Canadian Defence News

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, User said:

More of your non-answers.

AGW is not a non-answer.

Speaking of which I still haven't heard you answer three questions I've asked you now. LMAO!

You're just a little runaway aren't you?

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The real bottom line is that the CO2 emissions from burning oil is some 9 times greater than the emissions from extracting it.

 

That's not a bottom line, that's an irrelevant fact that doesn't make a single bit of difference to what I just posted

If every single scrap of emissions in Canada today stopped tomorrow it would make no difference. That's the science and we're spending close to 15 billion dollars a year directly I'm probably another 30 to 50 billion a year indirectly through associated lost revenues to try and achieve that

Or we could spend $5 billion a year and with a little bit of proactive work reduce that substantially and actually resolve the issue

Now I know mathing is hard for you. But it turns out that 5 billion is way less than 15 to 65 billion. 

and it actually achieves something

And once again you literally begged for me to make you look like a complete twat.  Maybe next time do your homework first  

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If every single scrap of emissions in Canada today stopped tomorrow it would make no difference.

Especially if you're going to ignore the difference between burning and extracting.

[I am Groot]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

You figure the Americans will pay much attention to that? There's 50 million in the southwest already facing severe drought and drawn down aquifers that will take thousands of years to become naturally replenished.

Much of the rainfall they do get evaporates before it even has a chance to seep through the surface.

Oh, and Americans will also be fleeing the millions of AGW refugees who'll be pressing in from even more uninhabitable regions.

Some 1.5 billion humans are expected to be on the move by 2050 - it's already well under way.  It's probably more realistic to say most equatorial regions will have already been evacuated by 2050.

And you figure just a 2% hit to our GDP?

LMAO!

At the moment, the Americans are fleeing... south from the north, for better weather. Technology can handle heat, and they have huge amounts of empty room if they want to move north into their interior or up near our border, or in Alaska, for that matter. They're not going to come here. And they're the buffer between us and the south.

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Especially if you're going to ignore the difference between burning and extracting.

I get that you feel the need to lie and distract, given the fact you basically just made yourself look like the worlds biggest dung ball. 

But nothing changes the fact that even if canada stopped ALL it's extracting and burning together it would make no difference. The world would be less than a hundredth of a degree cooler even by the end of the century.

Whereas if we adapt it will cost less than the carbon tax and be hugely successful and even beneficial to us.

the "Climate Crisis' is a hoax. You and your losers are exposed. 

[Legato]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

The real bottom line is that the CO2 emissions from burning oil is some 9 times greater than the emissions from extracting it.

As I said you people think like old asbestos industry executives who argued they have no responsibility for the effects of their product once it's in the hands of others.

Alberta and Canada missed the big oil boat back when they couldn't make nationalization work. Now we stand to miss the bigger alternative boat because...climate change is a hoax.

LMAO!

The please do try deep fried Loofah with a side order of Buttered Bubbles.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Especially if you're going to ignore the difference between burning and extracting.

The math doesn't work... add it, subtract it, multiply and add 10% and it still doesn't matter.

Canada produces about 1.5% of global emissions, that's down from about 4.8% in the mid 2000's. It's not down because of great liberal policies either... it's just that the growth in global emissions out paced Canada's share of the total and as those emissions steadily rose, our percentage of the total dropped accordingly.

And here's a fun fact, of that global total, our land mass scrubs 15% of it.

Taking your logic a bit further, you could shutdown the entire Canadian economy (meaning everything... nothing moves) and shiver in the dark eating the inner bark of willow trees on starvation rations and globally, it still wouldn't matter a damn bit. 

Being as you (we and us) largely qualify as irrelevant, adapting to the reality of global emissions is just sound tactical thinking; I'm surprised you wouldn't be championing that.

We could have an entire thread on forestry management techniques and fire mitigation efforts but that will never happen... it's too easy to blame it all on global warming and do nothing even when doing something is well within our power. I call that failure to act waste... others might call it folly, but liberals seem to think that's the part that doesn't even matter. 

Edited May 30 by Venandi

[User]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

AGW is not a non-answer.

Speaking of which I still haven't heard you answer three questions I've asked you now. LMAO!

You're just a little runaway aren't you?

It’s the same circular assertion you ignorant clown:

You: people will need to move because of AGW.

Me: Why would they need to?

You: AGW

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But nothing changes the fact that even if canada stopped ALL it's extracting and burning together it would make no difference.

You're still ignoring the emissions produced by people who buy our oil.

Apparently those emissions either don't exist or matter in the scheme of things.

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're still ignoring the emissions produced by people who buy our oil

 

I'm not ignoring anything. If they didn't buy our oil they would buy someone else's oil and burn that. It has nothing to do with us. The exact same amount of oil will be used whether we dig it up or someone else does

If Canada shut down tomorrow it would not make a tiny bit of difference in global warming

Need money to fight global warming is pointless. Adaptation is vastly more cheap and also more effective

Nice try trying to change the channel though  I'm sure you're considered a master debater at the local old folks home

[User]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're still ignoring the emissions produced by people who buy our oil.

Apparently those emissions either don't exist or matter in the scheme of things.

 

We are ignoring it? Are you not one of the leftists on here ignorantly cheering on China every other day of the week?

 

Edited May 30 by User

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, User said:

We are ignoring it? Are you now one of the leftists on here ignorantly cheering on China every other day of the week?

 

but but but but but  they's TRYING !!!  Climate change never happens as long as you're TRYING!!!!

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Boeing already said if they don’t get more orders soon they are shutting down the line forever. That was back a couple years ago before Canada had hopped on board in Feb 2024. Since then time has not been kind to Boeing or buying American. The only new P8 order in the past 2.5 years is 4 planes for Singapore.  
 

THE USAF does not want E7. They want an exclusively ground and space-based system and canceled their or dor 26 planes. Congress is forcing them to buy 7 due to lobbying. I thought you were opposed to politicians forcing military to buy kit they don’t want, especially expensive kit.  I guess that only counts for Canada?
 

NATO has officially cancelled its E7 order and selected Globaleye. So has France.  The P8 at least has the advantage of not having any real competition but E7 has not one but two competitors in Saab and L3Harris, both of which are mounted on a Bombardier Global 6500. 
 

 

1) Ok first of all the there was no 6500 alternative to the P8. Just a concept on paper, no prototype, no testbed not even a desktop plastic model. Just designs on paper. Designs by the way that included an internal weapons bay which has never been done on a Global before so it was a proposal for WAAAAAAY off in the future while P8 was already in service. 
 

2) Yes it was back when US was a trusted ally not a sovereignty threat and of course that changes everything. Of course our strategic posture with USA has changed since Trump launched his economic war against us and weaponized our dependencies. We need to buy Canadian because we need to support our economy and build our own defence industry and our own sovereignty. It doesn’t change after Trump leaves. How do you not understand?

 

I think you guys were the ones claiming this kind of expenditure doesn’t count. I fully understand that it does.  And to be correct the 1.5% is for DUAL USE infrastructure like highways etc  Military facilities like barracks and hangars in air bases aren’t dual use, they’re part of the other 3.5%  

 

Carney has spent tons on base renovations, new hangars , new housing and you guys keep saying it’ doesn’t count and it’s some sort of trickery to inflate the defense budget. 
 

Actually there will br commonality with the other Global 6500 fleet we just bought so we’re not actually adding complexity to the fleet mix here  And the aircraft is still in widespread commercialAnd the maker being domestic means we will have better access to the parts and better access to the company we’re not going to get screwed over like the way Sikorsky lost our phone number and stopped replying to our DMs after selling us the Cyclones  and decided to discontinue the line  Canada was was just some insignificant small fry to them with our puny order of 28 bespoke  and discontinued aircraft   
 

The new guns they just bought is something with guns.

Spike ATGMs and RBS 70s are missiles but I assume that counts 

And as I mentioned HIMARS is already ordered 

River Class destroyers are already under construction. 

P8s already being built (will have missile and torpedoes not guns)

CQ9Bs already being built  

And Stay tuned. Sub announcement is due end of June.

Sime of the ACSVs rolling odf the line will have guns or mortars 

I would argue The millions they just poured into building and expanding munitions factories should also count. 

Beave your all over the map here, WE don't know if there will be no more orders....like the C-17 production ran for numerous years after they stated they would shutter production....

I don't like it when politicians run Canadian wants ands needs for the military. But unlike the Canada the US politicians are way more concerned about their military than we will ever be....Just a few minutes ago you said the US canceled all their orders, now they are keeping 7, 

NATO has not ordered any Global jets as of 1 month ago...As per the source i provided...

1. And yet we are in a rush, and can not wait is that it....it represented 22,000 Canadian jobs....

2. Trade War with the US, should not effect who we purchase weapons from, we still purchase most of systems from the US...Canada military industry is barely a thing, we build a few military items here, most other we purchase for others....all this we need to build here in Canada is BS...first we rarely purchase on a regular basis, most items we keep for 40 to 50 years....business can not survive on those orders.. Second those that do build here in Canada, we don't use them, there has been a shortage of LAV 6 forces wide for a decade, and still no new orders except the ones we keep sending to Ukraine.,...No new contract in sight....so drop the Carney kool aid about needing to buy Canadian , we as a nation decided years ago we did not need or want a robust military industry with in our borders. And if your depending on this new industry to put our nation back in the black your as crazy as Carney...

NOT sure who YOU GUYS ARE....but i have said this a thousand times it was not me....Your misunderstanding what the break down is about....All infrqa struture is account for under the 1.5 % military and dual use....

Distribution of defense spending by category (2025)

% of each country's 2025 defense budget

While total defense spending matters, how that money is spent is arguably even more critical. Some allies, like Greece, have faced criticism for counting military pensions in their defense budgets, which boosts their defense spending as a percentage of GDP without necessarily enhancing NATO’s operational capabilities. Other countries, like Denmark, argue that their spending figures overlook substantial personnel contributions to NATO missions such as the mission in Afghanistan. To provide a clearer picture, this chart breaks down how allies allocate their defense budgets by category. On allocations to equipment, the metric most important to NATO contributions to capability development, Luxembourg and Poland are notable for spending more than half of their defense budgets on equipment—demonstrating a commitment to procuring and developing new capabilities to confront threats to the transatlantic alliance. Also, these figures show that infrastructure too often lags behind other defense expenditure categories. Expect this metric to become more important as allies seek to carve out a definition for what commitments can be included in the 1.5 percent of defense spending earmarked for defense enablers. Policymakers will likely target dual-use and military infrastructure projects to boost defense spending initiatives.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/trackers-and-data-visualizations/nato-defense-spending-tracker/

 

They will account for up to 1.5% of GDP annually to inter alia protect critical infrastructure, defend networks, ensure civil preparedness and resilience, innovate, and strengthen the defence industrial base.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/funding-nato

 

3.   And yet the Cyclones were approved by the Liberal government....Conservatives were ready to purchase the EH-101...which we are flying a variant still today....See why i don't like it when politicians get involved...their record of picking the right equipment is fairly poor....I mean do you let your wife buy your power tools...or new truck....

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Venandi said:

Canada produces about 1.5% of global emissions

While exporting fossil fuels that add a billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. I get it that the UN says it's the burning countries that are responsible for the emissions but maybe you people think the UN should be informing and okaying the climate changing activities the world and humanity are engaging in.

Oh well, maybe the CO2 will just hover over the people who burn it. It is way over on the other side of the world after all.

10 hours ago, Venandi said:

We could have an entire thread on forestry management techniques and fire mitigation efforts but that will never happen... it's too easy to blame it all on global warming and do nothing even when doing something is well within our power.

Absolutely to easy, we should have a dedicated environmental works dept that's employed full time to maintain the integrity of the natural capital that we rely on to sustain our economy.

There's no end to the amount of things that need doing. Stream, wetland and shoreline restoration and remediation, silviculture, including prescribed burning where necessary. There are thousands upon thousands of old abandoned boats littering Canada's shorelines and most if not all are leaching pollutants and toxic materials into Canada's waters.

And of course when they're needed they'd go fight forest fires too.

11 hours ago, Venandi said:

I call that failure to act waste... others might call it folly, but liberals seem to think that's the part that doesn't even matter. 

Yeah well, let's see how quickly it takes you people to LYAO at the environmental works department idea.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, User said:

It’s the same circular assertion you ignorant clown:

You: people will need to move because of AGW.

Me: Why would they need to?

You: AGW

 

Yup, that's exactly how it went down alright, you pedantic sealion.

You never have a lot to say but you sure like saying it a lot.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Adaptation is vastly more cheap and also more effective

🤣

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, User said:

We are ignoring it? Are you not one of the leftists on here ignorantly cheering on China every other day of the week?

No, I have a long long history spanning over 25 years on this forum and it's precursors maintaining a position of no truck nor trade with China on human rights grounds.

My grandkids other grandparents who fled Hong Kong decades ago agree.

I've mentioned this many many times btw but you people always ignore it.

Edited May 31 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup, that's exactly how it went down alright, you pedantic sealion.

Awwww.... truth hurts  

 

Quote

 

🤣

 

LOL  cry harder little guy   

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Awwww.... truth hurts  

 

LOL  cry harder little guy   

It only hurts when I laugh.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It only hurts when I laugh.

Screaming hysterically at clouds isn't 'laughing'  

[User]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup, that's exactly how it went down alright, you pedantic sealion.

Yes, that is how it went down. 

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

While exporting fossil fuels that add a billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.

If countries like Canada stop exporting oil, other countries will have to fall back on coal, or, lacking that, wood. Or, lacking that, there will be a massive die-off. Maybe if we'd been able to export natural gas to China years ago they'd be using less coal now.

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Oh well, maybe the CO2 will just hover over the people who burn it. It is way over on the other side of the world after all.

So we should continue to drive our industries out of the country to locate in places like China and Mexico and use coal power?

 

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

So we should continue to drive our industries out of the country to locate in places like China and Mexico and use coal power?

We didn't drive industry away, we encouraged it to seek cheaper pastures decades and decades ago.

Where were you then?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

We didn't drive industry away, we encouraged it to seek cheaper pastures decades and decades ago.

Where were you then?

We drove industry away and they invested in other countries a little infrastructure

We had industry here when Trudeau took over. Now it's drying up and blowing away

Your lies about decades and decades ago doesn't change the simple facts that we face now and that is a direct result of the Trudeau government over the last 11 years

[User]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

We didn't drive industry away, we encouraged it to seek cheaper pastures decades and decades ago.

Where were you then?

You are literally driving away industry when your country bans coal, moves away from coal, but then has no problems selling it all to China to just use there instead. 

This is my point about China, I went back, I see that you have not been the typical leftist celebrating them. 

The point remains though, that the left that pushes climate change alarmism somehow thinks that not burning coal in Canada and shipping it all off to China is somehow saving the planet. 

[BeaverFever]

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Beave your all over the map here, WE don't know if there will be no more orders....like the C-17 production ran for numerous years after they stated they would shutter production....

No I  not all over the map.
 

We don’t know that there WILL be E7orders or P8 orders and the clock is ticking. There are still Globaleye orders  and 6500 orders amd no ticking clock.  C17 is a little different as it was always a low volume production which they slowed considerably to spread it out, so different so a complete different arrangement with suppliers. By contrast 737NG was a high volume commercial aircraft with most of the production being for airlines. Those high volume suppliers have since moved on to the 737 MAX  and other aircraft types and have limited capacity to produce custom parts for random one-off orders of a discontinued model  

 

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I don't like it when politicians run Canadian wants ands needs for the military. But unlike the Canada the US politicians are way more concerned about their military than we will ever be....Just a few minutes ago you said the US canceled all their orders, now they are keeping 7, 

Come on don’t be so naive the US has some of the most POLITICIZED  procurement around. Re-read what I said:  USAF cancelled it but CONGRESS forced them to buy at least 7. 
 

Want another example?  Airbus MRTT won the USAF’s new tanker transport competition so Boeing despite having an inferior aircraft complained based on the argument “you never said we had to be the best, just that we had to meet the minimums”. So USAF was forced to hold a new competition which  Boeing won with an objectively inferior aircraft on the basis that they were slightly cheaper. Now they are stuck with this crappy gremlin-plagued plane that even if it worked properly which it doesn’t would still be inferior to the Airbus MRTT which is proven and  in widespread NATO service.  And at the end if the day it’s not clear whether Boeing will be significantly cheaper in the end once all the delays and fixes and work-arounds are factored in. 
 

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

NATO has not ordered any Global jets as of 1 month ago...As per the source i provided...

NATO countries drop E-7 Wedgetail plans

The withdrawal of US from the programme last July has led to major changes in the replacement effort, the Netherlands MoD said.

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/nato-netherlands-e-7-wedgetail/?cf-view

 

NATO eyes Swedish-Canadian jet for AWACS role in shift away from Boeing

 

 

VIENNA — NATO’s Support and Procurement Agency has selected Sweden’s Saab and Canada’s Bombardier to replace the alliance’s aging fleet of Boeing E-3A Sentry airborne warning and control system aircraft with the GlobalEye platform, according to French defense publication La Lettre and confirmed independently by the German press agency DPA. 

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/04/24/nato-eyes-swedish-canadian-jet-for-awacs-role-in-shift-away-from-boeing/

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1. And yet we are in a rush, and can not wait is that it....it represented 22,000 Canadian jobs....

 

A minute ago you were complaining Carney is moving too slowly. Now you’re complaining that he is moving too quickly?

 

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Trade War with the US, should not effect who we purchase weapons from, we still purchase most of systems from the US...Canada military industry is barely a thing, we build a few military items here, most other we purchase for others....all this we need to build here in Canada is BS...first we rarely purchase on a regular basis, most items we keep for 40 to 50 years....business can not survive on those orders.. Second those that do build here in Canada, we don't use them, there has been a shortage of LAV 6 forces wide for a decade, and still no new orders except the ones we keep sending to Ukraine.,...No new contract in sight....so drop the Carney kool aid about needing to buy Canadian , we as a nation decided years ago we did not need or want a robust military industry with in our borders. And if your depending on this new industry to put our nation back in the black your as crazy as Carney...

Strategic autonomy and national sovereignty ABSOLUTELY are factors in making rhese kinds if decisions.  The fact that the Canadian defence industry has been allowed to whither away is even more reason to invest in it. And it’s not just about buying Canadian its also about strengthening our allies by buying their equipment also. All of this makes NATO stronger. The fact that USA doesn’t want any of us making our own weapons and wants us to instead be completely dependent upon importing made in USA gear at their discretion just proves this isn’t about strengthening NATO is about making us more dependent on USA. 

 

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

NOT sure who YOU GUYS ARE....but i have said this a thousand times it was not me....Your misunderstanding what the break down is about....All infrqa struture is account for under the 1.5 % military and dual use..

I understand that so I am not sure what the problem is here. I  not the one complaining about it. 
 

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

3.   And yet the Cyclones were approved by the Liberal government....Conservatives were ready to purchase the EH-101...which we are flying a variant still today....See why i don't like it when politicians get involved...their record of picking the right equipment is fairly poor....

Yet the problem with the cyclones wasn’t the aircraft it was the shitty service and support from Sikorsky which the CONSERVATIVES inherited soon afterwards and were responsible for managing throughout their 10 years in office. 
 

Specifically the contract had grossly inadequate provisions for spare parts,  a lot of  the service was outsourced to Sikorsky rather done by RCAF and they let Sikorsky get iff Scott free when it comes to post-delivery support bug fixes etc. Throughout the program Sikorsky missed milestone after milestone without consequence and never received the penalties spelled out in the contract for doing so. Imagine you bought a car and the sale agreement obligated you to bring it to the dealership for tire and oil changes instead of doing it yourself and every time you did they kept your car for weeks and didn’t return your calls.

 

I will point out that EH101/Merlin, Seahawk and NH90 all had similar or WORSE problems when they were new, Cyclone’s teething pains were not unusual in that regard. Maritime helicopters are constantly exposed to cold, wet, salt and vibration and that causes wear and the need to redesign components on new aircraft after they enter service. But unlike Cyclone, those other aircraft all received prompt and timely support from the manufacturer to solve those issues while Sikorsky just slow-rolled Canada and its puny fleet as they focused on their massive worldwide Blackhawk/Seahawk fleet and civilian aircraft. And then Sikorsky discontinued the Cyclone so we were stuck with a unique aircraft that was only a tiny unimportant part of their business.  And that also makes future upgrades difficult if not impossible 
 

As a flying machine and as a sensor platform the Cyclone is quite good and far more capable than the smaller lighter Seahawk that US uses. The problem has always been service and maintenance and parts availability and failure to address the expected teething problems in a timely manner