F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[bush_cheney2004]

...That’s just it, many don’t see the benefits in terms of Canadian bacon garnered by building the majority of the engine components and wing tips for the entire production run, for all partners orders, versus some mythical deal in which Boeing or the French will shift production to Canada or any offsets we’d garner for the equivalent of 65 tails.

Right...we're talking about 65 tails, maybe less. That doesn't amount to much leverage.

The world will move on while Canada dithers.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, Canada needs something. Airframes wear out. If not the F-35, then what? We're kind of screwed here for waiting so long to replace the ones we have. Telling Bombardier to 'build one' won't cut it, I'm afraid. Since whatever we choose will be with us until goodness knows when, we'd better look at the top shelf by default. No more F-5 Tigers.

Here's a lesson from aviation history that is still valid today...

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

As stated by Wild Bill, and I'll echo, if we don’t want to commit to the 5th Generation F-35, we should throw in the towel like the Kiwis or Irish……They don’t mind subcontracting their sovereignty to the Australians or British, why should we be opposed to doing likewise with the Americans?

[bush_cheney2004]

Those fall under the scenarios I already went over with you. These are wars in which Canada was a bit player in a dominant coalition doing a favor for other countries. Stealth is not required of us for those operations. Go and read about each of those operations and exactly what we did, and who we did it with, and what had already done first.

This is not true for strike or CAP missions against modern AAW. In some cases, Canada's CF-18's actually became a liability because additional assets were needed to use them even as bomb trucks. That's why existing airframes have been modernized.

[Guest Derek L]

Those fall under the scenarios I already went over with you. These are wars in which Canada was a bit player in a dominant coalition doing a favor for other countries. Stealth is not required of us for those operations. Go and read about each of those operations and exactly what we did, and who we did it with, and what had already done first.

I know exactly what we did, and starting with the first Gulf War, our contribution with our Hornet was “token” at best, this though was more a reflection on the condition of our fleet……..

If you don’t want Fast Air, just say so…………

[DogOnPorch]

As stated by Wild Bill, and I'll echo, if we don’t want to commit to the 5th Generation F-35, we should throw in the towel like the Kiwis or Irish……They don’t mind subcontracting their sovereignty to the Australians or British, why should we be opposed to doing likewise with the Americans?

Yup and Bloody April of worse is the fate of those in the poorer aircraft. The Bekaa Valley in '82 comes to mind where 80+ MiGs were toasted by F-15s w/o loss.

[bush_cheney2004]

They don’t mind subcontracting their sovereignty to the Australians or British, why should we be opposed to doing likewise with the Americans?

Egad, anything but that...not the...AMERICANS!

[Guest Derek L]

Right...we're talking about 65 tails, maybe less. That doesn't amount to much leverage.

The world will move on while Canada dithers.

No leverage at all....Especially with the Boeing and the French.

[dre]

Well, Canada needs something. Airframes wear out. If not the F-35, then what? We're kind of screwed here for waiting so long to replace the ones we have. Telling Bombardier to 'build one' won't cut it, I'm afraid. Since whatever we choose will be with us until goodness knows when, we'd better look at the top shelf by default. No more F-5 Tigers.

Here's a lesson from aviation history that is still valid today...

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

Bombardier couldnt build a 5th generation joint strike fighter, and Canada is just too small of a country to bake that pie from scratch by itself. But could we build a plane that could fly patrol missions in Canadian airspace and shoot down rogue civilian airliners? That doesnt seem out of the question... we ARE one of a pretty small handfull of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

Maybe we could build a plane that would meet our basic defense needs, and buy a very small fleet of fighter/bombers to support nato missions etc. This might be a good industry for Canada to get into.

[Guest Derek L]

Bombardier couldnt build a 5th generation joint strike fighter, and Canada is just too small of a country to bake that pie from scratch by itself. But could we build a plane that could fly patrol missions in Canadian airspace and shoot down rogue civilian airliners? That doesnt seem out of the question... we ARE one of a pretty small handfull of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

Maybe we could build a plane that would meet our basic defense needs, and buy a very small fleet of fighter/bombers to support nato missions etc. This might be a good industry for Canada to get into.

What Canadian company is equipped to build a modern fighter? There are none…….The Eurofighter and Rafale programs, with the backing of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italian and French economies spent tens of billions of dollars and nearly 30 years to build aircraft, that on delivery, still don’t work as advertised and are rapidly approaching obsolescence………….Or, look at the Avro Arrow failure….

Why not just buy an aircraft, that someone else paid for the development costs, and we get to build a portion of for the next 30 years…..

[DogOnPorch]

Bombardier couldnt build a 5th generation joint strike fighter, and Canada is just too small of a country to bake that pie from scratch by itself. But could we build a plane that could fly patrol missions in Canadian airspace and shoot down rogue civilian airliners? That doesnt seem out of the question... we ARE one of a pretty small handfull of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

Maybe we could build a plane that would meet our basic defense needs, and buy a very small fleet of fighter/bombers to support nato missions etc. This might be a good industry for Canada to get into.

Again...remember Bloody April, Viet-Nam, Bekaa Valley. Horrible losses...planes and pilots.

During Bloody April...this...

...fought this...

...and were shot down in droves.

[dre]

As stated by Wild Bill, and I'll echo, if we don’t want to commit to the 5th Generation F-35, we should throw in the towel like the Kiwis or Irish……They don’t mind subcontracting their sovereignty to the Australians or British, why should we be opposed to doing likewise with the Americans?

Well we are subcontracting our sovereignty to the Americans to some extent whether we buy no F22's or 100. Thats just our defacto position no matter what we do. We cant spend enough to get out from underneath that shadow, and if there ever is a real threat to Canada posed by major foreign powers we wont have a chance without help from the US. Thats just the reality we live in.

[bush_cheney2004]

...and were shot down in droves.

But look at how much money was saved!

[DogOnPorch]

But look at how much money was saved!

Perhaps dre is like the average UK squadron commander of 1916...transfered against their will from the cavalry.

[Guest Derek L]

Well we are subcontracting our sovereignty to the Americans to some extent whether we buy no F22's or 100. Thats just our defacto position no matter what we do. We cant spend enough to get out from underneath that shadow, and if there ever is a real threat to Canada posed by major foreign powers we wont have a chance without help from the US. Thats just the reality we live in.

Then why spend billions on a military?

Wouldn’t we be better off with scrapping the Army, Air Force and Navy, then “beefing up” the Coast Guard (well giving them domestic SAR), keeping a handful of transport aircraft for disaster relief under the auspices of Transport Canada and putting the responsibilities of the JTF-2 (Special Operations/Domestic counter Terrorism) back with the RCMP? We’d save tens of billions of dollars.

Iceland doesn't have a military, do we really need one?

[dre]

Then why spend billions on a military?

Wouldn’t we be better off with scrapping the Army, Air Force and Navy, then “beefing up” the Coast Guard (well giving them domestic SAR), keeping a handful of transport aircraft for disaster relief under the auspices of Transport Canada and putting the responsibilities of the JTF-2 (Special Operations/Domestic counter Terrorism) back with the RCMP? We’d save tens of billions of dollars.

Iceland doesn't have a military, do we really need one?

Well we need a modest military if we want to maintain our existing role in the international community, and to satisfy our obligations to organisations like the UN and NATO.

You are talking in about CHANGING our existing role... both when you talk about disbanding the military and when you talk about large expenditures on state of the art military equipment.

I dont know which role is right for us. I used to be big on the idea of internationalism and mult-lateralism, but now I just cant tell if its a good idea or not. I dont know if most of what we do in the name of "national defense" really makes us safer or not. And Im not sure if following Icelands example would be good either.

Whatever we do should be sustainable and defecit neutral. If the government is going to spend 30 billion dollars on a fighter under the pretenses that fighter is going to be needed to fight in wars that will cost us dozens of more billions, then they should figure out where all the money is going to come from. How much money does the federal government have put aside for all this spending? Oh wait... they couldnt even pay their own employees this year without borrowing money.

Edited March 28, 2012 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Iceland doesn't have a military, do we really need one?

Iceland needed to be occupied by the UK then the US least 60 Germans in a U-Boat took the place by storm.

Edited March 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

Iceland needed to be occupied by the UK then the US least 60 Germans in a U-Boat took the place by storm.

But really, who’s going to occupy us? And if someone did, the Americans would gladly liberate us and our energy resources. Our Defence budget is ~21 billion dollars…We could eliminate the deficit and then have a near 10 billion dollar tax cut….

[DogOnPorch]

But really, who’s going to occupy us? And if someone did, the Americans would gladly liberate us and our energy resources. Our Defence budget is ~21 billion dollars…We could eliminate the deficit and then have a near 10 billion dollar tax cut….

OK, Canada...three U-Boats.

[Guest Derek L]

OK, Canada...three U-Boats.

We could do what nations have done for centuries…….in time of World tension, hire mercenaries defence contractors…………..I’m actually starting to like this idea, I wonder if I could apply to the US State Department for a FMS sale of some early F-15s from AMARG…..Maybe some early M-1s, a few thousand M-16s, AH-1s and a couple of Oliver Perry Frigates……

[DogOnPorch]

We could do what nations have done for centuries…….in time of World tension, hire mercenaries defence contractors…………..I’m actually starting to like this idea, I wonder if I could apply to the US State Department for a FMS sale of some early F-15s from AMARG…..Maybe some early M-1s, a few thousand M-16s, AH-1s and a couple of Oliver Perry Frigates……

Ah, yes...Condottieri...Hessians...Zouaves! I think we should go with the bright red pantaloons.

[dre]

But really, who’s going to occupy us? And if someone did, the Americans would gladly liberate us and our energy resources. Our Defence budget is ~21 billion dollars…We could eliminate the deficit and then have a near 10 billion dollar tax cut….

Yeah clearly we dont have much in terms of real national defense needs in the current world order. That could change though but not for at least a few more decades.

Still. If Canadians support things like peace keeping, and our contributions to organisations like NATO and the UN, and that is out policy then we need military resources.

[Guest Derek L]

Ah, yes...Condottieri...Hessians...Zouaves! I think we should go with the bright red pantaloons.

Nah, I’m serious, my Wife’s uncle (uncle in-law I guess?) was a “consultant” with Executive Outcomes back in the early 90s……Think the Wild Geese or Flying Tigers

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah clearly we dont have much in terms of real national defense needs in the current world order. That could change though but not for at least a few more decades.

Still. If Canadians support things like peace keeping, and our contributions to organisations like NATO and the UN, and that is out policy then we need military resources.

As I said to DogOnPorch, why not rely on Defence Contractors? No overhead, no pension obligations and plausible deniability....

[DogOnPorch]

Nah, I’m serious, my Wife’s uncle (uncle in-law I guess?) was a “consultant” with Executive Outcomes back in the early 90s……Think the Wild Geese or Flying Tigers

The Nationalists couldn't afford the price per Jap for the AVG. Plus, the US decided it could use the pilots early in '42.

[Guest Derek L]

The Nationalists couldn't afford the price per Jap for the AVG. Plus, the US decided it could use the pilots early in '42.

Well obviously we’d require clear and transparent pricing………Take Libya for example, if Canadian energy companies are worried about their investment in a foreign country, we allow them to hire a Canadian Defence Contractor to further and protect their investments……. We could even make it law, no Canadian corporation can hire contractors to work on Canadian soil, that’s solely up to Provincial and Federal Governments……..