Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Over-simplifying economics, business, and geopolitics seems to be your stock-in-trade.

No its very simple, if your diplomacy will not work with a thug and his 5 friends it will not work with a thug and his hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Your solution is to negotiate, great but if you don't carry the big stick your words mean nothing. Expecting other nations to waste treasure and lives on our defence while we are unwilling to do so in our defence let along in theirs means you know nothing about the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Policing is not a "thing" only when the government does it.

The state creates laws and the state enforces them, the military and police in western nations are created in such a way as to have checks and balances on their power and prevent some general or commander of the RCMP from overthrowing the government. If soldiers don't like something they can complain but not much more, police likewise. A hundred or a thousand armed citizens don't like something they tend to respond with violence.

Do you understand that? Policing is not just the current top-down expensive bureaucratic machine we have now.

Right now a police officer or a member of the military swears an oath, you want to remove that and make money the only means of control the government has which means someone finds another source of money they don't have to abide by any rules but their own.

Policing is defined many different ways. Yes, citizens can form their own police forces. And yes, it might be better than the current system.

So you want to go against centuries of progress on the off chance that your fantasy MIGHT work?

But again, for the umpteenth time...I advocate a small government free market capitalist society...one where the government should play a role in policing of some kind.

Seems a little vague and oversimplified.

How many times do I have to say this/explain this before you understand? Do you understand that "citizens" forming "their own police forces" is not the same thing as "removing all policing"?

The CDS might be the most charismatic person in the country and he is unlikely to be able to overthrow the government because of all the checks and balances in place, you want to let a mob pretend to be police where they can be swept up by a charismatic leader, there would be no professionalism in the "police" force no standards etc... Precisely why having a professional organization to protect the citizens was deemed a necessity by so many countries in the world...

But don't get confused and jump to the conclusion that my preferred system would include citizens forming their own private gangs. That is not ever what I have proposed.

A police force formed entirely of private citizens with no loyalty to a central government and little to no standards of training becomes a gang soon enough when someone who has some leadership potential, charisma and no morals figures out that he does not need a government in Ottawa that will tax the people of Kingston to pay for a citizen police force, he can skip the middle man and tax them to death, and when one guy does it everyone else will jump on the wagon because they become their own boss and do not need to rely on the impotent central government.

You have to remember too, that a government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people...that is NOT what we have now.

1) That is I think part of the American constitution rather than a Canadian one.

2)By the people=Voted in by the citizens

3)for the people= healthcare, defence, education policing...

4)of the people= made up of Canadians democratically elected.

In a free market capitalist society the government would be by, for, and of the people.

Until I take my new citizen police force and unleash it on the people I am supposed to protect and tax them in order to wage war on the neighbouring towns.

The government would be the people, and vise versa...law enforcement would be an extension of that...and that is not anarchy, and that is not the current system.

Anarchy will happen when the central government does not have power and the individual people of this country are left to fend for themselves, this means those willing to rape, murder, maim and use violence as a mean of accomplishing their goals will have free reign as no one will be there to stop them or enforce the laws.

Have you got this figured out yet?

Yeah I figured out a long time ago that you are a closet anarchist

Because you say so?

Yeah, because I said so... well that and 10,000 years of history support my position.

How about understanding what I'm actually saying instead of constantly trying to put false labels on what I'm saying? Mercenaries? Give me a break.

We will remove the professional forces with their standards and all, and will then go and give someone x number of dollars to form and run a citizen police force that has no loyalty to the central government but has loyalty to their leader... aka mercenaries.

Anarchy.

Anarchy.

Anarchy.

That is anarchy, so you agree that your stupid suggestion leads to anarchy? Finally making some progress...

Eliminating the power of government? No. Limiting? Yes. See the difference? You probably do, but you won't admit it. Not sure why.

You limit it to a certain point and the power is eliminated, if the government does not have the tens of thousands of soldiers and police officers as a means of enforcing its laws but has only a few thousand soldiers and police officers they could not do much more than sit in their barracks and hope they don't get over run.

Because you say so? Great, I say that's ridiculous. And?

So you are not only arguing with everyone on this board but are now arguing with history? show me an example of where your theory has been tried and has succeeded for a prolonged period of time.

Good one.

I know its a good one thank you very much.

Again based on nothing but your say-so. There's no logic or reason in this scenario you've laid out.

History supports my position, not yours.

Why would a free market capitalist society lead to anarchy?

Sampoong Department Store... when the owner was left to his own devices he chose the cheapest option disregarding public safety, now imagine an entire nation of such buildings.

Good thing I don't support the idea of hiring mercenaries.

Then how do you propose equipping and contracting the police? you essentially give someone some money to organize a force to police, when the force is loyal to their commander rather than the government it is mercenaries.

a.k.a. nothing...a guy owning guns to protect his property is not a militia. It's a guy owning guns to protect his property. Jumping to conclusions seems to be a hobby of yours.

You advocate for property owners to purchase weapons to defend their property including fighters...:

3. Protected land is owned land. The cheapest way for Canada to protect the north is to sell of its "Crown" land. Let the land owners incur the expense of protecting their property. They want to buy jets, go right ahead. But don't increase everyone's taxes trying to hold onto every iceberg within Canada's political boundaries.

What are you talking about? A couple thousand soldiers? Where are you getting this from? I've never mentioned 2000 soldiers. But keeping a standing army, or some kind of defense...yes, that might be useful. Does that mean I advocate throwing money away wastefully on toys? No. There has to be limits - lest we go broke trying to protect ourselves. Then there's nothing left to protect.

Why waste money on soldiers though? If you don't buy the equipment needed those soldiers next to useless if they have to fight off property owners who have fighters and artillery but we don't want to spend the money on that equipment...

I haven't said you did. But you're not the only person who wants jets in this thread. And these jets...they're bloody expensive. And there's no end in sight to purchasing them. You buy a bunch, they get old, you have to buy more, and so on and so on. Not to mention fuel costs, infrastructure, personnel...it just goes on and on. You can have a military without wasting untold billions of dollars in the process. A solution exists somewhere...my suggestion is we don't waste money buying toys. If there's a cheaper alternative, I'm all ears. But in the mean time, embracing diplomacy and trade is a big help, and a form of defense just like any other.

I never suggested buying thousands of jets, you either provide a quote or stop putting words in my mouth.

So your suggestion is in the meantime instead of protecting ourselves we should embrace democracy and trade? So we disarm and lets face it that is what you are advocating seeing as the majority of the cost to the military is personnel but lets say we leave a force of light infantry who have no vehicles to get anywhere and depend on walking or commandeering civilian vehicles to get from point a to point b... and then they get there are realize that the property owner has heavy weapons, weapons that outclass anything they have and then you end up with soldiers who don't have the means to fight and protect their own citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the point...it's never enough.

We need to improve the efficiency rather than eliminate the organization.

So, you put a limit on it. "Safety" is arbitrary...the definition means different things to different people.

The limit is the ability to provide effective coverage over our airspace, the limit is the ability to provide SAR with aircraft that will let them reach anyone anywhere whenever needed rather than put them in harms way with aircraft that are 50 years old and unreliable. The limit is providing enough soldiers to be able to create a safe environment for SAR in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack and provide the manpower for assisting in SAR efforts in the event of such a need.

Having too much will drain our resources, having too little is a waste of resources, if we limit our force to such a degree we will be wasting money on an entity that cannot meet any of the above mentioned expectations.

One person says one fighter jet is enough to feel safe, another says 10, another says 5000.

And then the professionals have come in and decided that 65 is enough for us to provide security for Canadians.

The point is, safety is an idea...it's not ever something you can achieve.

It is something that people have strived for since the beginning of humanity, just because there is no 100% guarantee does not mean we will stop trying.

It's all in your head.

until it happens and we need the equipment, thats one big whoops moment one we cannot afford to have.

So, it makes no sense to spend billions on fighter jets.

until something happens where people realize that we need them and we will dish out 3X as much to get them in a hurry... what was that saying? Close the barn door after the horse hot out?

Some drones? Maybe.

I am all for drones, but drones do not replace fighters maybe in 10 years but not now.

Some nukes. Maybe.

So you are FOR spending billions on building and maintaining nukes but would rather not spend billions on aircraft that are much more useful than Nukes.

Soldiers? Probably.

No vehicles, no heavy weapons, no aircraft... seems like the soldiers will be useless once the property owners as you suggested buy their fighters and CAS...

Other toys...who knows? The point is not to go bankrupt trying to achieve some kind of "feeling" that really doesn't mean anything.

I get on a plane and know that there is a chance someone is on that plane with the intent to hijack it but I also know that chance is small thanks to precautions taken by security staff... just because we cannot guarantee safety does not mean we should stop trying as money becomes useless if you are dead.

Anarchy.

Glad you agree, that is where your solution leads to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Still waiting for what? I replied, it takes a while, yes. I'm replying in order. Eventually I'll reply to them all (I hope).

Still waiting for your interpretation of what two notable free market capitalists (Adam Smith & Milton Friedman) think on the subject of nations having standing, professional militaries…….I think your refusal to answer such a simple question clearly illustrates that you have no idea as it is what you’re talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Absolutely, 100% agree with Friedman here. Not sure what your point is. Like him, I don't see the need to waste money on military hardware forever and ever amen. Spend some yes. Ideally none at all...but I agree with him...there's no ideal solution for that, at least not yet. As I've said, we need some kind of minimal government that includes some form of defense. But not spending to the tune of billions just because.

Friedman was in tune with the requirements of a nation states role in ensuring the security of the Free Market Environment………As such, one must ensure that their nation is able to protect themselves from outside threats that could interfere with the “Free Market Economy”……..Smith, hundreds of years prior to the term Military-Industrial complex being coined, celebrated a nation’s professional military as a sign of economic standing and saw the defence sector as only another segment of a nations Industrial Capacity.

Perhaps you should read/study further on the subject before representing yourself as an evangelical Free Market Capitalist, since it is clear that you don’t fully understand the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define: security. And how far into debt are you willing to go to somehow reach it?

How much is your country and your way of life worth to you? If the latest number of 45 billion over 40 years is correct, well 45 billion is a lot of money but Ontario alone spends more than that each and every year on health care so it isn't the F-35 that is going to bankrupt us. Security for us is making it more than the trouble is worth to attack us. You don't have to be able to defeat a stronger nation in an all out war to have security.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

How much is your country and your way of life worth to you? If the latest number of 45 billion over 40 years is correct, well 45 billion is a lot of money but Ontario alone spends more than that each and every year on health care so it isn't the F-35 that is going to bankrupt us. Security for us is making it more than the trouble is worth to attack us. You don't have to be able to defeat a stronger nation in an all out war to have security.

To add perspective, the reported total of the F-35 cost report, when amortized over it’s service life, will translate into about ~5% of the defence budget………Where as the replacement of the entire navy over the same time will land somewhere in the 20-25% region……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

All the costs of the F35 are still up in the air since there is not even a fully functional fighter that has been completely tested. Testing is still being conducted.

What a goofy purchase.

Well correct, we can examine the current costs of the F-35 (based on the recent US purchase) and contrast that with the existing cost of other aircraft………..As such, the low rate production F-35s are cheaper than current full production Eurofighters and Rafales today, that is fact. Also it it’s reasonable to assume, based on the largest planned purchaser having bipartisan political support for the F-35, that said American procurement will go forward.

As to the F-35’s development, well that is point………The F-35 will have continual development and upgrades over the life of the program for all end users, instead of the current/past method with fighter aircraft, that would see several expensive upgrades over the life of the aircraft, and in the most part, each user going their “own way”…………In this mater, a Canadian F-35 will be at the same technological level as an American, Australian, British, Dutch etc F-35 over the life of the aircraft.……..This allows valuable synergies in terms of maintenance, training and support.

What would be goofy is purchasing yesterdays technology at F-35 prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well correct, we can examine the current costs of the F-35 (based on the recent US purchase) and contrast that with the existing cost of other aircraft……

This is certainly happening, but it may not be relevant to Canada, which in many cases does not have the efficiencies or economy of scale to realize similar recurring and non-recuring costs. Based on previous procurements and life cycle costs, Canada will still end up paying more.

As to the F-35’s development, well that is point………The F-35 will have continual development and upgrades over the life of the program for all end users, instead of the current/past method with fighter aircraft, that would see several expensive upgrades over the life of the aircraft,...

Canada's current CF-188s are being upgraded and "tested", just as you describe, mostly because they were not upgraded/replaced years ago.

What would be goofy is purchasing yesterdays technology at F-35 prices.

Yea, but think about all the money that will not be saved !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

This is certainly happening, but it may not be relevant to Canada, which in many cases does not have the efficiencies or economy of scale to realize similar recurring and non-recuring costs. Based on previous procurements and life cycle costs, Canada will still end up paying more.

Though correct with past defence procurements, that’s not the case with the F-35.……..As a ground floor member of the program, like the Dutch, Danes, Aussies etc our actual purchase will be from DoD and not LockMart, as such (and outlined in the JSF partner agreement) we’ll be garnered the same economies of scale as the USAF and the USAF will benefit from purchasing a larger order at the behest of the other partners.

Canada's current CF-188s are being upgraded and "tested", just as you describe, mostly because they were not upgraded/replaced years ago.

Exactly, our Hornets (and some of the RAAF’s) went through an upgrade last decade to make them current with USN Hornets procured starting in 1987.…….nearly 20 years late………..With the F-35, ours will be on par with yours concurrently.

Yea, but think about all the money that will not be saved !

What’s funny is that if the F-35 program was cancelled by DoD, and further orders were placed for Super Hornets and F-15s, to say nothing of block upgrades to the legacy fleet of Hornets, Harriers and Eagles, I’d stand to gain more financially, what with the stock options I received as a former Boeing employee wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though correct with past defence procurements, that’s not the case with the F-35.……..As a ground floor member of the program, like the Dutch, Danes, Aussies etc our actual purchase will be from DoD and not LockMart, as such (and outlined in the JSF partner agreement) we’ll be garnered the same economies of scale as the USAF and the USAF will benefit from purchasing a larger order at the behest of the other partners.

I think that is true for common pool items and services, but Canada and other smaller forces will be on their own for other infrastructure and services costs. Like someone said, at its core this is an American program with partners at varying degrees of skin in the game. Canada will also not be able to leverage some of the efficiences because of more budget conflict in the out years, similar to the hand wringing we see on display now.

Exactly, our Hornets (and some of the RAAF’s) went through an upgrade last decade to make them current with USN Hornets procured starting in 1987.…….nearly 20 years late………..With the F-35, ours will be on par with yours concurrently.

Right, but will Canadians accept the sticker shock to keep them current going forward. History says no.

.... I’d stand to gain more financially, what with the stock options I received as a former Boeing employee wink.png

As would I as a former Honeywell / Alliant Techsystems employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I think that is true for common pool items and services, but Canada and other smaller forces will be on their own for other infrastructure and services costs. Like someone said, at its core this is an American program with partners at varying degrees of skin in the game. Canada will also not be able to leverage some of the efficiences because of more budget conflict in the out years, similar to the hand wringing we see on display now.

Ahh, but most of those unique to Canada costs are sunk and/or transferable to whatever we select……….lights will still have to changed in hangers, runways ploughed of snow, uniforms issued and replaced etc…….The cost of doing business as they say………

Right, but will Canadians accept the sticker shock to keep them current going forward. History says no.

I think once the other options are “vetted”, we look at other military procurement programs under the same lens, and for that mater other government programs, Canadians will see the perspective……..For instance, over 42 years, how much will be spent on healthcare? I’d guess such figure would be well over a trillion dollars……..Or look at that ~40 billion dollar figure and compare it with other Government “big ticket items”…….I’d guess such a figure might garner taxpayers a half dozen Trans Canada freeway overpasses or the CBC………As I said countless times, the exact same charges laid against the F-35 were also put on the Hornet purchase over 30 years ago……..

A savvy politician might suggest the result of Canada not having fighter aircraft, hence not being able to contribute to NORAD, and the response of the Americans in defending their sovereignty…….That angle always works………Would Canadians rather RCAF or USAF F-35s “policing our skies” wink.png

As would I as a former Honeywell / Alliant Techsystems employee.

Well you can thank me then, fore I just contributed to your retirement with my purchase yesterday at a gun show of several cans each of Federal .308 FMJ, .223 FMJ, 00 buck and 9mm wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

After listening to the PM in QP today, he sounds like he still going with the F-35 no matter what the cost. He told the NDP leader that he could go back to Montreal and tell the workers there that there won't be any jobs from the F-35.

He's correct.........Pratt & Whitney Canada makes engine parts for the F-35.......Not the Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet or Gripen………Canada has already doubled the money we’ve invested in the program with the completion of under 100 F-35s to date………

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the NDP have not attained a higher understandng of ecomonics..... Silly Mulcair... Im sure he will remain silent... or maybe grab a tour-bus to Calgary as opposed to confronting the 6200 worker headquartered in Longuil Quebec at Pratt...

Harper should use this opportunity to side-line that Buffoon Mulcair as an economic engine killer.... Mulcair doesnt even uderstand who the players in Canada are on the JSF!

Nuthing wrong with highlighting to Canada how stupid the oposition leader is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Don't use today's health care costs as your example of what people can or cannot afford. A free market system means no limits on competition which leads to falling prices and higher quality.

That's an interesting thesis but you have only supposition and wishes to support it. If we go back to the periods prior to public healthcare, we do not see doctors and hospitals zealously cutting prices to underbid the competition. And we see poorer people completely unable to afford higher level medicine, relying on local herbalists and home cures for everything from measles to cancer.

2. I wouldn't watch people die who can't pay for any care at all (which is highly unlikely given how cheap it would be). But with all the money people would save on goods and services, and not having an income tax, there's plenty of room for charities to spring up that will gladly cover medical care costs for those who have absolutely no money (also a shrinking number of people in a free market economy).

And again, you have nothing on which to base that but wishful thinking. In the past, it did not happen. People DID die from easily curable diseases. Hell, they do it now in third world countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right across the board? You've studied this I take it? But really it's beside the point. I'm not talking about moving to all volunteer fire departments. I advocate citizens who have an interest in paying a fire protection team, come together in their community and pay for it free and clear of government regulations and without being forced into it. AND operating it in a free market economy where the cost of fire and rescue equipment and training comes at a fraction of the cost it incurs now.

A fire protection team which did not have a city-wide contract could not possibly cover the city as well as the current system where firehalls were evenly distributed so that protection is completely. What is the point in hiring a 'fire protection team' whose nearest firehall is across town? Similar to ambulances, paramedics and police, the fire department operates far more efficiently when able to cover the entire community, and when staffed with professionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating for zero military. I'm saying don't go broke paying for it. Or better yet, don't rob the constituents through taxation to pay for it. I'm saying don't throw away billions on gear when strong diplomatic skills will do

Well, there you go then. That is precisely what we have now. Our main protection is not our small military, but our diplomacy which has involved us in defensive treaties with other nations, including the US. We maintain a relatively small military, and rely principally on our allies and treaties as a deterrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...