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

[Signals.Cpl]

bs...france, england, russia the germans rolled over all of them regardless how well they were armed, tiny low countries with populations of 9 million each are not going to fight off a nation of 80 million...

See, if the low countries were with France and England from the get go the allied defences would have been in place when the Germans hit rather than trying to make their way to the front through the clogged roads full of refugees... that where the collective defence thing comes in, they may not stand up against the Germans individually but together they could have stood. Unfortunately for us they chose to fight individually when it was too late.

[Wilber]

And Switzerland?

What about Switzerland?

[wyly]

It wouldn't be as easy as you seem to think.

ya it is...looking at google earth cold lake has 6-7 hangers non hardened from what I can tell...easy peasie for long range cruise missles, a couple of volleys and they're done the rcaf is no more...

[Signals.Cpl]

And Switzerland?

In Switzerland the German High Command suggested against the invasion simply because everyman was armed, and they were fighting on home soil in the Alps, and they had prepared for decades to repel and invasion. They had thousands of bunkers stocked with food, weapons and ammunition and hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were going to fight in one of the most inhospitable area on the planet, the Germans judged that they would rather keep Switzerland neutral and siphon money out to them when it became obvious they were loosing the war rather then open another front they couldn't win. Switzerland was prepared and would have given more of a fight than anyone in 1940... it would have lasted a long time and would have cost the germans a lot.

[Signals.Cpl]

Agreed.

Belgian weapons and tactics had not changed since 1918...minus a few newish aircraft. But they were thinking trenches and forts. The were totally unprepared for the assault on Eban Emael and Fallschirmjagers + Panzer divisions....Blitzkrieg....20th century....not 19th.

Forget that, if the Allied troops were on the front line on day one of the war in the west, the Germans would have failed, they planned to and succeeded in trapping the cream of the allied forces in a position where they were unable to do anything and were promptly cut off. If the Belgians and the Dutch had gone with the allies, the allies would have had a dagger to Germany's heart and seeing as the forces of both sides were nearly equal with the alleys having a somewhat sizeable advantage ins some areas the war would have been a draw and soon after the Germans would lose.

[Signals.Cpl]

ya it is...looking at google earth cold lake has 6-7 hangers non hardened from what I can tell...easy peasie for long range cruise missles, a couple of volleys and they're done the rcaf is no more...

And then we ask for help from NATO, but I think few in NATO will lend us help when we were not even willing to defend ourselves. Besides I understand you think the generals in DND are idiots but they are some of the brightest Canada has to offer, I am sure there are ways to detect and defend from that... see RCN.

[wyly]

In Switzerland the German High Command suggested against the invasion simply because everyman was armed, and they were fighting on home soil in the Alps, and they had prepared for decades to repel and invasion. They had thousands of bunkers stocked with food, weapons and ammunition and hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were going to fight in one of the most inhospitable area on the planet, the Germans judged that they would rather keep Switzerland neutral and siphon money out to them when it became obvious they were loosing the war rather then open another front they couldn't win. Switzerland was prepared and would have given more of a fight than anyone in 1940... it would have lasted a long time and would have cost the germans a lot.

more bs...the same reason they never invaded sweden, there was no need the swiss weren't a threat and it offered no strategic advantage like norway and the low countries... the german swiss were also sympathetic to the germans in 1940 it demobilized half(250,000) it's army knowing the germans would not invade...

[DogOnPorch]

Forget that, if the Allied troops were on the front line on day one of the war in the west, the Germans would have failed, they planned to and succeeded in trapping the cream of the allied forces in a position where they were unable to do anything and were promptly cut off. If the Belgians and the Dutch had gone with the allies, the allies would have had a dagger to Germany's heart and seeing as the forces of both sides were nearly equal with the alleys having a somewhat sizeable advantage ins some areas the war would have been a draw and soon after the Germans would lose.

Disagree. The French high command used carrier pigeons and motorcycle courier to effect command control in 1940. Their tanks, while nice, were treated as infantry support weapons. The Germans, under 'Fast Heinz' Guderian changed all that. But, oddly...it was a British fellow that came up with the Genesis of the Blitzkrieg. B. Liddell Hart.

[Signals.Cpl]

more bs...the same reason they never invaded sweden, there was no need the swiss weren't a threat and it offered no strategic advantage like norway and the low countries... the german swiss were also sympathetic to the germans in 1940 it demobilized half(250,000) it's army knowing the germans would not invade...

Yes, but the Swiss can mobilize within 24h, it was unlike Germany can overcome the entire nation in 24h.

And they did not invade Sweden because they needed Swedish Iron and Sweden informed them that if they were invaded they would have destroyed the mines rather than letting them fall in to German Hands. In Sweden the Germans needed something, in Switzerland the Germans benefited by not entangling a million or more troops to fight the entrenched half a million Swiss Army in wells stocked and prepared positions, the gain for the Germans would have been nothing while tying down hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops.

Try to read a book once in a while you might actually learn some history.

[Wilber]

more bs...the same reason they never invaded sweden, there was no need the swiss weren't a threat and it offered no strategic advantage like norway and the low countries... the german swiss were also sympathetic to the germans in 1940 it demobilized half(250,000) it's army knowing the germans would not invade...

Neutrals like Switzerland are needed during wars. Often, they provide the only means of exchange and comunication between the waring parties. Aside from the obvious strategic advantages of posessing Canada, geographic and resources, are you maintaining that Canada has that sort of value in large enough importance to offset its strategic value?

[Guest Derek L]

ya it is...looking at google earth cold lake has 6-7 hangers non hardened from what I can tell...easy peasie for long range cruise missles, a couple of volleys and they're done the rcaf is no more...

Since you’re big on google, figure out how long it takes a subsonic cruise missile to fly from our Pacific Coast to eastern Alberta………..Or the Gulf of St Lawrence to Saguenay………..

The reason there are no hardened shelters at either base is because there was never a requirement during the entire Cold War…….If the Soviets attacked with ICBMs, any aircraft able to scramble within 30 minutes would have done so, as to bombers or cruise missiles, due to geography, all aircraft flyable would have met said attack, been sent to other fields or removed off the apron or out of the hangers………..

But under your scenario, who is going to be attacking Canada?

[Signals.Cpl]

Disagree. The French high command used carrier pigeons and motorcycle courier to effect command control in 1940. Their tanks, while nice, were treated as infantry support weapons. The Germans, under 'Fast Heinz' Guderian changed all that. But, oddly...it was a British fellow that came up with the Genesis of the Blitzkrieg. B. Liddell Hart.

There was the Maginot Line which was covered by 3rd rate troops because it was virtually impregnable to the Germans, the best Allied troops would have been in the low countries in defensive positions and the Germans would not have dared to risk their prized panzers in attacking such a narrow target as Luxembourg as at anytime the allies would attack south and trap the best of the German Army in France.

The battle of France was a german Victory not because they made all the good decisions, they won because the Allies made more bad decisions than Germany. The breakthrough in France happened because of certain Panzer Generals disobeying orders to stop and consolidate and instead they saw and advantage and took it, if the generals in the front had listened to the Generals on the General staff they would have given the Allies a chance to cover the holes.

[Wilber]

Disagree. The French high command used carrier pigeons and motorcycle courier to effect command control in 1940. Their tanks, while nice, were treated as infantry support weapons. The Germans, under 'Fast Heinz' Guderian changed all that. But, oddly...it was a British fellow that came up with the Genesis of the Blitzkrieg. B. Liddell Hart.

In WWI, the existing technology made static defense king of the battlefield. The allies still had that mindset at the beginning of the WWII. No more bleeding themselve white attacking defences in depth.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Wilber

[kward]

There is no example of the "free market" you are proposing.

There is no example of a mass market 100% solar fueled car. There is no example of a cure for cancer. There is no example - yet - of a myriad of things that should be pursued. What's your point other than to state the obvious.

So you are against safety regulation in aircraft? Or on building construction?

Government regulation? Yes. Organized oversight? No.

And your solution is to create anarchy?

Is that what I said? No, my solution is to embrace free market capitalism. You don't know the difference?

You are placing too much emphasis on private citizen organizations, do you think private citizens forming regulatory boards would be better then the government? They would get together and vote for what the guy handing out the most money wants.

People don't just throw away their ethics and moral principles, government or not. Do I think private citizens forming their own oversight organizations to protect themselves and others who wish to take part is better than the government doing it? Absolutely, because when the citizens do it they're not expecting people who have no stake or no say to help pay for it. You can opt out in that scenario. Right now the government does it, and it does it very wastefully.

What happens when I arm and equip 1,000 soldiers and kill or chase away any competition for 500km?

Yes, that's a very realistic scenario.

You are forced to come to me, or on the other hand I get my people to sit outside the competition and "persuade" you to come to the more expensive treatment if you want to live.

Again, the realism. Staggering.

Yes they can. For the most part governments deal better with the funds then mobs...

The government is the mob.

And when the competition is the same? What then?

Is the competition limited to two options? In a free market there is no bar to entry, there is no limit on competition. For every back alley physician there'd be a more viable option.

But there is no regulatory body to determine who is qualified and who is not, most people will take the easy way thus the supply of good professionals will be far outstripped by the demand for them one person can do only so much.

If the demand is there, the market will fill it. The body best able to determine who is qualified to provide treatment is the person receiving it. Of course high ratings, and strong recommendations from their peers is a big help in making that determination. The easier it is to buy a quality med school education, the more qualified doctors will be available. More than enough to go around.

And when all their options are bad? You have 30 Doctors to choose from 26 of them are incompetent and 4 of them charge much more then you can afford(See supply and demand) you go to what you can afford.

Incompetent doctors go out of business making room for those who provide a good service at a fair price. Doctors who charge more than you can afford lose business, and turn away potential profits. There's always a market for every income level - especially without government regulations, and bureaucracy getting in the way.

Ill give you a choice, the only doctors you can afford are the guy who read 1 book, or the guy who read 2 books as they are the only once within your price range... all the good once are much more expensive as they are fewer and more people want to go to them.

Your example presupposes that there are limits to entry into the marketplace by any and all who wish to practice medicine and provide a service. Scarcity is a product of red tape, and over-regulation, not the opposite.

[dre]

And the fundamental problem with that is if we go down that route we will bear the full cost. Look at the cost of the F35 and the current situation, it is affordable because the research and development is spread out along over 3,000 aircraft, now imagine the same level of research and development being spread out on just 65 or 100 or even 200 fighters...

Developing the components for an aerospace industry is an investment. Also our needs are very simple... the F35 program was about developing a fighter than can do everything... We just need a rangey interceptor/patrol craft.

[kward]

You are not affected by the same things that millions of people worldwide are i.e. no healthcare and you don't see the value of the lac of healthcare until it affects you or your family members, when you get sick and no one regulates the doctors or the insurance companies they drop you once you become expensive and can't afford the treatment.

Unregulated medicine is cheap medicine while still maintaining a good quality standard of care. It also means there are those who would try to take advantage and provide poor service or over-charge. Those folks wouldn't stay in business for very long. It will pay to do the due diligence and understand who you're giving your business to.

Businesses are in the business of selling, otherwise they're out of business. In a sink or swim free market, insurance companies free of government subsidies would be less inclined to drop anyone.

[Signals.Cpl]

Developing the components for an aerospace industry is an investment. Also our needs are very simple... the F35 program was about developing a fighter than can do everything... We just need a rangey interceptor/patrol craft.

thats limiting our options, in 15 years we might be forced in a conflict that needs all of these options at which point we either run to the US and get them fast, expect them to cover us or go without. It is easy to plan for one thing but we are Canada, we need a jack of all trades rather than a specialized aircraft that does one thing really good but can't be trusted to do much more.

[kward]

200 F-35s in Canada would present a challenge to anyone but the United States. They are far from pigs and it would be very hard for any country to send 200 fighters our way.

And the line is 200? For how long? Until some know-it-all in a position of power decides we need 300? Or until someone decides we have to "rotate" in or out 'x' number of these jets in favour of a new fleet? And this process stops...when exactly? It's an exercise in throwing money away...and it makes no sense, and no amount of gear porn fawning from military fan-boys makes it make sense.

[kward]

So the poor bastards in Jane and Finch will be protected by the citizen police force of the gangs that terrorize them? And the same Gangs will form the Fire departments? You don't buy drugs from us we let your house burn down right?

All the while the more affluent neighbourhoods can keep the peace better... but then who will create the laws?

You're describing anarchy. I advocate free market capitalism. There is a difference.

[kward]

Why have "something"? Having a thousand soldiers will not change any emergency situation one way or another... hell in a major emergency we wouldn't have enough soldiers to help in one major urban centre such as let alone something the size of hurricane Sandy and would depend on the US for assistance, why on earth would they help us if we aren't willing the help ourselves?

Citizens can help rescue people too, and they do. You're not the government's pet. You're asking people to help themselves, yet at the same time you're advocating in favour of people in government making decisions for you? Which is it? Personal responsibility and accountability, or the nanny state?

[wyly]

Since you’re big on google, figure out how long it takes a subsonic cruise missile to fly from our Pacific Coast to eastern Alberta………..Or the Gulf of St Lawrence to Saguenay………..

The reason there are no hardened shelters at either base is because there was never a requirement during the entire Cold War…….If the Soviets attacked with ICBMs, any aircraft able to scramble within 30 minutes would have done so, as to bombers or cruise missiles, due to geography, all aircraft flyable would have met said attack, been sent to other fields or removed off the apron or out of the hangers………..

yes that's all correct,(I knew you would get that) times change and the bases haven't, even if they were to scramble jets before the hangers were flattened and the runways holed where are those F35's going to go? any that escape are useless without ground support...and after the bases are neutralized civilian bases come under attack...these things are no better than the much less expensive super hornets for national defense...

But under your scenario, who is going to be attacking Canada?

that's kind of the entire point, claims we need these are justified that they're for arctic or national defense are ridiculous,...any country with the capability to invade canada is not going to troubled by few f35's... "the Chinese are coming to steal our oil!" right we sell them Nexen and they have a need to go through the trouble of invading us for oil ...

[Smallc]

And the line is 200? For how long?

I never asked for 200, I asked for 100. Derek says to do what I want, we'd need about 130, so I revise to that.

[wyly]

Developing the components for an aerospace industry is an investment. Also our needs are very simple... the F35 program was about developing a fighter than can do everything... We just need a rangey interceptor/patrol craft.

and I'm quite sure Bombardier could do that....

[kward]

And the guy in position of strength does as he pleases.

What are you talking about?

Different militia's will interpret and enforce the laws in much different ways if at all.

Under anarchy, yes.

AKA militia's?

Contract enforcement is done through the courts. There's a role for government there, and most likely only there. You keep confusing free market capitalism for anarchism. You really need to read up on the differences.

So what is a government when it cannot enforce its laws and protect its citizens?

That's what the courts are for.

Essentially it will come down to people forming their own private little armies and bit by bit in a few years we will be back to a big government only though a lot of bloodshed and maybe we will end up much worse of then we are now.

Again with the anarchism. People forming their own little private armies is anarchy or feudalism, neither of which I advocate. I recognize the need for a government of some kind, but it must be very minimal...as minimal as possible. Obviously, there is room to discuss what the government should and should not do. I'm open to that, but in the end I wouldn't advocate for the government to control very much. The more government controls the less free are its constituents.

[Signals.Cpl]

There is no example of a mass market 100% solar fueled car. There is no example of a cure for cancer. There is no example - yet - of a myriad of things that should be pursued. What's your point other than to state the obvious.

My point is your fantasy does not exist because it is not viable, soon enough someone will gather enough strength and take power and our government will be powerless to do anything.

Government regulation? Yes. Organized oversight? No.

Government can't regulate when it cannot enforce those regulations.

Is that what I said? No, my solution is to embrace free market capitalism. You don't know the difference?

Your version of the "free market capitalism" resembles anarchy, essentially arming groups of citizens and letting them enforce the law, no professional standers expected and the guy with the most money/things controls them while the government remains powerless to do anything.

People don't just throw away their ethics and moral principles, government or not.

Gee I wonder what happened in Germany then?

You don't need all the people to throw away their principles, you need enough of them to do so and those few will rule the many.

Do I think private citizens forming their own oversight organizations to protect themselves and others who wish to take part is better than the government doing it? Absolutely, because when the citizens do it they're not expecting people who have no stake or no say to help pay for it. You can opt out in that scenario. Right now the government does it, and it does it very wastefully.

So how would this work? When they form their own police organizations what happens when someone decides they want to benefit from it so they use their power to abuse, who is above them?

Yes, that's a very realistic scenario.

See all of Africa.

Again, the realism. Staggering.

What? Doesn't fit your theory so you ignore it? It has happened in Africa, it has happened in Asia, and it has happened in Europe. You remove the law and people form their own little groups to enforce the law, now think about the gangs that demand "protection money" are they not controlling the supply of whatever they choose? They demand more money from someone and that person charges more for their service or goods since they need to live, if they choose not to play along they lose because the other guys have the power.

The government is the mob.

And they are doing much better with the funds of the country than if we handed the reins of the country to the likes of the G8/G20 protestors or the protestors in Quebec.

Is the competition limited to two options? In a free market there is no bar to entry, there is no limit on competition. For every back alley physician there'd be a more viable option.

I am the leader of a gang, I demand 10,000 dollars from every business in the neighbourhood/city/area, suddenly their expenses rise and they pass it off to the customer. If the population becomes unruly I withhold food and medicine and people have no choice, support me and get something or don't support me and die... how about that for a choice.

If the demand is there, the market will fill it.

And generally people will not strive for the high standards demanded today and will instead offer low standard care, the rich/affluent will be able to get the best because they will get the few while the poor will get a choice between bad bad and worse.

The body best able to determine who is qualified to provide treatment is the person receiving it.

I would much prefer to know if the guy is qualified before he cuts me up rather than find out that oops he doesn't know a thing right after he cripples me for life.

Of course high ratings, and strong recommendations from their peers is a big help in making that determination.

And I have a gun here that will blow your little daughters head off if you don't tell people I am good at what I do...

The easier it is to buy a quality med school education, the more qualified doctors will be available. More than enough to go around.

Nice solution... we lower the standard we get more people in...

Incompetent doctors go out of business making room for those who provide a good service at a fair price.

Again what happens when someone or a group of people control the doctors through force?

Doctors who charge more than you can afford lose business, and turn away potential profits.

Unless I desperately need it and go to your house and take your money or just force the doctor to do the operation...remember no one is there to make sure that I treat him/her fairly.

There's always a market for every income level - especially without government regulations, and bureaucracy getting in the way.

The poor get the worst, the rich get the best.

Your example presupposes that there are limits to entry into the marketplace by any and all who wish to practice medicine and provide a service. Scarcity is a product of red tape, and over-regulation, not the opposite.

What you propose is to lower the standards so low that any witch doctor can practice medicine, and when the supply of good doctors is low and the supply of bad doctors is higher only a select few get the good while everyone else has no choice but to go with the bad.