F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

That number was an entirely rhetorical estimate. NObody knows what it will really cost because we are going to buy a plane that has never flown a single combat mission. We also have no idea how much money we are really going to have on hand.

But to be fair... I made up the number. I have no idea what it will cost. Heres one thing I DO know though. The government has NO MONEY AT ALL. They cant even pay their own employees without borrowing.

What is your definition of a strong and sovereign Canada? And what is your view of how we should structure the military?

[DogOnPorch]

But to be fair... I made up the number.

To be fair??

Edited April 7, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

What is your definition of a strong and sovereign Canada? And what is your view of how we should structure the military?

Well one question answers the other. A strong and soveriegn canada works with our allies and listens to them but doesnt make promises we might not be able to keep. And I would structure the military around DEFENSE of this nation.

[Signals.Cpl]

And I would structure the military around DEFENSE of this nation.

That is a very broad statement and does not answer the question, mainly because that is the primary mission of almost all Militaries in history .

Edited April 7, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[dre]

To be fair??

{/quote]

Yeah seems pretty fair to me. Everyone in this discussion has casually thrown out bogus numbers. Im just the only one willing to admit it. Nobody knows what the number. Not the DND and not the government.

[DogOnPorch]

To be fair??

{/quote]

Yeah seems pretty fair to me. Everyone in this discussion has casually thrown out bogus numbers. Im just the only one willing to admit it. Nobody knows what the number. Not the DND and not the government.

The irony of you saying 'to be fair I lied' is priceless. My advice, as per John Belushi, is to start drinking heavily.

[dre]

That is a very broad statement and does not answer the question.

It DOES answer the question, very clearly. Canada has some legitimate military needs. THe airforce flew nearly 1000 patrol missions last year alone, and needs to stand on ready to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft.

[dre]

ame='dre' date='06 April 2012 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1333780995' post='783095']

The irony of you saying 'to be fair I lied' is priceless. My advice, as per John Belushi, is to start drinking heavily.

Not thats just your lame brained characterization. Im the only one thats honest, not the one that lied. Theres been a billion different claims as to the cost of this little adventure. The difference is I was honest. But the reality is we have no idea. This plane has never flown a single combat mission and had no operational history.

[Signals.Cpl]

It DOES answer the question, very clearly. Canada has some legitimate military needs. THe airforce flew nearly 1000 patrol missions last year alone, and needs to stand on ready to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft.

It does not answer the question, its a vague answer. Your answer includes everything starting from a Bi-plane to an F-35 and a canoe for the navy all the way to a Super Carrier. You are opposed to buying the F-35, but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see? And if we are to work with our allies, we need comparable equipment, and Canadian governments don't have the best historical record on dealing with the military. My personal belief is that the government should list what it expects the Military to be able to accomplish and ask them to draw up what they need and give three separate lists (Best, middle ground, worst). That way the military knows what is expected, and the government knows what its getting.

[dre]

It does not answer the question, its a vague answer. Your answer includes everything starting from a Bi-plane to an F-35 and a canoe for the navy all the way to a Super Carrier. You are opposed to buying the F-35, but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see? And if we are to work with our allies, we need comparable equipment, and Canadian governments don't have the best historical record on dealing with the military. My personal belief is that the government should list what it expects the Military to be able to accomplish and ask them to draw up what they need and give three separate lists (Best, middle ground, worst). That way the military knows what is expected, and the government knows what its getting.

Well if you think that saying the role of our defense department is defense is a vague answer theres really nowhere for us to go with this conversation.

but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see?

I dunno. Thats above my paygrade. I want a pay as you go government that transparenty investigates all the options.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not thats just your lame brained characterization. Im the only one thats honest, not the one that lied. Theres been a billion different claims as to the cost of this little adventure. The difference is I was honest. But the reality is we have no idea. This plane has never flown a single combat mission and had no operational history.

Yeah but most of the budgets that are released by all parties are consistent, the problem is that the different budgets add different things. For example the military might add the cost of the aircraft, mid life refit and upgrades and repairs. While the Opposition might claim a cost of 25 billion if they included the cost of the aircraft, mid life refit, upgrades and repairs, cost of fuel, cost of manpower needed to operate the aircraft, cost of infrastructure needed to support aircraft in essence things that are already covered in the Defence budget. You might have a wild and misleading difference. Arguing about the price is irrelevant until you have the actual breakdown so you can see why the price is different.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well if you think that saying the role of our defense department is defense is a vague answer theres really nowhere for us to go with this conversation.

I dunno. Thats above my paygrade. I want a pay as you go government that transparenty investigates all the options.

Defence is vague, mainly because I am asking of you what capabilities should we have in your opinion. An F-35 and say a Spitfire offer the exact same thing, defence, difference is one of them is useful, the othe is not.

[dre]

Defence is vague, mainly because I am asking of you what capabilities should we have in your opinion. An F-35 and say a Spitfire offer the exact same thing, defence, difference is one of them is useful, the othe is not.

Its not vague at all. You can log onto the airforces website to see exactly what they do.

[Signals.Cpl]

Its not vague at all. You can log onto the airforces website to see exactly what they do.

I know very well what the airforce does, I don't need you to tell me what the military does or does not. I am asking for your opinion, it seems to me you are talking without much knowledge on the subject. Defence is the number one priority for any military in the world, as it is for the Canadian Forces, would you prefer that they are 100% a defensive force or not? Instead of purchasing an aircraft that can meet both offensive and defensive needs, we could look in to interceptors should majority of Canadians be of the same opinion as you. Most weapons have offensive and defensive option, if you want defence, then having a force that is only capable of defence is the way to go, if you want a force that is versatile then going a different way will be require.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[dre]

I know very well what the airforce does, I don't need you to tell me what the military does or does not. I am asking for your opinion, it seems to me you are talking without much knowledge on the subject. Defence is the number one priority for any military in the world, as it is for the Canadian Forces, would you prefer that they are 100% a defensive force or not? Instead of purchasing an aircraft that can meet both offensive and defensive needs, we could look in to interceptors should majority of Canadians be of the same opinion as you. Most weapons have offensive and defensive option, if you want defence, then having a force that is only capable of defence is the way to go, if you want a force that is versatile then going a different way will be require.

I already answered all these questions.

[Signals.Cpl]

I already answered all these questions.

Yeah you seem confused on what you want.

[dre]

Yeah you seem confused on what you want.

Not at all. Theres been a few different threads on that and my position is very clear. You seem to want to reply without taking the time to read.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not at all. Theres been a few different threads on that and my position is very clear. You seem to want to reply without taking the time to read.

Yeah Im gonna get right on that, there are over 1000 posts on the subject I'm not going to waste my time as i don't believe you have any Idea about what your position is. You seem really confused in this thread.

[Army Guy]

I think Sigs Cpl his answer is laid out in black and white below. they don't want a military Oh they say all they want to do is pay for the defense of Canada, but once that is accoplished then they will want to finsih it, they'll ask when was the last time Canada was attacked, shut it down completely....

That question has already answered itself. We have no need to be an "independant fighting force" against a foreign power. This has never happened in history and wont happen soon.

Sorry but history does have a few examples, the war of 1812 remember the US, Cuban Mis crises there are other examples , maybe not with a foreign power but a threat none the less, Louis riel rebellion, FLQ crises, just to name a few. But having a strong military force is also tied into other things as well such as our sovereignty with out there would be none, with out military strenght we would not have a seat on the NATO, council, nor would our vioce be as loud at the UN or for that matter any concil. it's all tied into having the will and means to back up anything that comes to the table....

Fighting other peoples fights is a luxury. We should only do it if we can afford to. What we NEED is the ability to patrol our own airspace and provide for our own DEFENSE. Anything we do beyond that will cause more problems than it solves.

You mean like WWI and WWII, korea, those types of fights, those are luxuries...and yet history seems to recall our nation was not in a postion to fight any of those and yet we did, why was that...

The age of limitless spending is going to be OVER soon. Canada needs to start operating like a business... it needs to only spend money it has, and it needs to spend money in areas that provide a return on investment. No matter how much you might wish for it the west cannot afford to keep policing the world. This era is drawing to an end, and almost every western nation is flat broke including us.

Limitless spending your joking right, lets take a look at our limitless spending for a second...Defense budget has gone up what 8 to 10 bil over the last 10 to 12 years...When more is required just to recover from the decade of darkness, you remember that don't you, funney i did not here you complaining when they raped the public service pension to pay down debt, not a word when they canceled most spending, slashed the budget to the bone, and when the country was recovering no one stood up and said hey what these guys that we slashed to the bone, how about we throw them some monies.....spending over close to 50 bil in defense spending over the next 20 years...thats is barely going to cover the rusted out equipment we need for defense or offense.

Funney how nobody complains about the umbrella of security they sleep under until it comes time to pay for it...

Canada should sell war bonds to finance its military. If you want to spend your money on policing the world then you can buy some. But you shouldnt steal my money to spend on this.

Sounds like you been smoking the same stuff Eyeball been growing...war bonds, why not bonds for every dept in the government, throw in bake sales, cookie drives, while your at it...we all pay taxes to fund every program and dept has, not everyone needs them all but you still have no chioce in where it goes....that one you'll just have to suck it up....

[cybercoma]

We need 5th generation jets, dre. Russia and China are both working on their own. If we ever have to intercept Russian or Chinese jets, which could be a possibility in the next 20-30 years, we'll need equipment that's equally capable. So, the F-35 is the only option for us. The F-22 cannot be sold to foreign countries due to US law.

The problem is not the F-35s themselves, but the handling of the purchase by the federal government. It's lying to parliament and showing contempt for Canada's institutions. It's not revealing the full costs in order to make yourself look better going into an election. It's treating Canadians like it's not even worth the time explaining the costs to them. It's not following the proper open-tender procurement process. These are the issues.

[punked]

We need 5th generation jets, dre. Russia and China are both working on their own. If we ever have to intercept Russian or Chinese jets, which could be a possibility in the next 20-30 years, we'll need equipment that's equally capable. So, the F-35 is the only option for us. The F-22 cannot be sold to foreign countries due to US law.

The problem is not the F-35s themselves, but the handling of the purchase by the federal government. It's lying to parliament and showing contempt for Canada's institutions. It's not revealing the full costs in order to make yourself look better going into an election. It's treating Canadians like it's not even worth the time explaining the costs to them. It's not following the proper open-tender procurement process. These are the issues.

We live in a different time. The Red menace isn't so Red anymore, they aren't Communist and they are get this our trading partners. Our PM went to China last month, the Russian leader defended the President of United States just the other day. Attacks wont come from them they come from loosely tied groups of extremist who are often impossible to identify until after they attack and who have NO AIR POWER what so ever.

This isn't a game of who has the biggest, it is a debate over where money in our society should be spent and you have no convinced me in this new world that this is the right decision yet.

[Signals.Cpl]

We live in a different time. The Red menace isn't so Red anymore, they aren't Communist and they are get this our trading partners. Our PM went to China last month, the Russian leader defended the President of United States just the other day.

1) Stalin was Hitler's biggest trade partner, and we all know(I hope) how that one turned out.

2) You do realize China is still communist?

[punked]

1) Stalin was Hitler's biggest trade partner, and we all know(I hope) how that one turned out.

2) You do realize China is still communist?

Do you really think a country any country is going to attack Canada? If so do you think 45 fighter jets stationed across a country as big as ours is going to deter them if they want to? These are serious questions and your answers are not so serious. I am still remain unconvinced but my mind is by no means made up because I am no expert in this field. I will tell your answers are silly and if that is why we buy these jets then I am against it.

Edited April 7, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you really think a country any country is going to attack Canada? If so do you think 45 fighter jets stationed across a country as big as ours is going to deter them if they want to? These are seriously questions and your answers are not so serious. I am still remain unconvinced but my mind is by no means made up because I am no expert in this field. I will tell your answers are silly and if that is why we buy these jets then I am against it.

I was just pointing flaws in your argument. Stating and I quote

The Red menace isn't so Red anymore, they aren't Communist

tells me you have no idea what you are talking about as one of them is CLEARLY communist, I don't have to assume they are, China states

The People’s Republic of China was founded by the Communist Party of China which is the leader of the Chinese people.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/Political/26143.htm

My answers might not be serious because your facts BS are so easily disproven its not even funny.

And If China is so peaceful why has it been building up its military while the west (Except the US) has been steadily cutting theirs. We either do our part in NORAD and have a voice in Continental defence or we let the US deal with it, and then have them dictate to us about continental defence. International Organizations we belong to should not to be taken lightly, where we can quit at any time and join back up at our convenience.

Think of the military as an all purpose insurance, you hope you never have to use the insurance but it feels nice that its there should you require it. Buying new military equipment now is much cheaper and more effective then cutting the budget. Keeping the old equipment which by the way costs more with every year in service above and beyond its projected lifespan means that you are putting more and more Canadian Soldiers, Sailors and Aircrew in danger by operating in some cases equipment that is obsolete as well as the fact that when you need the military it will not be armed properly and therefore another short term rebuilding effort. We can equip the military now, or just after we need it next time.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[eyeball]

So you are under the opinion we should turn over defence to the US then?

Diefenbaker and the Tories sailed that ship over the horizon decades ago and Canada said okay.

Get over it already.