. Defence shouldn't be ignored, however, and defence requires that interdiction be possible. Without intercept capabilities, you've got nothing. As it stands the Americans don't think we're doing enough to defend our own north and if we don't, they would certainly feel justified in exploiting it.
*EDIT* Please don't mistake my comments as in any way supporting how the government has hidden the real cost for these jets. I don't sign blank cheques. Neither should Parliament.
Last edited:
Fair enough, but again, I believe that the future will entail guarding shipping, mineral exploitation and fossil fuel exploration in territorial waters, that really requires more ships. It's unlikely that any of the above will be from enemy aircraft requiring interception. It'll need people on the ocean. Unless we're talking about invasion by the Russians again which I think is really very unlikely no?
Did it occur to you maybe those ships might get attacked by enemy aircraft like bombers. All the more reason why we'd need strike fighters to intercept.
There's also the distance factor. Sometimes you simply can't get there fast enough to prevent an incident, using ships. Aircraft can be pointless, if all that they can do is observe. We're getting to a point in history, in which extra-national organizations are obtaining the power to essentially make war. Pirates, terrorists of various stripes, organized crime, etc.. Do you allow the event to happen, then chase the bad guys down if you can even find them, or do you catch them in the act, then blow them to hell? I approve of #2.
Which nation is going to bomb ships in northern waters?
Sounds to me like you're under the completely wrong impression that the F-35 can only be used for air-to-air combat and interception. You should probably read about the plane before forming your opinion. The plane can be outfitted entirely for air-to-ground(or sea) missions. It can carry 2000lbs bombs both externally and internally. It's stealth too, which makes it that much better for reconnaissance missions and snooping around. Its also being designed to carry a B61 nuclear weapon, and Norway and Australia are developing a system to enable the F-35 to carry 2 naval strike missiles with a range of almost 300km. This isn't "just some fighter plane", it's a hugely advanced and adaptable flying weapons platform... and we get first dibs, and front-row seats to its development with money going right back into our own aerospace industry.
And one more thing... the response time of an F-35 is measured in minutes. The response time of a ship is measured in days. These jets will be our very first line of defence should the need arise. Things are relatively peachy now, but will everything be so 'stable' 10, 20, 30 years forward? I'd bet not.
No, I know exactly what it is as I have a few fighter pilot friends, one who taught weapons training on tornados, a similar aircraft in its day. Who are we attacking with this aircraft exactly when we have a crumbling healthcare and education system? Our last couple of skirmishes have been against guerilla forces for instance. Nuclear equipped countries or those protected by paternalistic agreements don't suffer threats from other nuclear equipped countries due to MAD, why do you think iran wants nuclear weapons? If we want a relatively effective but cheap deterrent why aren't we buying a ton of drones? Pirates? Right....multi billion dollar jets aren't needed for those. Terrorists? Strike 2.. Multi billion dollar jets are no deterrent for those either. So we're left with sovereign nations and we're back to MAD.
I just think there's a list of important things we need investment in and this item is way down on the list.
We aren't attacking anyone. We're talking about national defence.. the protection of our sovereignty and our borders, especially the heavily exposed ones up north.
I'm glad you think new fighter jets are way down on the list of things to buy, but thankfully we have some much smarter people higher up the chain of command who would disagree. Military equipment procurements don't get much bigger or more important than new jets. It's a decision that takes years (decades in this case) to make, and one that spans multiple governments and even multiple generations of military members. These F-35s are gonna last 30-40 years; can you say with absolute certainty that we won't need them? How can you make such a claim, especially considering the CF-18 we have now were commissioned 30 years ago. Do I really have to point out the lifecycle of such equipment? Do I really have to point out that it just so happens by chance that this current conservative government happened to land into the timeframe of ushering in replacement jets? It doesn't matter which party is in power, they'd ALL be dealing with this exact issue. And I'll bet my salary that they'd all still be very much on the F-35 bandwagon, too.
Last edited:
..and much MUCH smarter people all over the world are canceling their orders left right and centre. I would say that leaves us looking quite dumb in the current economic climate. Can I say with certainty that we won't need the equipment? No of course not but neither can the countries who cancelled orders. I also agree that a purchase of this kind is very important to do right....which begs the question...why wasn't the process tendered?
Can I ask another question....in the future, who do you think is the closest threat to enviably looking at our resources of fresh water? The answer could be a little more worrying than you'd like to think about and 50 or so fighter jets are going to do diddly squat.
Who cancelled? To my knowledge, not a single country has withdrawn. Sure, some are "threatening"... but none have pulled the trigger. Norway upped their order recently. Italy downsized its initial order by about 30%. It's part of the game. How do you accurately estimate the cost of a project which spans multiple decades?
We're buying jets whether we like it or not; our current fleet is nearing retirement. Who is a threat? Anybody and everybody as far as Im concerned. It doesn't have to be a nation or the next world war... the point is that if you want to protect your borders, you have to be out there. We need planes for that, they're the first line of defense.
Do we NEED F-35s? Probably not... the other options would likely fill the role too. But what are the political ramifications of withdrawing from the JSF? What are the monetary ramifications? What are the economic and aerospace industry ramifications? What is the TRUE cost of the competing options of jets, and what are their estimated lifecycles? Will they be worth a damn in 20 years?
We're buying jets whether we like it or not; our current fleet is nearing retirement. Who is a threat? Anybody and everybody as far as Im concerned. It doesn't have to be a nation or the next world war... the point is that if you want to protect your borders, you have to be out there. We need planes for that, they're the first line of defense.
Do we NEED F-35s? Probably not... the other options would likely fill the role too. But what are the political ramifications of withdrawing from the JSF? What are the monetary ramifications? What are the economic and aerospace industry ramifications? What is the TRUE cost of the competing options of jets, and what are their estimated lifecycles? Will they be worth a damn in 20 years?
rmemedic
Well-known member
If you could honestly truly imagine how much space we have up there that is left wide open for anyone to try and use, you would get the need for the jets... And let me tell you, the risk is higher than you would like to assume.
I keep hearing more and more about the north. Not in the news, but from people that might know a thing or two. I've done more winter work this year than ever, and there's a reason for it.
Now, I'm not happy about the government not being clear about ANYTHING they do. I think way too many things get passed before the public is aware of them or even has a chance to voice an opinion.
But, our security is important, and the north is more valuable than you know. It's pretty much entirely open for anyone to come over the top of the world. Russia (yeah, I know you think there is a fat chance) or China could easily take that route. If WE don't take the responsibility for our own nation, then the Americans will gladly step up, and then I think we would be in a really bad spot...
I keep hearing more and more about the north. Not in the news, but from people that might know a thing or two. I've done more winter work this year than ever, and there's a reason for it.
Now, I'm not happy about the government not being clear about ANYTHING they do. I think way too many things get passed before the public is aware of them or even has a chance to voice an opinion.
But, our security is important, and the north is more valuable than you know. It's pretty much entirely open for anyone to come over the top of the world. Russia (yeah, I know you think there is a fat chance) or China could easily take that route. If WE don't take the responsibility for our own nation, then the Americans will gladly step up, and then I think we would be in a really bad spot...
Last time jets were used to protect borders seriously was 30 odd years ago during the cold war and since then the need for jets as defense has declined. It's only recently that the air force has used the bombing capabilities of these types of aircraft but neither of those times was for defense, it was a folly of offense following our southern neighbors as part of the coalition of the coerced and eager to please.
Im saying that right now at this present time there are far more important needs for investment than non-tendered Multi billion dollar armaments contracts. I also believe that unmanned drones will be the defense required in the future and these are much less expensive.
Yeah that's great, but we don't get to choose when to buy new jets. Our fleet needs replacement now, and that's all there is to it. Furthermore, we've been involved with the JSF since Chretien signed us up about 15 years ago... and this was done with the foresight and knowledge that our CF18s will need replacing by now.
Also, nobody was probing our northern borders 10 years ago, but it's happening now... and what's our deterrent? Soon-to-be decommissioned 30-year-old CF-18s? And a couple of destroyers?
Sorry, but aging military equipment needs to be replaced... and we don't get to pick when. It's just the way it works.
Do you seriously think that an invasion by those two countries wouldn't be accompanied by a volley of nuclear warheads from the US as they seek to protect what will be their closest valuable resource assets? If we're talking about theories of who would threaten us I would look much closer to home for the nation that covets our abundant supplies of natural resources. I'm not saying the us would threaten us but they are already disputing our claims to the northwest passage and have already been draining water like crazy from the great lakes to help irrigate Nevada golf courses.
rmemedic
Well-known member
And that is exactly what I refer to by us being put in a bad spot.
The Americans could very easily start to occupy northern waters and build up a presence in the air under the guise of protecting the northern border since we aren't capable of protecting ourselves, they would basically have us surrounded.
Thus, we need to be able to legitimately be able to protect ourselves. That includes updating our aging equipment.
Our equipment is far from new or modern. Our 6 wheeled trucks are so out-dated that they wouldn't be permitted on the road if it wasn't for them being military.
It's not like we have all the new, modern equipment, we do make do with what we have, and what we should have is more capable equipment.
I care about the gun registry. It is a wasteful and useless tool that gives officers and others a false sense of security putting them in great danger. It is also facilitates the harassment and abuse of decent gun owners and confiscation of their lawful property. I'm very pleased to see that the long gun registry has ended.
It would be nice to see government go a little further and deem an expired PAL/RPAL a valid POL/RPOL that does not expire & roll LTATT's into the RPAL. In addition, any firearm reclassified as prohibited based solely on "looks" should be reversed. Once a firearm is classified, it should be barred permanently from any reclassification unless physical changes or modifications exceed prescribed limits.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It would be nice to see government go a little further and deem an expired PAL/RPAL a valid POL/RPOL that does not expire & roll LTATT's into the RPAL. In addition, any firearm reclassified as prohibited based solely on "looks" should be reversed. Once a firearm is classified, it should be barred permanently from any reclassification unless physical changes or modifications exceed prescribed limits.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
This "need" to replace comes from where exactly? How many aircraft carriers does the uk, an island nation by the way in case you didn't know, currently have? I can give you a clue.....less than when they were at war with Argentina over the falkland islands. So, a country who has had a more recent true war (ie over an invasion of sovereign territory) and who currently has that same threat hanging over it, didn't see fit to replace aircraft carriers as the theatre of war has changed. Why? Because the damn things were too expensive.
My main anger about this jet fiasco has to do with current government pandering to the us. A transparent process with proper tendering would have been much easier for the public to swallow, especially if it resulted in a cheaper or proven product. That and the whole military industrial complex problem that has been been siphoning billions from the us for years slowly creeping north.
|
|
|
|
|