F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

Seems that people are divided on the issue, and some are for and others are against. I want to ask you all for the reasons why you support or oppose the purchase and if you oppose it what do you suggest we replace our current fighters with.

Thank You

[waldo]

I've already stated we don't need this albatross or anything like it; again, target Search & Rescue needs, beef up the Coast Guard, deliver icebreakers for scientific pursuit (and sovereignty posturing) and position Canadian Forces to properly deliver to the best traditions within Canada's storied peace-keeping role, etc.

[eyeball]

Seems that people are divided on the issue, and some are for and others are against. I want to ask you all for the reasons why you support or oppose the purchase and if you oppose it what do you suggest we replace our current fighters with.

Nothing. I say we give peace a chance.

There is no nation on Earth that could ever afford to invade us for the same reason we can't afford these jets.

The expense is just too ridiculous to even bother contemplating.

[Signals.Cpl]

I've already stated we don't need this albatross or anything like it; again, target Search & Rescue needs, beef up the Coast Guard, deliver icebreakers for scientific pursuit (and sovereignty posturing) and position Canadian Forces to properly deliver to the best traditions within Canada's storied peace-keeping role, etc.

Do you actually believe peacekeeping works?

Canada needs replacement jets, thats not the question, the question is which one.

[cybercoma]

There's already a number of these threads already:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20666

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20531

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16512

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18703

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18899

[Signals.Cpl]

There's already a number of these threads already:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20666

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20531

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16512

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18703

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18899

I was attempting to go the other way, I wish to separate politics from the purchase. Something along the lines of wether its a good idea or not rather then making it political. Subjects like this should transcend politics.

[Wilber]

The best we can afford. If that's the F-35, then that's what we should get.

There is no nation on Earth that could ever afford to invade us for the same reason we can't afford these jets.

Of course there are.

[Smallc]

Waldo, I'm curious why you would think we don't need something that we've used multiple times in the last two decades.

[waldo]

Waldo, I'm curious why you would think we don't need something that we've used multiple times in the last two decades.

you mean the... two bombing efforts... Bosnia and recent months Libya? Well, make it 3 since a few bombs were also dropped during Bush 41s "Gulf War 1" missive.

let's also be clear, Libya was nothing more than a means to an end for Harper/MacKay to push their military fervour and presume to solidify a justification for the failed F-35 pursuits.

is it your assertion that participating in these most limited campaigns, spread across literally decades in time, is a warranted justification for the financial expenditures associated with the CF-18 aircraft?

[Smallc]

you mean the... two bombing efforts... Bosnia and recent months Libya? Well, make it 3 since a few bombs were also dropped during Bush 41s "Gulf War 1" missive.

Yes, 3 times.

let's also be clear, Libya was nothing more than a means to an end for Harper/MacKay to push their military fervour and presume to solidify a justification for the failed F-35 pursuits.

It was? I'm sure you can provide proof then.

is it your assertion that participating in these most limited campaigns, spread across literally decades in time, is a warranted justification for the financial expenditures associated with the CF-18 aircraft?

That, and our obligations to both NATO and NORAD. Having no fighter capability simply isn't an option.

[Signals.Cpl]

The best we can afford. If that's the F-35, then that's what we should get.

Of course there are.

I believe he thinks we are the US.

[dre]

Yes, 3 times.

It was? I'm sure you can provide proof then.

That, and our obligations to both NATO and NORAD. Having no fighter capability simply isn't an option.

Sure it is... if they arente necessary for Canadian DEFENSE it absolutely IS an option. Nato will take what we give them, because they are a lameduck organization whos members often dont even show up.

Having said that... I DO think we need a small airforce because we have lots of air space. But its utterly unthinkable that we would spent 20-40 billion dollars on NATO support. These people already owe us big time, and we owe THEM precisely jack shit.

[waldo]

That, and our obligations to both NATO and NORAD. Having no fighter capability simply isn't an option.

says who? You? I'd be interested in better understanding said "NATO/NORAD obligations", how those said obligations translate directly into forced/required fighter jet procurement, and most specifically how those said obligations measure against domestic financial means/fiscal measures... and changing public attitudes. In other words how "tied in" are we to these said obligations?

[cybercoma]

Not to mention the fact that agreements with NATO and NORAD should not ever undermine our sovereignty.

[Signals.Cpl]

you mean the... two bombing efforts... Bosnia and recent months Libya? Well, make it 3 since a few bombs were also dropped during Bush 41s "Gulf War 1" missive.

let's also be clear, Libya was nothing more than a means to an end for Harper/MacKay to push their military fervour and presume to solidify a justification for the failed F-35 pursuits.

is it your assertion that participating in these most limited campaigns, spread across literally decades in time, is a warranted justification for the financial expenditures associated with the CF-18 aircraft?

Or the dozens of time that Canadian fighters have had to escort Russian aircraft from our airspace. Or the fact that parts of our territory are also claimed by at least four other nations one of them being Russia and with the possibility of the massive reserves of natural resources in the north, most of those nations will be willing to push for what they want, we as a nations should be able to push back.

[Signals.Cpl]

says who? You? I'd be interested in better understanding said "NATO/NORAD obligations", how those said obligations translate directly into forced/required fighter jet procurement, and most specifically how those said obligations measure against domestic financial means/fiscal measures... and changing public attitudes. In other words how "tied in" are we to these said obligations?

And what happens if someone tries to fly a plane in one of our buildings? Would it be preferable we have to ask the US to come and rescue us?

[Smallc]

Sure it is... if they arente necessary for Canadian DEFENSE it absolutely IS an option. Nato will take what we give them, because they are a lameduck organization whos members often dont even show up.

Having said that... I DO think we need a small airforce because we have lots of air space. But its utterly unthinkable that we would spent 20-40 billion dollars on NATO support. These people already owe us big time, and we owe THEM precisely jack shit.

65 jets is a small airforce.

says who? You? I'd be interested in better understanding said "NATO/NORAD obligations", how those said obligations translate directly into forced/required fighter jet procurement, and most specifically how those said obligations measure against domestic financial means/fiscal measures... and changing public attitudes. In other words how "tied in" are we to these said obligations?

Our NORAD requirements need 36 jets, and out NATO ones require 6. I'm not going to look for the info right now. We only have at current 48 combat fighters, and that's all we'll have going forward.

Not to mention the fact that agreements with NATO and NORAD should not ever undermine our sovereignty.

If we signed the agreements, we have to live by them.

[dre]

If we signed the agreements, we have to live by them.

No we dont. Countries can disolve these treaties any time they want. To suggest that we are permanently beholden to international buerocrats is to suggest we are not a sovereign nation. We can do EXACT what we want to do, and can afford to do. Canada could pull out of nato tomorrow and nobody could do jack shit.

And we oughtta have a national referendum on doing just that.

Edited April 6, 2012 by dre

[Smallc]

No we dont. Countries can disolve these treaties any time they want.

And we've not indicated that we want to do that.

And we oughtta have a national referendum on doing just that.

The public wouldn't even understand what they would be voting on. There's a reason that so few jurisdictions use direct democracy...It's called California.

[waldo]

Or the dozens of time that Canadian fighters have had to escort Russian aircraft from our airspace. Or the fact that parts of our territory are also claimed by at least four other nations one of them being Russia and with the possibility of the massive reserves of natural resources in the north, most of those nations will be willing to push for what they want, we as a nations should be able to push back.

oh please! Spare me the MacKay photo-ops of the "Great Russian Bear"!

as for multiple countries laying claim to Arctic resources/sovereignty, that will play itself out ultimately through the UN and World Court. In any case, you seem to be placing the proverbial cart before the horse... who/what determines what contentious parts of the Arctic, Canada actually has legal domain over? There is a reason Russia has been mapping the ocean floor presuming to leverage actual scientific study/analysis to lay claim to underwater mountain ranges as an extension to its own Eurasian landmass. Clearly, Russia has formally announced an intention to present those scientific findings to the UN later this year presuming to redraw the map of the Arctic in its favour. At this stage, Russia has claimed an intention to follow its desires through available international framework... and in this regard, Canada would need jets for what purpose? Oh, wait... perhaps you're wary of the U.S., hey?

[dre]

And we've not indicated that we want to do that.

With all due respect WHO IN THE BLOODY HELL IS "WE". Nobody asked me...

The public wouldn't even understand what they would be voting on. There's a reason that so few jurisdictions use direct democracy...It's called California.

And theres a reason we DO use direct democracy when it comes to things that change the rights we have under our own political system.

You would have said the same thing about the euro project. We dont need referendums because people are too stupid to have a valid opinion. And look where that got them? You seem to have contempt for the very concept of democracy.

[waldo]

And what happens if someone tries to fly a plane in one of our buildings? Would it be preferable we have to ask the US to come and rescue us?

rescue? Is there an avenue to... rescue against an intent to fly a "plane into a building"? Do we have any relatively recent reference analogies to project upon your "rescue"? It would seem the world's most vaunted air-force meant diddly squat to the intentions of 9-11 terrorists... or your pompous projections on "rescue"!

[punked]

rescue? Is there an avenue to... rescue against an intent to fly a "plane into a building"? Do we have any relatively recent reference analogies to project upon your "rescue"? It would seem the world's most vaunted air-force meant diddly squat to the intentions of 9-11 terrorists... or your pompous projections on "rescue"!

Even after that planes have been flown into buildings in the US.

[stopstaaron]

We don't need jets. We need submarines.

Suicide bombers, car bombs are more likely than being bombed by jets

Canada is just too massive to take over

The best a country could do is take land that nobody lives on and would eventually have to give it back

[Signals.Cpl]

oh please! Spare me the MacKay photo-ops of the "Great Russian Bear"!

as for multiple countries laying claim to Arctic resources/sovereignty, that will play itself out ultimately through the UN and World Court. In any case, you seem to be placing the proverbial cart before the horse... who/what determines what contentious parts of the Arctic, Canada actually has legal domain over? There is a reason Russia has been mapping the ocean floor presuming to leverage actual scientific study/analysis to lay claim to underwater mountain ranges as an extension to its own Eurasian landmass. Clearly, Russia has formally announced an intention to present those scientific findings to the UN later this year presuming to redraw the map of the Arctic in its favour. At this stage, Russia has claimed an intention to follow its desires through available international framework... and in this regard, Canada would need jets for what purpose? Oh, wait... perhaps you're wary of the U.S., hey?

The UN is a joke, that organization is a lame duck and has been for a long time and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. And even if the UN were to rule in Canada's favour, what is stopping other nations from just occupying territory they claim as theirs wether legitimate or not?

And Russia may not be a threat, but when another nations flies in to your airspace with impunity that kind of weakens your case of being a sovereign nation.