F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[DogOnPorch]

Crappy Aircrafts in WW1 have no bearing on our military today.

Can you explain why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn

Now the fact the Sherman tank was outclassed by German tanks in pretty much every meaningful measure of effectiveness on the hand.

?

The F22 and F35 are the only new planes we've seen since F18. What other jets are they for us to get?

I think some folks wish to unpack a few F-101s from their gun grease and call 'em brand new front line combat aerio-craft. Other than that, I can not predict the future.

Edited March 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[cybercoma]

That crappy aircraft get shot down? History has proved that. Over and over again. Besides, you wouldn't know a DH-2 if it ran up and bit you. Nor the lesson it taught during Bloody April.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanoe_Hawker

Again, what was the overall result of Canada's contributions to WWI in spite of a lot of crappy aircraft getting shot down? Speaking of aircraft, that point is flying right over your head. And while you're considering that, why don't you tell me how many dogfights Canadian fighter pilots have been in over the last 65 years.

Edited March 28, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

Again, what was the overall result of Canada's contributions to WWI in spite of a lot of crappy aircraft getting shot down? Speaking of aircraft, that point is flying right over your head. And while you're considering that, why don't you tell me how many dogfights Canadian fighter pilots have been in over the last 65 years.

I will, zero……….How many Canadian pilots have conducted operations within contested airspace over the last 65 years?

[Guest Derek L]

Email Evan Solomon and ask for the SOR if you want to talk about aircraft jargon. I'm not interested. I'm only interested in the fact that the Tories tried to rigged the process, then when they realized the aircraft wouldn't meet the air force's requirements, they hid the documents that are otherwise publicly available for other projects.

What documents? Do you really think DND will openly share classified information with the public? Perhaps They should have an online website with a comment section too……..

As for documents that are made public, clearly that’s a case of the said information not being classified and/or said information is already in the public domain.

[Guest Derek L]

Denmark...

Using Greenlandian shock troops...In war kayaks...To retake Hans Island!!!

I wonder how long it would take for us to find out that Hans Island had been taken?

[YEGmann]

They're secret, eh?

You must have skipped over where I posted this:

Have you ever seen a document like "Statement of Operational Intent"? I do not need the BS you refered to. I read the requirements for the 5th generation fighter on the DND web-site. They have little, almost nothing to do to the actual requirements or documents circulating in tenders. And from the Solomon's citation it's clear he is talking BS.

[DogOnPorch]

Again, what was the overall result of Canada's contributions to WWI in spite of a lot of crappy aircraft getting shot down? Speaking of aircraft, that point is flying right over your head. And while you're considering that, why don't you tell me how many dogfights Canadian fighter pilots have been in over the last 65 years.

In warfare it is best to prepare for the worst rather than taking the budget approach. This combined with superior tactics wins conflicts. This has been proven on the battlefield over and over throughout history. During Bloody April over Arras, for example. That you feel Canada is done fighting major wars for this or that reason is wishful. I imagine there were plenty of folks thinking just like yourself before WW2. But, history also shows that every so often...much like bad weather...major conflicts DO break out. I doubt we'll buck the trend for THAT long.

As for the F-35...we don't really have much choice. I want to Canada to spend tons of money on new jets about as much as I want to dish out $$$$ for a new car/truck. But...I need that car...period.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would be okay with the government spending the money here.....

[dre]

In warfare it is best to prepare for the worst rather than taking the budget approach. This combined with superior tactics wins conflicts

No all government spending should use the "budget" approach, military spending is no exception. Borrowing money from foreigners and then using that money to help other foreigners just doesnt make good sense. We should spend what we can afford to and what the government actually HAS... which is nothing. The government cant even pay its own employees without borrowing money and you guys figure its time for the biggest military spending spree in Canadian history? These are the type of decisions that destroy countries...

[dre]

I would be okay with the government spending the money here.....

Spending WHAT money exactly? The government doesnt have any.

The real question you should ask yourself is are you willing to see big tax hikes in order to keep all this spending deficit neutral?

[DogOnPorch]

These are the type of decisions that destroy countries...

Oui, Monsieur Maginot.

[Guest Derek L]

No all government spending should use the "budget" approach, military spending is no exception. Borrowing money from foreigners and then using that money to help other foreigners just doesnt make good sense. We should spend what we can afford to and what the government actually HAS... which is nothing. The government cant even pay its own employees without borrowing money and you guys figure its time for the biggest military spending spree in Canadian history? These are the type of decisions that destroy countries...

Back to my point yesterday, perhaps Canada can’t afford a military………That 21-22 Billion spent annually would most certainly find other uses……….As I pointed out, Iceland doesn’t have a military.

And as suggested yesterday, if we were to disband our Armed Forces, then at some later date require a form of military action, we could hire Defence Contractors……..It’s been a viable course of action for centuries and is again gaining in popular usage {see Blackwater etc).

Perhaps that's the way to go.

[dre]

Back to my point yesterday, perhaps Canada can’t afford a military………That 21-22 Billion spent annually would most certainly find other uses……….As I pointed out, Iceland doesn’t have a military.

And as suggested yesterday, if we were to disband our Armed Forces, then at some later date require a form of military action, we could hire Defence Contractors……..It’s been a viable course of action for centuries and is again gaining in popular usage {see Blackwater etc).

Perhaps that's the way to go.

We shouldnt have to hire defense contractors... just call back some of these favors. We have bled in a whole shitload of wars for these alliances and never asked for even a pinch of coon shit in return. Even if we stopped doing it now they already owe us.

We can afford a modest but capable military but we wont always be able to afford the same toys some other countries have, nor do we need them if you review our actual role in these wars.

[Guest Derek L]

We shouldnt have to hire defense contractors... just call back some of these favors. We have bled in a whole shitload of wars for these alliances and never asked for even a pinch of coon shit in return. Even if we stopped doing it now they already owe us.

But that’s magical fantasy land though………Who owes us a thing? Do we have some cabinet in Ottawa stuffed with IOUs………Are you suggesting we should rely on another nations publicly funded military? I thought you just made the point about how Canada shouldn’t be borrowing foreign money, to help fund our professional military, used in helping other nations?

We can afford a modest but capable military but we wont always be able to afford the same toys some other countries have, nor do we need them if you review our actual role in these wars.

Define a modest and capable military. Modest compared to whom? Capable compared to what?

Edited March 29, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

dp

Edited March 29, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

But that’s magical fantasy land though………Who owe a thing? Do we have some cabinet in Ottawa stuffed with IOUs………Are you suggesting we should rely on another nations publicly funded military? I thought you just made the point about how Canada shouldn’t be borrowing foreign money, to help fund our professional military, used in helping other nations?

What??? YOu mean all these wars we fight for other people and we cant even expect their help in return if we need THEM? Its an even worse deal than I thought!

Define a modest and capable military.

Sure... our own military. Its never been large or extremely well equiped but its effective. And we do the hard part... The initial aerial bombing campaigns are the nice easy safe part. The hard part is what comes after.

Also defense contractors might keep lightly armed security contractors available for rent... But they arent going to have an airforce sitting around in case we need it. They cant afford that any more than we can. Not to mention that if all the firepower was controlled by these defense contractors soon everything ELSE would be as well.

Edited March 29, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

What??? YOu mean all these wars we fight for other people and we cant even expect their help in return if we need THEM? Its an even worse deal than I thought!

You would base our national defence and foreign policy on the expectations that others would defend our national interests?

Sure... our own military. Its never been large or extremely well equiped but its effective. And we do the hard part... The initial aerial bombing campaigns are the nice easy safe part. The hard part is what comes after.

Never been large? At the end of WWII we had the third largest navy in the world.......

You're suggesting past aerial bombing campaigns were easy? I suggest you learn yourself up on the losses of RAF Bomber Command (which we were apart) and the Eighth Air Force……..

[Guest Derek L]

What??? YOu mean all these wars we fight for other people and we cant even expect their help in return if we need THEM? Its an even worse deal than I thought!

Sure... our own military. Its never been large or extremely well equiped but its effective. And we do the hard part... The initial aerial bombing campaigns are the nice easy safe part. The hard part is what comes after.

Also defense contractors might keep lightly armed security contractors available for rent... But they arent going to have an airforce sitting around in case we need it. They cant afford that any more than we can. Not to mention that if all the firepower was controlled by these defense contractors soon everything ELSE would be as well.

Our Government has been using defence contractors, with their own aircraft, for training our military for over a decade, as they have used private contractors to provide both Strategic lift and tactical helicopters in Afghanistan.

[dre]

You would base our national defence and foreign policy on the expectations that others would defend our national interests?

Never been large? At the end of WWII we had the third largest navy in the world.......

You're suggesting past aerial bombing campaigns were easy? I suggest you learn yourself up on the losses of RAF Bomber Command (which we were apart) and the Eighth Air Force……..

Im talking about modern conflicts, and the role of our military today.

You would base our national defence and foreign policy on the expectations that others would defend our national interests?

No that was you, and your suggestion that we should disband the military because the US would defend us anyways. All im suggesting is that would should only spend what money we actually HAVE and can afford.

I dont think any of this activity is sustainable in the long term. The west cannot keep borrowing trillions of dollars from Countries like China to police the world. This activity is going to come to an end no matter sooner or later because its mal-investment and the markets dont let you get away with that for long.

Edited March 29, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

Im talking about modern conflicts, and the role of our military today.

Our Air force has been involved in four conflicts, which a bombing campaign was integral, since 1991.….Modern enough for you?

No that was you, and your suggestion that we should disband the military because the US would defend us anyways. All im suggesting is that would should only spend what money we actually HAVE and can afford.

I never suggested that was a good idea, nor a wise policy……….And I don’t doubt that they would, but at what cost to our national sovereignty?

What do you feel, we as a nation, can afford to spend on national defence? We currently spend 22-21 billion a year (I’m sure that will have changed tomorrow mind you), so what do you think we can spend? Half that? A quarter? 1/5th?

[dre]

Our Air force has been involved in four conflicts, which a bombing campaign was integral, since 1991.….Modern enough for you?

I never suggested that was a good idea, nor a wise policy……….And I don’t doubt that they would, but at what cost to our national sovereignty?

What do you feel, we as a nation, can afford to spend on national defence? We currently spend 22-21 billion a year (I’m sure that will have changed tomorrow mind you), so what do you think we can spend? Half that? A quarter? 1/5th?

Our Air force has been involved in four conflicts, which a bombing campaign was integral, since 1991.….Modern enough for you?

Yeah thats my whole point. These modern conflicts involved a coalition of major military powers attacking a single rogue state, often dirt poor. We have unchallenged air dominance and very rarely lose any planes.

What do you feel, we as a nation, can afford to spend on national defence? We currently spend 22-21 billion a year (I’m sure that will have changed tomorrow mind you), so what do you think we can spend? Half that? A quarter? 1/5th?

You dont know what you can afford until you look at how much money you have in the bank. Clearly all western countries are going to have to reduce military spending. Policing the world with money borrowed at interest is a losers game, and we are gonna pay for all of this malinvestment.

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah thats my whole point. These modern conflicts involved a coalition of major military powers attacking a single rogue state, often dirt poor. We have unchallenged air dominance and very rarely lose any planes.

And you’ll guarantee that into the future?…….During the First Gulf War, Saddam had one of the most modern air defence networks on the planet………What beat that? Modern Airpower.

You dont know what you can afford until you look at how much money you have in the bank. Clearly all western countries are going to have to reduce military spending. Policing the world with money borrowed at interest is a losers game, and we are gonna pay for all of this malinvestment.

So you don't have a figure then? If that’s the case, how do you come to the conclusion that we can’t afford the F-35?

[dre]

So you don't have a figure then? If that’s the case, how do you come to the conclusion that we can’t afford the F-35?

Well.. nobody even knows what its going to cost yet. But I just assume that since the government cannot even pay its own employees and bills without borrowed money it doesnt have 10-30 billion dollars stashed somewhere.

[dre]

And you’ll guarantee that into the future?

Well... we wont fight elective wars in cases where we dont have it. But no... I cant think of a plausible scenario in the next 40 or 50 years where a NATO or UN coalition does not have complete air superiority.

[DogOnPorch]

Well... we wont fight elective wars in cases where we dont have it. But no... I cant think of a plausible scenario in the next 40 or 50 years where a NATO or UN coalition does not have complete air superiority.

Forty or fifty years?? The planet changes forever with each passing second and you have a wizard hat that allows you to see into the future 5 decades??? Do the Leafs ever win the Cup?