More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere.

[Contrarian]

26 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

This is official now. F-35 fighters jets to replace CF-18s. 19 billion = the price. 

The F-35: Unrivaled Capabilities

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

This is official now. F-35 fighters jets to replace CF-18s. 19 billion = the price. 

There has been so much pro - and anti F-35 propaganda from equally credible sources over the years it’s really hard to know if the F-35 is the game-changing next generation fighter of the future, or simply a mediocre, massively overpriced and overhyped rip off that is being aggressively pushed on allies by the US and its aggressive defence industry.   
 

At any rate, given that the CF-18 replacement has dragged on for decades and has been an absolute shitshow, today’s news is a welcome development  

That said, this is Canada so when it comes to military procurement promises, don’t believe it until you actually see it.  It could still get flushed down the toilet at any time. 

[Aristides]

Apparently the 15 other countries which are buying it believe it is their future.

[Queenmandy85]

Often, it is the skill of the pilots and air crew that makes the difference. Argentina had superior aircraft in the Falklands, but the British had superior pilots. That being said, if you have a superior pilot in a superior aircraft, your odds are better. duh

[Queenmandy85]

The F-35 has one of the same drawbacks as the Avro Arrow. They are too expensive. Time will tell if they are worth it. Lets hope we never have to find out.

[Aristides]

Actually the cost of the F-35A has steadily dropped, from 89 million USD for lot 11 to 78 million for lot 14.

[Queenmandy85]

What do we plan to do with it? In an age of SLBM's, ICBM's, the F-35 is already obsolete. They are too expensive to risk in a local conflict in the Middle East and have no role in a Peace Keeping mission.

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, herbie said:

Start by growing up and realizing there's only ONE country that could possibly invade or occupy Canada, and they don't have to. And that we're not going to bomb, invade or attack anyone either, WE don't want to.

We need coastal patrol, electronic intelligence stations (NORAD), search & rescue and a small rapid deployment force for NATO and UN involvements. Like a deployable air squadron, a light armoured battalion or two and a few extra frigates. And shit loads of missiles, shit loads.
That seems doable and adequate.

Should be obvious to everyone by now all armies can do is blow shit up, they can't 'conquer' or occupy places the native people don't want them.

That’s pretty much what Canada has tried to do since the cold war, but I think people underestimate what is involved even for such a modest capability. In Canada we tend to call the deployed force a ‘Battle Group” because the deployed force is an improvised mix of forces from different types of battalions (a little bit of infantry, a little bit of artillery, a little bit of armour, military police, etc.) If there’s a complete battalion in there at all it’s usually infantry.   These are much smaller than the smallest “mixed” military unit which is a Brigade. A Brigade would traditionally have a few thousand personnel from something like 3-5 battalions, plus its own complete administrative and support personnel.

 If memory serves, Canadian military deployment size peaked at a little over 2,000 at one point in Afghanistan and prior to that a little over 1,000 at one point in the former Yugoslavia during the early 90s, with the remainder being much much smaller. In many cases the units deployed were not at full strength or inventory so ranks were heavily supplemented with reservists and equipment and services often still had to be provided by allies or private sector.  By contrast a Brigade would typically be a self-supporting mixed arms force of 3-5 full battalions as large as 8,000 personnel.  On paper the Canadian Army I believe has 3 brigades (including Reserve Units, many/most of which are only partially manned) but realistically  the military barely manages to muster the resources for our current practice of infrequent and modest deployments 

Keep in mind that if you have military units on active deployment, they will be “offline” and in low readiness upon their return for an extended period (months/years) as they replenish lost/retiring personnel, vehicle and equipment inventories, soldiers take leaves of absence, etc. So just for overseas missions alone you have at least one force on deployment, one in pre-deployment training ready to replace them, one post-deployment offline. On top of this you need a force on high readiness standby for unexpected large emergencies, major natural disasters etc.   And all of this is over and above the regular day-to-day “base load” military activity such as search and rescue, sovereignty patrols, small local disasters, routine training, etc  

[BeaverFever]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What do we plan to do with it? In an age of SLBM's, ICBM's, the F-35 is already obsolete. They are too expensive to risk in a local conflict in the Middle East and have no role in a Peace Keeping mission.

Prior to last year I said that we don’t nee F-35s or other “5th generation” aircraft to bomb ISIS or the Taliban.  
 

Now however it’s clear that for the next little while we (NATO and select other like minded countries) need advanced military equipment as a deterrent to Russian and Chinese aggression.   Canada doesn’t have to become a military supper power but we must make a reasonable contribution to collective security if we wish to fully benefit from that security.
 

The more we say “just let America do it” the more power we are giving to Americans to run the world their way.  If Americans make up 90% of the NATO force them they will have AT LEAST 90% control over what NATO does. Given the state of America’s political and moral compass, Canada and NATO  should not be so trusting and dependent upon them. 

[Queenmandy85]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Prior to last year I said that we don’t nee F-35s or other “5th generation” aircraft to bomb ISIS or the Taliban.  
 

Now however it’s clear that for the next little while we (NATO and select other like minded countries) need advanced military equipment as a deterrent to Russian and Chinese aggression.   Canada doesn’t have to become a military supper power but we must make a reasonable contribution to collective security if we wish to fully benefit from that security.
 

The more we say “just let America do it” the more power we are giving to Americans to run the world their way.  If Americans make up 90% of the NATO force them they will have AT LEAST 90% control over what NATO does. Given the state of America’s political and moral compass, Canada and NATO  should not be so trusting and dependent upon them. 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying Canada needs to build a nuclear deterrence to balance  that American dominance in NATO. A war like the Ukraine is measured in months and years. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they would come after NATO countries next, if it were not for the British, French and American nuclear deterrence. If Russia or China attacks a NATO country, that war will be measured in hours, and the aftermath in weeks. Chieftain tanks, F-35's, and frigates will have no effect on the outcome.

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Given the state of America’s political and moral compass, Canada and NATO  should not be so trusting and dependent upon them. 

What moral compass does Canada have?  You must be kidding.

[BeaverFever]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

What moral compass does Canada have?  You must be kidding.

As a country the Canadian people have a very decent and respected moral compass that isn’t determined by whatever politician is in charge. Don’t confuse your hatred of Trudeau with a hatred for Canada. 

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

As a country the Canadian people have a very decent and respected moral compass

I doubt it very much.  Who do you think voted in the leftist/progressive immoral government?  Certainly wasn't any saints.  State sanctioned killing of unborn babies, legalized assisted suicide, etc. etc. Nothing moral about it.

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying Canada needs to build a nuclear deterrence to balance  that American dominance in NATO. A war like the Ukraine is measured in months and years. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they would come after NATO countries next, if it were not for the British, French and American nuclear deterrence. If Russia or China attacks a NATO country, that war will be measured in hours, and the aftermath in weeks. Chieftain tanks, F-35's, and frigates will have no effect on the outcome.

No, a conventional deterrent would be sufficient. They will not attack NATO forces directly, they will only attack places where there are no NATO forces to begin with. 

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

As a country the Canadian people have a very decent and respected moral compass that isn’t determined by whatever politician is in charge. Don’t confuse your hatred of Trudeau with a hatred for Canada. 

If you're comparing Canada with the most depraved countries in the world like Iran, N. Korea, etc., you might be able to say they are not as bad but to say Canada has a decent and respected moral compass is a real stretch.

Edited January 9 by blackbird

[BeaverFever]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I doubt it very much.  Who do you think voted in the leftist/progressive immoral government?  Certainly wasn't any saints.  State sanctioned killing of unborn babies, legalized assisted suicide, etc. etc. Nothing moral about it.

Thats just your personal ideology and it’s not shared by most people, much less our global security partners, most of whom are AT LEAST as liberal on these topics as we are if not more so   

What country do you prefer instead?

. 

Edited January 9 by BeaverFever

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

Thats just your personal ideology and it’s not shared by most people, much less our global second partners who are AT LEAST as liberal as we are if not more so   

Not ONLY personal ideology, but proven by facts. Because most people don't share the view that a country is immoral only proves they are so immoral themselves they can't see it.  Immorality causes blindness and the natural defence is denial.

[BeaverFever]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Not ONLY personal ideology, but proven by facts. Because most people don't share the view that a country is immoral only proves they are so immoral themselves they can't see it.  Immorality causes blindness and the natural defence is denial.

You sound just like the Taliban.
 

Opinions and religious beliefs by definition can’t be proven by facts. Furthermore I don’t see how your particular religious beliefs are relevant to this thread. 
 

 

[Queenmandy85]

I guess, like me, you (Blackbird) are the only one in the band that is in step. 😊 I won't argue theology with you because faith is a personal gift and who am I to tell you you are wrong. But it is your faith and we should not bind others to it. 

I am uncomfortable with abortion, but I am not a woman faced with the tragedy of concieving an unwanted child. Before I judge her, I must walk 1.6 kilometres in her shoes.

Edited January 9 by Queenmandy85

[blackbird]

41 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t see how your particular religious beliefs are relevant to this thread. 
 

You are the one that first said "Canada has a decent and respectable moral compass" which is obviously false in my view.  I simply stated my opinion.  You don't agree.  Now you are hiding behind the claim that it must be the beliefs of the Taliban and religious beliefs. 

You don't have a monopoly on views about morality and your attempt to tie by views to the Taliban and "religous beliefs" is ludicrous.   Carry on.

Edited January 9 by blackbird

[Contrarian]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You don't have a monopoly on views about morality and your attempt to tie by views to the Taliban and "religous beliefs" is ludicrous.   Carry on.

How is your orthodoxy different than that of the Taliban, a radical orthodox rabbi, or a radical Hindu? 

They all say follow their path or one is not moral. 

How is religion related with Canada upgrading military equipment?

Edited January 9 by Contrarian

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

How is your orthodoxy different than that of the Taliban, a radical orthodox rabbi, or a radical Hindu? 

They all say follow their path or one is not moral. 

How is religion related with Canada upgrading military equipment?

Canada has a leftist/progressive pacifist government in general.   That is why they struggle to upgrade military equipment and struggle to get recruits.  Biblical Christianity opposes liberal ideology.  

[BeaverFever]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canada has a leftist/progressive pacifist government in general.   That is why they struggle to upgrade military equipment and struggle to get recruits.  Biblical Christianity opposes liberal ideology.  

Jesus was the original “liberal”, dude. 
 

Can you please show me the bible passages where Jesus speaks about the importance of upgrading military equipment and recruiting soldiers?

Edited January 9 by BeaverFever

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Jesus was the original “liberal”, dude. 

That is false but common belief.  Even the Communist revolutionaries would probably think that.

But Jesus wrote the whole Bible and this is what it says in the first part of Psalm 37 about what will happen to evil people:

"Psalms Chapter 37 (A Psalm of David.) Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming."

People like you oppose me and what I am saying.  You can see from this Psalm you are on the losing side.  You and Contrarian support abortion I see which just proves my point about immorality and what side you are on.

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What do we plan to do with it? In an age of SLBM's, ICBM's, the F-35 is already obsolete. They are too expensive to risk in a local conflict in the Middle East and have no role in a Peace Keeping mission.

NORAD and NATO. The other 15 countries bought them for a reason.