F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Smallc]

Nope, it would allow us a third of a squadron deployed (indefinitely)

I wasn't talking indefinitely. If we can police our airspace and deploy 6 aircraft indefinitely now, or 12 for a short time with 48 in service, I don't see why we couldn't deploy 24 if we had 72 in service.

[kward]

Nope, it would allow us a third of a squadron deployed (indefinitely) without effecting training and our other (NORAD) commitments………The last time we could deploy and sustain a squadron was when we still had the Freedom Fighters…….

Time to put an end to our involvement with NORAD and the expensive "commitments" that go with it.

[kward]

I wasn't talking indefinitely. If we can police our airspace and deploy 6 aircraft indefinitely now, or 12 for a short time with 48 in service, I don't see why we couldn't deploy 24 if we had 72 in service.

Police our airspace? Against whom? Is there some imminent attack of flying cats from outer space I don't know about? Hell, why stop at deploying 24, why not 32, or 64? It's only everyone's money right?

[Signals.Cpl]

Yes, that's exactly what I said, we throw our weapons down and everyone will automatically love us. Give me a break.

The goal is not to be loved, that is silly. No one is ever going to be liked by everyone. But you learn not to solve your differences with violence or force of the threat thereof, and you evolve, and you make your citizens safer in the process.

Yeah and in the mean time what do we do without airspace? Sit and hope noone decides to attack us, or cause harm to the US through us? Because lets be serious if we were to let something happen to the US from our soil we would be the once suffering the economic repercussions.

[Guest Derek L]

I wasn't talking indefinitely. If we can police our airspace and deploy 6 aircraft indefinitely now, or 12 for a short time with 48 in service, I don't see why we couldn't deploy 24 if we had 72 in service.

We can't deploy six indefinitely now..............You’d require at minimum a 1:3 ratio, or better put, for every aircraft overseas, you’d have three more back home in the squadrons working up for the next deployment, training and decompressing & performing squadron level maintenance……….Hence if we wanted to deploy 24 aircraft sustained, we’d require ~100 in the squadrons, and ~30 in depot level maintenance and as attrition reserves……….If you add a Conversion squadron, your resulting numbers will mirror our Hornet and Freedom Fighter numbers in the late 80s.

[Signals.Cpl]

Police our airspace? Against whom? Is there some imminent attack of flying cats from outer space I don't know about? Hell, why stop at deploying 24, why not 32, or 64? It's only everyone's money right?

And what happens when we need the planes to police our airspace and don't have it? Do we look at the families of those killed and say well gee at least we saved some money right?

You have an unrealistic view that if we were not a threat to anyone they would not bother us, when we consider that we have tremendous resources that will become more and more valuable as time passes your theory goes from childish to suicidal.

[Smallc]

We could though, under my scenario, deploy 24 for at least 6 months. We deployed 6 for at least that long (with your 1:3 number it would seem we can deploy at least 6 for as long as we want).

[dre]

And what happens when we need the planes to police our airspace and don't have it? Do we look at the families of those killed and say well gee at least we saved some money right?

You have an unrealistic view that if we were not a threat to anyone they would not bother us, when we consider that we have tremendous resources that will become more and more valuable as time passes your theory goes from childish to suicidal.

As we saw with the recent government decisions to allow a communist government to purchase our natural resources, I just dont see any real reason for anyone to invade us. We will just give them what they want.

Also... a country with the capacity and desire to invade Canada is not going to be stopped by 50 planes. A modest complement of nuclear ICBM's would be a lot more effective.

That said Im not against Canada maintaining a small airforce, but Im not sure the F35 is particularly well suited to our real needs. It lacks range, uses more fuel per KM than other planes, and costs a lot to fly. It seems to be designed more for the theatres in the middle east or Europe than flying the 700+ patrol missions that the Canadian airforce actually flies every year.

Edited December 9, 2012 by dre

[Signals.Cpl]

We can't deploy six indefinitely now..............You’d require at minimum a 1:3 ratio, or better put, for every aircraft overseas, you’d have three more back home in the squadrons working up for the next deployment, training and decompressing & performing squadron level maintenance……….Hence if we wanted to deploy 24 aircraft sustained, we’d require ~100 in the squadrons, and ~30 in depot level maintenance and as attrition reserves……….If you add a Conversion squadron, your resulting numbers will mirror our Hornet and Freedom Fighter numbers in the late 80s.

Out of curiosity, when deploying for a long period of time do we deploy pilots with their fighters or do we keep the same set of fighters in theatre and just switch the pilots and crews?

[Signals.Cpl]

Im glad you agree...

[kward]

Yeah and in the mean time what do we do without airspace? Sit and hope noone decides to attack us, or cause harm to the US through us? Because lets be serious if we were to let something happen to the US from our soil we would be the once suffering the economic repercussions.

Again, there is no fool-proof method for defending yourself from an attack. Attacks will always occur, forever and ever amen. So it makes no sense wasting billions of dollars on something that cannot ever be stopped.

A better use of money would be to engage in active, open dialogue with nations around the world. To open up channels of trade, befriend, and do business with any and all. Buying jets or other equipment is an abyss with no end. If private land owners want to take on that expense, fine, but don't tax people and then throw money down a rat-hole in the interest of assuaging some kind of psychological fake feeling of "safety".

[Guest Derek L]

We could though, under my scenario, deploy 24 for at least 6 months. We deployed 6 for at least that long (with your 1:3 number it would seem we can deploy at least 6 for as long as we want).

As I said, we could deploy a third of a squadron (8 aircraft) under your plan………six is all we can mange (barely) with ~75+ older Hornets for a “short period of time”………..

[Guest Derek L]

Out of curiosity, when deploying for a long period of time do we deploy pilots with their fighters or do we keep the same set of fighters in theatre and just switch the pilots and crews?

The personal would rotate in, just like JTF Afghanistan, eventually though aircraft would have to be rotated out and/or replaced, but more on an individual basis……….Just the same as LAVs, trucks etc

[kward]

And what happens when we need the planes to police our airspace and don't have it? Do we look at the families of those killed and say well gee at least we saved some money right?

You have an unrealistic view that if we were not a threat to anyone they would not bother us, when we consider that we have tremendous resources that will become more and more valuable as time passes your theory goes from childish to suicidal.

"We" have tremendous resources? Who's "we"? Are you personally going to benefit from these resources?

Are you going to look at families who've lost loved ones in an attack AFTER you've already spent billions on jets and everything else, and then double down and spend even more? Do you not see...there's no line here. You start spending in the interest of total security...something that cannot ever be achieved or guaranteed to anyone...and where does it stop? Where is the line? When is total safety achieved? Who measures it? How is it measured?

Important questions when you're essentially stealing a portion of people's hard earned money to pay for all of this.

[Signals.Cpl]

Again, there is no fool-proof method for defending yourself from an attack. Attacks will always occur, forever and ever amen. So it makes no sense wasting billions of dollars on something that cannot ever be stopped.

Great, and I support the theory that as long as someone wants to attack me I will defend myself. I understand that some attacks will always get through but I would much prefer some getting through over all getting through it could be the difference between explaining to 10 families why their loved once died and explaining to 10,000 families why their loved once were not worth protecting.

-Some Rapes will always happen yet this does not stop people from trying to prevent them.

-Child Mortality rates are above 0% and most likely will always remain above 0% yet people try to prevent as many deaths rather then stop trying because some will die.

A better use of money would be to engage in active, open dialogue with nations around the world.

What about the terrorist organizations, how do we engage those?

To open up channels of trade, befriend, and do business with any and all.

Seeing as the US is our main trading partner and closest ally I would have to say that we will always be the enemy of those who see the US as their enemy and disarming will not change that.

Buying jets or other equipment is an abyss with no end.

Thats an easy statement to make when safe at home but try to explain to people who are affected by an attack why you failed to protect them. The government has a job to protect its people, knowing that a few attacks will get through is not reason enough to stop defending yourself.

If private land owners want to take on that expense, fine, but don't tax people and then throw money down a rat-hole in the interest of assuaging some kind of psychological fake feeling of "safety".

There was a private members bill some time ago about people choosing wether to fund the CF with their tax money or not, I am all for that as long as there is a list of who opted out of the taxation so that when they need the military to evacuate them from a war zone or a natural disaster we could leave them there to their own devices.

[Signals.Cpl]

The personal would rotate in, just like JTF Afghanistan, eventually though aircraft would have to be rotated out and/or replaced, but more on an individual basis……….Just the same as LAVs, trucks etc

So wouldn't the requirement be to add more pilots and aircrew to the ranks then the aircraft themselves?

[kward]

As we saw with the recent government decisions to allow a communist government to purchase our natural resources, I just dont see any real reason for anyone to invade us. We will just give them what they want.

Also... a country with the capacity and desire to invade Canada is not going to be stopped by 50 planes. A modest complement of nuclear ICBM's would be a lot more effective.

That said Im not against Canada maintaining a small airforce, but Im not sure the F35 is particularly well suited to our real needs. It lacks range, uses more fuel per KM than other planes, and costs a lot to fly. It seems to be designed more for the theatres in the middle east or Europe than flying the 700+ patrol missions that the Canadian airforce actually flies every year.

Nuclear tipped ICBMs...again, same argument as with fighter jets. How many? How much money? Where would they be deployed? How would you defend them from an air assault, ground assault, etc.? How would it not become a new cold war where you had the USSR and USA stockpiling crazy numbers of ammo, to what end? Mutually assured destruction?

I could be convinced to keep a small fleet of armed drones underground somewhere. Maybe even a small arsenal of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. But not this unending buying of military equipment and flying patrols and all the upkeep, and personnel and fuel costs that go with. Put a strict limit...buy drones, a few nukes...and park 'em. In case of emergency break glass. Everything else is a complete and utter waste of money.

[kward]

The personal would rotate in, just like JTF Afghanistan, eventually though aircraft would have to be rotated out and/or replaced, but more on an individual basis……….Just the same as LAVs, trucks etc

See? This is what I'm talking about...rotating in, rotating out...constant expenses that don't ever stop. And to what end? Why incur all of these costs?

[bush_cheney2004]

Because that is the price for a collective defense. Wanna stop paying for health care too?

[Signals.Cpl]

"We" have tremendous resources? Who's "we"? Are you personally going to benefit from these resources?

Are you or are you not benefiting from Alberta's oil?

Are you going to look at families who've lost loved ones in an attack AFTER you've already spent billions on jets and everything else, and then double down and spend even more?

Just because we may fail we will not stop trying to protect ourselves.

Do you not see...there's no line here.

Would you protect your family at any cost or let them die because you can't protect them from a few things? If you cannot guarantee 100% protection for your wife and kids would you stop trying to protect them?

You start spending in the interest of total security...something that cannot ever be achieved or guaranteed to anyone...and where does it stop?

It stops where you can guarantee a reasonable level of security and where you can expect that mistakes of the past and gaps that were abused are now closed. Just like airport security, we cannot guarantee that 100% security in an airplane but that doesn't mean we should let anyone and everyone walk in with a bomb or a gun.

Where is the line? When is total safety achieved? Who measures it? How is it measured?

You seem incapable of understanding that there is a middle ground here, it is not completely defenceless or a 100% of the GDP is spend on defence, there is a reasonable level of defence that should be maintained and improved on with lessons learned.

Important questions when you're essentially stealing a portion of people's hard earned money to pay for all of this.

Ask the people what they want, the knowledge that there are men and women out there protecting them and willing to give everything to protect them or would they prefer knowing that their lives are at the mercy of terrorists and the like?

You seem to think that every terrorist and petty dictator is rational and could be pacified through business and diplomacy... well sometimes that is not the case, sometimes the stick is required.

[Smallc]

As I said, we could deploy a third of a squadron (8 aircraft) under your plan………six is all we can mange (barely) with ~75+ older Hornets for a “short period of time”………..

Yes, but we still really only have 48 active aircraft right now. I'm talking about a scenario where we have 72. That would seem to indicate we could deploy at least 9 indefinitely, and an entire squadron for a short time.

[Smallc]

That said Im not against Canada maintaining a small airforce, but Im not sure the F35 is particularly well suited to our real needs. It lacks range, uses more fuel per KM than other planes, and costs a lot to fly. It seems to be designed more for the theatres in the middle east or Europe than flying the 700+ patrol missions that the Canadian airforce actually flies every year.

It has twice the range of our current jets on internal fuel, and half the engines. It should cost at most the same to operate, and shouldn't cost more than any of the other jets, which are pretty much all twin engined.

[Signals.Cpl]

See? This is what I'm talking about...rotating in, rotating out...constant expenses that don't ever stop. And to what end? Why incur all of these costs?

Why should I be taxed to provide healthcare when I have not required to use the healthcare for anything serious?

Why should I be taxed for the fire department when I have never needed them?

Why should I be taxed to support EMS when I have never needed an ambulance?

Why should I be taxed to support police forces at the municipal, provincial or federal level since they seem unable to prevent 100% of the crime?

Why should I pay for insurance for my car when I am a good driver and have never made an insurance claim?

Why invest in doctors and healthcare if it is inevitable that we will die at some point?

Why invest in fighting cancer seeing as soon as we rid ourselves of cancer another disease will replace it?

Where does it end? Why work hard to increase the lifespan of people when we are guaranteed to die at some point in time? We can't get immortality so why don't we just give in?

[kward]

Great, and I support the theory that as long as someone wants to attack me I will defend myself. I understand that some attacks will always get through but I would much prefer some getting through over all getting through it could be the difference between explaining to 10 families why their loved once died and explaining to 10,000 families why their loved once were not worth protecting.

-Some Rapes will always happen yet this does not stop people from trying to prevent them.

-Child Mortality rates are above 0% and most likely will always remain above 0% yet people try to prevent as many deaths rather then stop trying because some will die.

What about the terrorist organizations, how do we engage those?

Seeing as the US is our main trading partner and closest ally I would have to say that we will always be the enemy of those who see the US as their enemy and disarming will not change that.

Thats an easy statement to make when safe at home but try to explain to people who are affected by an attack why you failed to protect them. The government has a job to protect its people, knowing that a few attacks will get through is not reason enough to stop defending yourself.

There was a private members bill some time ago about people choosing wether to fund the CF with their tax money or not, I am all for that as long as there is a list of who opted out of the taxation so that when they need the military to evacuate them from a war zone or a natural disaster we could leave them there to their own devices.

The numbers are arbitrary and not based on reality. If you accept the logical premise that attacks will always be able to get through, then you accept the idea that it makes no sense to spend billions trying to prevent the same.

People trying to prevent rape is fine, but don't spend billions of tax payer dollars doing it.

Child mortality rates will always be above zero? Yet people will still try to make it zero? You do understand that spending billions of dollars "trying" to do something that cannot ever be achieved is pretty close to the definition of insanity?

You deal with a "terrorist" like you would anyone else. You listen to what they have to say, you listen to what their concerns are, and try to find some common ground.

You know what doesn't disarm a terrorist? Someone who puts up a wall and arms themselves.

Allying with anyone is a mistake. The US included. Befriending, trading, that's fine...alliances are asking for trouble. People will always want to do business with you if you have something they want.

How many times do I have to tell you, I do not advocate that you stop defending yourself. Nor do I say the government needs to stop defending its constituents. Where I have a problem is in the "how".

Taking people's hard earned money and wasting it on an inefficient and inept system of defense like buying expensive war machine toys is not defending anything. It makes money for defense contractors. We are made safer by a government that engages in diplomacy, and isn't asserting itself into the affairs of others. THAT is how a government best serves it's constituents.

I would opt out in a nanosecond if the option were made available. And if I needed help I would turn to my neighbours or private charities and organizations funded in the private sector instead of burdening everyone with what is essentially my problem.

[kward]

Because that is the price for a collective defense. Wanna stop paying for health care too?

Collective. Scary word. Stop paying for health care? As an individual? No. As a "collective"? Absolutely.