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

[Smallc]

And why do we need a combat capable navy but not a combat capable army or airforce?

Who said they wouldn't be combat capable? You're twisting as good as Derek.

[Derek 2.0]

And why do we need a combat capable navy but not a combat capable army or airforce?

Exactly, if we're not going to involve ourselves in other's wars, we have no need for a combat capable military......

[Smallc]

Odd, since the Liberals never once promised "naval projection" in any of their speeches or online documents......and if we're going to speak to rumors, I'll put more faith into the ones that I've heard, that will see the Queenston class "postponed" for good.

We will make investing in the Royal Canadian Navy a top priority.

By purchasing more affordable alternatives to the F-35s, we will be able to invest

in strengthening our Navy, while also meeting the commitments that were made

as part of the National Shipbuilding and Procurement Strategy. Unlike Stephen

Harper, we will have the funds that we need to build promised icebreakers,

supply ships, arctic and offshore patrol ships, surface combatants, and other

resources required by the Navy.

These investments will ensure that the Royal Canadian Navy is able to operate as

a true blue-water maritime force, while also growing our economy and creating

jobs.

Your rumours are based on absolutely nothing.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

Edited November 19, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Who said they wouldn't be combat capable? You're twisting as good as Derek.

The Liberal's foreign policy statements, both during the election and presently........If the World see's radical Islam/ISIS as its gravest threat, and we're taking a pass, what twisting is that?

[Smallc]

Exactly, if we're not going to involve ourselves in other's wars, we have no need for a combat capable military......

That's some absolutely twisted logic. The primary mission of the Canadian forces is to defend Canada. The potential threats we face (though remote) include sophisticated foreign forces with capabilities that need to be countered. A lightly armed coast guard or a token airforce can't do any of those things.

[Smallc]

If the World see's radical Islam/ISIS as its gravest threat, and we're taking a pass, what twisting is that?

We're not taking a pass. We're simply entering a new phase of the conflict, and taking a different role. None of that means that Canada doesn't need a combat capable military that can defend and respond if necessary. The big difference here - Harper liked to pretend his stick was bigger than it actually was. Trudeau seems to be in touch with the actual influence that he wields.

[Derek 2.0]

Your rumours are based on absolutely nothing.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

Except the Liberal's own fiscal plan........how are they going to pay the tens of billions, for not only new fighters, but also the naval renewal?

[Wilber]

When you get right down to it, 50 of whatever fighters we buy with 25 based at Bagotville and 25 at Cold Lake is a token airforce.

[Smallc]

Except the Liberal's own fiscal plan........how are they going to pay the tens of billions, for not only new fighters, but also the naval renewal?

That line you keep using makes no sense. The Conservatives were planing to do that with the money budgeted. They're using the exact same amount of money.

[Derek 2.0]

That's some absolutely twisted logic. The primary mission of the Canadian forces is to defend Canada. The potential threats we face (though remote) include sophisticated foreign forces with capabilities that need to be countered. A lightly armed coast guard or a token airforce can't do any of those things.

Twisted logic? Who are these threats to Canada we need to defend ourselves from and/or the Americans wouldn't involve themselves in?

[bush_cheney2004]

And why do we need a combat capable navy but not a combat capable army or airforce?

That's a very good question.....

[Derek 2.0]

We're not taking a pass. We're simply entering a new phase of the conflict, and taking a different role.

We're taking a pass on our (still) current combat operations.......increasing our level of trainers and aide has no impact on our combat mission.

[Smallc]

When you get right down to it, 50 of whatever fighters we buy with 25 based at Bagotville and 25 at Cold Lake is a token airforce.

It's a small number, to be sure. That said, a force that can actually bring enough aircraft with them to Canada to counter what we'd have available each day (say 20 - 24 of those) is...well the only one that could do that is the US. We need to be able to defend our own airspace. We can do that with a relatively small number of aircraft.

Personally I'd like to see us have an airforce with about 120 aircraft. We could have 4 forward deployed groups in the north and west at all times ready to respond. We're not getting that so I don't see a point in dreaming.

[Smallc]

We're taking a pass on our (still) current combat operations.......increasing our level of trainers and aide has no impact on our combat mission.

The training mission is just as much a military mission as the bomb dropping mission.

[Derek 2.0]

That line you keep using makes no sense. The Conservatives were planing to do that with the money budgeted. They're using the exact same amount of money.

The Conservatives didn't have money for new fighters or frigates budgeted (last year, this year, or next year if they had of won), nor do the Liberals based on their own fiscal plan which covers their planned spending through to 2019/2020.

[Derek 2.0]

The training mission is just as much a military mission as the bomb dropping mission.

But we are already doing the training mission, if they double or triple it, it has no impact on the current bombing mission.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a small number, to be sure. That said, a force that can actually bring enough aircraft with them to Canada to counter what we'd have available each day (say 20 - 24 of those) is...well the only one that could do that is the US. We need to be able to defend our own airspace. We can do that with a relatively small number of aircraft.

Russia can do this today, and other nations that have carrier based air.

[Derek 2.0]

That's a very good question.....

It is indeed.....as an American, what impact do you feel a neutered Canada would have on your own National Security?

[On Guard for Thee]

The Conservatives didn't have money for new fighters or frigates budgeted (last year, this year, or next year if they had of won), nor do the Liberals based on their own fiscal plan which covers their planned spending through to 2019/2020.

Oh they had the money, they just realized how unpopular the issue was after the AG report shone a light on the ridiculousness of the Harper process, and the quality of the product.

[Derek 2.0]

Russia can do this today, and other nations that have carrier based air.

Right, and Russia and the United States are the only nations with fighters currently based within the Arctic circle.

[Smallc]

The Conservatives didn't have money for new fighters or frigates budgeted (last year, this year, or next year if they had of won), nor do the Liberals based on their own fiscal plan which covers their planned spending through to 2019/2020.

No one is going to buy frigates right now, nor have they proposed to. They've said that they'll ensure that they actually are built. It's the same with the fighters - we pick they by 2017 and start to receive them after that. You twist facts to suit your argument but I'm not an idiot, so it doesn't work.

What you're really saying though - and I agree - is that the Conservatives failed the Canadian Forces.

[Smallc]

Russia can do this today, and other nations that have carrier based air.

Russia has a hard enough time keeping their carrier at sea. The other countries, again, are those we aren't going to be fighting (not that we're likely to be fighting any of them).

Edited November 19, 2015 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

It is indeed.....as an American, what impact do you feel a neutered Canada would have on your own National Security?

"A neutered Canada" ha ha that's hilarious. All I will add is that thank god we don't let the military run the show.

[Derek 2.0]

No one is going to buy frigates right now, nor have they proposed to. They've said that they'll ensure that they actually are built. It's the same with the fighters - we pick they by 2017 and start to receive them after that. You twist facts to suit your argument but I'm not an idiot, so it doesn't work.

How are they going to purchase fighters in 2017 now? They have no money budgeted for any fighters.......and forget the frigates, they don't even have money budgeted for the Queenston class AORs.......

[Smallc]

How are they going to purchase fighters in 2017 now?

You don't pay for fighters upon selection.

They have no money budgeted for any fighters

If the Conservatives had money budgeted, as you say, for 2019 (since F-35 delays forced them to move back the date) then that is within the mandate of this government.

and forget the frigates, they don't even have money budgeted for the Queenston class AORs.......

If the Conservatives had the money budgeted for a time that is within the mandate of this government, the same money is there. The Queenstons are 4 ships and about that many years down the line, so it's unlikely that they'll start construction within this mandate.