Canadian Defence News

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

At my old pistol club there used to what was known as "cop day". The indoor range was taken over once a month by the police from 10am to 2pm,  usually on a Thursday. Us retired folks would be there to assist in range setup etc. They always appointed their own RSO.

Muzzle and trigger control left a lot to be desired, somedays it was like the wild west. The safest place to be was behind the targets.

 

Yeah we did those too  

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

...they also estimate over 1 million rounds fired to every enemy killed....

They got Cdnfox doing their training or something?

I bet Civil War soldiers had a better ratio than that with their old flintlocks.

[herbie]

On 11/14/2025 at 5:51 PM, Army Guy said:

What is so good about it, the jobs, the price, or they are made in Canada maybe ....or the fact that the air force does not want it...

I'm sure they'd rather champagne than premium beer too.Kind of answered your own question, dincha?

[Shady]

Why are we spending 5% of GDP on defence when we don’t have to?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I'm sure they'd rather champagne than premium beer too.Kind of answered your own question, dincha?

So you have written off anything the air force has had to say on the topic...Why even have the military write up specs on what they want, or have them test it...that's all smoking mirrors...instead we have Herbies that know much better...The gripen has never placed more than third place in 3 competitions....and that was because 2 off the European aircraft dropped out....And the F-35 is running about 80 million a copy....

 When it is your ass strapped into that aircraft, then i would stop and listen to what your opinion is....I get it it will never be your ass, but your daughter or son or grand kids may have to strap in, and well you can always pray we bought something that saved a few bucks...so they come back up right instead of a body bag.. if they can find enough left of them to bury that is...and if not for them, how about them just being Canadian...But we as a country have been brain washed into thinking most of the time it is cheaper to bury our soldiers than buy equipment that is modern and safer... Better to spend our dollars on social programs than give those that volunteer a chance at coming home....And then wonder why we can't get anyone to join....Because this nation has your back, buys the best equipment..... treats it's vets with respect or looks after them when they are broken... RIGHT....not really

Cost estimates

$80 million to $100 million: A general estimate that includes the F-35, though this doesn't account for the more recent, higher prices from newer deals.

$85 million: An older estimate sometimes cited, which is lower than recent figures.

$138 million to $146 million: Recent estimates, with a Thai deal indicating a price of approximately $138.25 million per jet. Peru is reportedly calculating a potential purchase at $145.8 million per aircraft. 

Edited November 16, 2025 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

42 minutes ago, Shady said:

Why are we spending 5% of GDP on defence when we don’t have to?

Well it i would say, NATO has been cashing in their peace bonds pretty hard, and are struggling with out of date equipment, lack of any serious numbers of equipment or soldiers.....Take a look at our military....it's infra structure on average is 50 years old....in some cases it has been condemn and people are still using it...we have a huge lack of housing , and some of it does not have drinkable water, or working toilets...Equipment wise most of it is over 40 years old....and is on the verge of being obsolete....Lack of funding effects funds for training, ammo, ...Capabilities , we have lost dozens of Capabilities, as we have not replaced them or retired that capability because we could not afford them....  we lack any credible ground air defense capabilities, very little on Shorad, nothing on medium range or high alt, no tracked SPA, No tracked IFV, No attack helos, NO recce drones, and very little long range drones, Our maritime mine warfare ships are retiring no replacement in the pipeline, no under sea infra structure ship, one operational sub ( west Edmonton mall has 4)  the list goes on for pages.. 

I'm sure if anyone did some research we would find a very long list of stuff we need yesterday....And really how confident are you we will even reach 5 %....took decades to meet 2 %.....it is not realistic even PP has said 5 % is just to much....I have zero confidence that we will even come close to that amount, to be honest it would not surprise me if we dropped below 2 % again...  

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

They got Cdnfox doing their training or something?

I bet Civil War soldiers had a better ratio than that with their old flintlocks.

Well when you have a two way range things get a little sporty, and since we all have this will to live taking a well aimed shot is extremely difficult...

I doubt that...but then again they walked within a 100 years of each other lined up in nice neat rows...one would have to have balls the size of a wrecking ball to stand there and take a well aimed shot....with out soiling ones pants...

 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Why even have the military write up specs

Does the Grypem E they offer today fail to meet any of their specs?
Is total reliance on US permissions one of the specs?

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

They got Cdnfox doing their training or something?

 

I know how to shoot   They probably have people like you who always snipe at fake issues while avoiding real targets and responsibilities  

 

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Is total reliance on US permissions one of the specs?

Yes Herb... good job, you caught them

It has nothing to do with operational range, payload capacity, multirole capabilities, wanting more stealth / better interoperability with the US, or the demands of Canadian geography.

After an insightful assessment like that a long nap is in order... you must be tired.

Nighty Boo.....

 

 

Edited November 16, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

8 hours ago, herbie said:

Does the Grypem E they offer today fail to meet any of their specs?
Is total reliance on US permissions one of the specs?

The Gripen meets the specs needed to operate in a small European theatre. So yes, it meets 'their" specs. Combat range alone is a detriment.

The F35 meets specs for our usage and operational commitments.

 

Edited November 16, 2025 by ExFlyer

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, Shady said:

Why are we spending 5% of GDP on defence when we don’t have to?

We're not. We're just going to say we are to please orange man.

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I know how to shoot   They probably have people like you who always snipe at fake issues while avoiding real targets and responsibilities  

 

This was my problem. I couldn't learn to shoot. The only gun range around only allowed dinner plate-sized targets at 20 yards. And you had to use their crappy 22 handguns until you could pass a test for accuracy with them; you couldn't use any other kind of 22. And then you could try their crappy 9mm, and if you passed an accuracy test, you could then bring in your own. Every shooting stall had a little scope attached to the side so you could check downrange to see where your bullets landed. But you can't learn to shoot that way. You need to see where they land WHEN you fire so you can correct yourself on the next shot and the next. Same as learning how to shoot darts. My eyes not being those of an eagle, it was all kind of frustrating and dissatisfying.

Maybe what I ought to do is like Bill Burr in his famous comedy routine where he goes to a gun shop to buy a gun. The gun dealer tries to dissuade him from buying a handgun because he won't be able to hit anything without a lot of practice. He tells him to just buy a shotgun. "You got a problem over here and BAM, no more problem."

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

Yes Herb... good job, you caught them

It has nothing to do with operational range, payload capacity, multirole capabilities, wanting more stealth / better interoperability with the US, or the demands of Canadian geography.

After an insightful assessment like that a long nap is in order... you must be tired.

Nighty Boo.....

The main reason people want to reconsider using the F-35 is fears of American control and their alleged ability to 'turn off' things in the aircraft.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

...

The main reason people want to reconsider using the F-35 is fears of American control and their alleged ability to 'turn off' things in the aircraft.

You are correct in that assumption. 

Thing is SAAB )or any other fighter manufacturer) can also do that with their aircraft.

We do not and never will own the technology so, we will be at the OEM mercy if it comes to that.

In my opinion, and I have personal experience procuring European aircraft for the military. The cost of maintenance and in particular parts and overhaul is hugely expensive and Canada will not get the rights to the parts and their maintenance. We have to ship parts back to Europe for repair.

Yes, fighter parts and maintenance for American aircraft is expensive but, we get offsets far more than European manufacturers of ancillary equipment will ever give.

We have 20+ years experience with Cormorant and the cost is huge but, the way the maintenance contract has been established...much us hidden. The Kingfisher will be the same.

[BeaverFever]

23 hours ago, Venandi said:

But it was comprised of trained (not necessarily combat ready) personnel and it provided a means of NOT archiving their personnel records...that was the point of it, they were available and ready to go if needed assuming the member could still make the cut. Going from fully trained to combat ready isn't a big leap, it's a bunny hop. What you seem to be advocating for is an entirely different, vastly dumbed down and bloated critter who's only charm lies in the fact that its idle carcass is 88 times bigger than what you had before. As me grand-pappy would say: "bad trade." 

I see little sense in pursuing this further as nothing I say is going to resonate... if you and enough other voters really want to do this then go for it. Army Guy and I will drink Scotch, gobble popcorn and watch the show.

Best of luck with it...

 

I don’t think they would ever come close to getting the numbers they’re looking for but the next best thing beyond getting more people into the Primary Reserve would be getting members of the public to sign up for some lower level of commitment   It’s better than having conscription. And Im sure for many of those who join it will be a stepping stone to joining the Reg Force or Primary Reserve. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The only gun range around only allowed dinner plate-sized targets at 20 yards. And you had to use their crappy 22 handguns

My ranges were old gravel pits along logging roads here-abouts. I had an old Lee-Enfield 303 rifle, a couple of buddies I'd go shooting with had a 30-06 semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun. No handguns.

[herbie]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Thing is SAAB )or any other fighter manufacturer) can also do that with their aircraft.

That is the very thing SAAB has promised to do, give full control of software, hardware and updates.
A rumoured kill switch in the F35 is a rumour, but updates and software require US approval and techs.

My main point is do we need the latest, greatest and most wanted by the Brass, or do we go with what does the job and make do?
As, usual the ones that scream about deficits are those that want to buy the most expensive.

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, herbie said:

Does the Grypem E they offer today fail to meet any of their specs?
Is total reliance on US permissions one of the specs?

It meets A lot of the specs, but not all of them, which would explain why it did not place any higher than 3 rd place out of 3 separate competitions. F-35 meets and exceeds all specs, for the same price....

If you take a look at the aircraft in the air force you'll find most are manufactured in the US , not because we are reliant but rather they are superior to most aircraft out there...

[Army Guy]

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

That is the very thing SAAB has promised to do, give full control of software, hardware and updates.
A rumoured kill switch in the F35 is a rumour, but updates and software require US approval and techs.

My main point is do we need the latest, greatest and most wanted by the Brass, or do we go with what does the job and make do?
As, usual the ones that scream about deficits are those that want to buy the most expensive.

It is all about lives...i mean why have a nail gun when you can buy a steel hammer, which is slower not as efficient as the nail gun  ...because the nail gun has advantages the hammer does not...Advantages mean coming home alive or in a bag...So ya if your comfortable with burying our soldiers over giving them modern equipment it speaks volumes about your character...

 

[TreeBeard]

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Combat range alone is a detriment.

The Swedish jet has a better combat range than the F35. 
 

1500km vs ~1100

Edited November 16, 2025 by TreeBeard

[Venandi]

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The Swedish jet has a better combat range than the F35. 
 

I don't want to get into the weeds here but have a look at the difference between range and combat radius. I think you'll see that the F35 wins... that's what (I suspect) people are referring to here when they talk about "range" even though the difference isn't huge. I think it's about 100 miles or so.

The "kill switch" is miss named a bit (I think) it's not like disabling a car but it's certainly a potential issue with the F35. The US controls virtually all aspects of software development and access, global parts, supply, logistic support etc. The fear is that it creates dependancy and that dependancy could turn an expensive airplane into something of a paper weight (in terms of capabilities and interoperability) pretty quickly.

I'm not a fighter guy but when people talk about the "kill switch" thing I suspect that's what they really mean. At this level of capability / complexity it's almost the same thing as a kill switch...  being left with an expensive computer and no software / internet access maybe isn't the perfect analogy but that's the point they are trying to make (I think)... in other words, being dependant is rightly seen as a vulnerability.

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2025 by Venandi

[TreeBeard]

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

I don't want to get into the weeds here but have a look at the difference between range and combat radius. I think you'll see that the F35 wins... that's what (I suspect) people are referring to here when they talk about "range" even though the difference isn't huge. I think it's about 100 miles or so.

The "kill switch" is miss named a bit (I think) it's not like disabling a car but it's certainly a potential issue with the F35. The US controls virtually all aspects of software development and access, global parts, supply, logistic support etc. The fear is that it creates dependancy and that dependancy could turn an expensive airplane into something of a paper weight (in terms of capabilities and interoperability) pretty quickly.

I'm not a fighter guy but when people talk about the "kill switch" thing I suspect that's what they really mean. At this level of capability / complexity it's almost the same thing as a kill switch...  being left with an expensive computer and no software / internet access maybe isn't the perfect analogy but that's the point they are trying to make (I think)... in other words, being dependant is rightly seen as a vulnerability.

 

 

 

You’re wrong. 
 

The Gripen has better range for longer patrols.  The maintenance costs and maintenance time per flying hour is way down on the Gripen too.  
 

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.php?form=form&aircraft1=23&aircraft2=67&Submit=Compare+Aircraft

 

 

[herbie]

So we said we'd buy f35s. So get 19-24 and put a squadron on each coast for NORAD duties.
Then buy like 88 Grypens or whatever for the benefits they have.

We'd not put all our eggs in one basket, a nod to the US rather than a slap, even more planes, and a big hand to our reliable NATO allies.

Edited November 17, 2025 by herbie

[Army Guy]

On 11/16/2025 at 7:28 PM, TreeBeard said:

The Swedish jet has a better combat range than the F35. 
 

1500km vs ~1100

And, the air force fighter pilots looked at that, and still decided the gripen to never do better than 3 rd place on 3 separate occasions...i know what do they know...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re wrong. 
 

The Gripen has better range for longer patrols.  The maintenance costs and maintenance time per flying hour is way down on the Gripen too.  
 

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.php?form=form&aircraft1=23&aircraft2=67&Submit=Compare+Aircraft

 

 

Other than the airforce testing each aircraft 3 times, what makes you think the Air force does not know what it is doing...and could range be negated by internal drop tanks, or air to air refueling...

The F-35 has so much more to offer than the gripen like sensors, stealth, and is a Gen 5 aircraft, there is more of them...