Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

A former colleague spent 4 years flying AWACS in  Europe. We have military personnel on AWACS. We do not need them.

https://skiesmag.com/features/welcome-back-canada-flying-nato-e-3a-awacs-aircraft/

Yeah it was too much to type but NATO has its own AWACS fleet and recently purchased the new E7s so it doesn’t make sense Canada would want its own AWACS for Europe. The only purpose that makes sense is Canadian Arctic but our facilities in the far north are sparse so not really conducive to housing B737s. Even though they said upgrading northern military infrastructure and facilities was also a priority it seems to me that permanently basing the aircraft there would be a much bigger endeavour….unless they’re only going to operate them out of Yellowknife and/or Iqaluit international airports. If the aircraft are to be based in the south where they’re not really useful, just for occasional trips north that seems like a waste. Maybe a GloalEye being somewhat smaller has better options for operations out of the FOLs in Rankin and Inuvik?

 

 

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah it was too much to type but NATO has its own AWACS fleet and recently purchased the new E7s so it doesn’t make sense Canada would want its own AWACS for Europe. The only purpose that makes sense is Canadian Arctic but our facilities in the far north are sparse so not really conducive to housing B737s. Even though they said upgrading northern military infrastructure and facilities was also a priority it seems to me that permanently basing the aircraft there would be a much bigger endeavour….unless they’re only going to operate them out of Yellowknife and/or Iqaluit international airports. If the aircraft are to be based in the south where they’re not really useful, just for occasional trips north that seems like a waste. Maybe a GloalEye being somewhat smaller has better options for operations out of the FOLs in Rankin and Inuvik?

 

 

There are 4 AWACS at Elmendorf AFB. We have Canadians aboard there too.

[BeaverFever]

52 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

There are 4 AWACS at Elmendorf AFB. We have Canadians aboard there too.

Yeah not sure why we need our own. At least right now when we have so many other deficiencies to deal with. 

[Dougie93]

On 4/9/2024 at 6:18 PM, BeaverFever said:

Yeah not sure why we need our own. At least right now when we have so many other deficiencies to deal with. 

good ol' Australia will have to provide the Allied E7 Wedgetail AWACS

since Canada can never muster the courage anymore

[ExFlyer]

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

good ol' Australia will have to provide the Allied E7 Wedgetail AWACS

since Canada can never muster the courage anymore

WTF...? Australia?

Get on the same continent with the rest of us dude. LOL

Oh and Canada has AWACS presence and involvement both in Europe and here in North America.

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

WTF...? Australia?

Get on the same continent with the rest of us dude. LOL

Oh and Canada has AWACS presence and involvement both in Europe and here in North America.

there is no Canadian AWACS presence in NORAD

that is all provided by the USAF 552nd Airborne Warning & Control Wing from Tinker AFB Oklahoma

in terms of the NATO AWACS at Geilenkirchen,  Canada might provide some personnel from time to time

but that doesn't mean Australia isn't putting Canada to shame by deploying its own squadron of E-7 Wedgetails

Edited April 10, 2024 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

On 4/9/2024 at 6:12 PM, BeaverFever said:

Yeah it was too much to type but NATO has its own AWACS fleet and recently purchased the new E7s so it doesn’t make sense Canada would want its own AWACS for Europe. The only purpose that makes sense is Canadian Arctic but our facilities in the far north are sparse so not really conducive to housing B737s. Even though they said upgrading northern military infrastructure and facilities was also a priority it seems to me that permanently basing the aircraft there would be a much bigger endeavour….unless they’re only going to operate them out of Yellowknife and/or Iqaluit international airports. If the aircraft are to be based in the south where they’re not really useful, just for occasional trips north that seems like a waste. Maybe a GloalEye being somewhat smaller has better options for operations out of the FOLs in Rankin and Inuvik?

 

 

I think it is about having capabilities and what you can offer to NATO in event of a crises, cost a lot less than sending a battle group over to europe some place forever...just send a few planes Awacs or refuelers or whatever, and poof your contribution is done...... and if trump remarks were not a sign of get your act together, we should be able to defend ourselves awacs is a nice capability to have when directing fighters or other aircraft...

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

there is no Canadian AWACS presence in NORAD

that is all provided by the USAF 552nd Airborne Warning & Control Wing from Tinker AFB Oklahoma

in terms of the NATO AWACS at Geilenkirchen,  Canada might provide some personnel from time to time

but that doesn't mean Australia isn't putting Canada to shame by deploying its own squadron of E-7 Wedgetails

Australia is geographically isolated  far away from allies and close to a variety of undemocratic regimes including China. I get that with AWACS in the arctic we would be able to see much farther than even the future over the horizon radar could. But we have no place to base them at least not the E-7.  The only thing that makes sense to me would be to base them out of Alaska as part of a NORAD-owned fleet, to which both countries contribute the way NATO owns an AWACS fleet.
 

The Aussies may like the E-7s but apparently the USAF, the main purchaser of the fleet, made some major changes to the requirements for their specific order which has not entered production yet and there are apparently all kinds of contract disputes and engineering problems with Boeing, delaying the start of production. The E-7 and P-8 are the only aircraft still in production based on the B-737NG airframe and there’s only one production line in the world operating to fill orders for those aircraft. If Boeing isn’t able to start production on the USAF’s E-7 by the time it completes all of its other P-8 and E-7 orders they will have to shut down the production line and it will be extremely expensive if not impossible for USAF to get its desired E-7.  So apparently they are really pushing others to buy P-8 or E-7 just to keep the production line open. I remain skeptical of Canada’s need for the 16 P-8s announced earlier this year especially with another 11 SkyGuardian drones also ordered for handling many related  missions. One theory of mine is therefore that a pledge to buy AWACS could be a signal to appease Washington if E-7s are what are in mind. 
 

 

[BeaverFever]

32 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I think it is about having capabilities and what you can offer to NATO in event of a crises, cost a lot less than sending a battle group over to europe some place forever...just send a few planes Awacs or refuelers or whatever, and poof your contribution is done...... and if trump remarks were not a sign of get your act together, we should be able to defend ourselves awacs is a nice capability to have when directing fighters or other aircraft...

Yeah but NATO itself owns 17 E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft (crewed by personnel on secondment from member nations) and has already ordered 7 of the new E-7 Wedgetails. That’s aside from what individual NATO Members might own and be able to bring to bear. AWACS is one of the few military capabilities owned by NATO alliance itself rather than member nations.  UK has 7 E-3s with 3 E-7s on order.  France has 4 E-3s and 2 Carrier-based E2 Hawkeyes.  Turkey has ordered 4 E-7s. Sweden Italy and Greece have AWACS on Bizjet platforms (numbering 6, 2, and 4 respectively) so assuming none are pending retirement that’s at least 52 AWACS available for Europe, not sure Canadian AWACS are needed. 

Edited April 11, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Australia is geographically isolated  far away from allies and close to a variety of undemocratic regimes including China. I get that with AWACS in the arctic we would be able to see much farther than even the future over the horizon radar could. But we have no place to base them at least not the E-7.  The only thing that makes sense to me would be to base them out of Alaska as part of a NORAD-owned fleet, to which both countries contribute the way NATO owns an AWACS fleet.

it's not about defending the arctic

that's a fake mission

Canada is not capable of defending the arctic, so there is no "need" to pretend

AWACS is offensive,  used to coordinate overseas air campaigns mostly

if you only consider what Canada actually "needs", you could go ahead and disband the entire CF

since other than fighting forest fires, it's practically useless for defending Canada itself

the purpose of having a Canadian military is not to defend Canada

the purpose of having a Canadian military has always been to fight other people's wars overseas

it's not a territorial defence force, all Canadian military imperatives are expeditionary

Edited April 11, 2024 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Australia is geographically isolated  far away from allies and close to a variety of undemocratic regimes including China.

except New Zealand is right beside Australia

and New Zealand barely has any military forces at all

New Zealand proves you can be an isolationist pacifist free rider totally relying on the Americans;  in the South Pacific

so there must be some other reason why Australia is buying high end military hardware from the Americans

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it's not about defending the arctic

that's a fake mission

Canada is not capable of defending the arctic, so there is no "need" to pretend

AWACS is offensive,  used to coordinate overseas air campaigns mostly

if you only consider what Canada actually "needs", you could go ahead and disband the entire CF

since other than fighting forest fires, it's practically useless for defending Canada itself

the purpose of having a Canadian military is not to defend Canada

the purpose of having a Canadian military has always been to fight other people's wars overseas

it's not a territorial defence force, all Canadian military imperatives are expeditionary

Canada “needs” to contribute to the defence of North America for political reasons   Not because it’s necessary for our security but because the less we contribute to continental defence , the more USA dominates us. . 

Edited April 11, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

except New Zealand is right beside Australia

and New Zealand barely has any military forces at all

New Zealand proves you can be an isolationist pacifist free rider totally relying on the Americans;  in the South Pacific

so there must be some other reason why Australia is buying high end military hardware from the Americans

New Zealand is a tiny country with a tiny population, period.  I don’t know how their military stacks up relative to their population but they have 4 P-8 poseidon s for example   
 

Similar to Canada it’s not about if you are needed for defence but whether you’re contributing your fair share   If not, there are political and economic consequences. 

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

there is no Canadian AWACS presence in NORAD

that is all provided by the USAF 552nd Airborne Warning & Control Wing from Tinker AFB Oklahoma

in terms of the NATO AWACS at Geilenkirchen,  Canada might provide some personnel from time to time

but that doesn't mean Australia isn't putting Canada to shame by deploying its own squadron of E-7 Wedgetails

There are AWCS at Elmendorf Alaska with Canadians aboard. I had a colleague that was there.

Who cares about Australia ? Australia has it's own defence policy.

And Canada does not need AWACS type aircraft.

[ExFlyer]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

except New Zealand is right beside Australia

and New Zealand barely has any military forces at all

New Zealand proves you can be an isolationist pacifist free rider totally relying on the Americans;  in the South Pacific

so there must be some other reason why Australia is buying high end military hardware from the Americans

For sure, Australia needs to defend itself against the New Zealand fleet of Cessna 150's LOL

Frack dude, get back in your basement...

[I am Groot]

On 4/8/2024 at 9:16 PM, Army Guy said:

I'm just wondering how they are going to get 8 bil spread out over 5 years, but still mange to pay the 3.5 bil in budget cuts, over the same period...why not just say 3 bil over 5 years and be done with it...or tell every that the budget cut thing is over...

It won't even cover inflation.

[I am Groot]

On 4/9/2024 at 2:34 PM, Army Guy said:

That being said this is not going to be an election issue, there is just to many issues for this to make it to the top...i hope the conservatives pick the ball up later and run with it...

I'm looking to see if it is mentioned. It should be. The Liberals' disgraceful lack of interest in any kind of national security issues, from public security to cyber security, to the security of people living here to not be harassed and intimidated by foreigners to the military itself ought to be an election issue. They're very vulnerable on it.

The problem is most of those who care are already voting Conservative, so there's no real need for the Tories to raise it. Besides, if Poilievre does raise it the immediate response will be to ask what his plan is. And as far as I'm aware he doesn't have one.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

New Zealand is a tiny country with a tiny population, period.  I don’t know how their military stacks up relative to their population but they have 4 P-8 poseidon s for example   
 

Similar to Canada it’s not about if you are needed for defence but whether you’re contributing your fair share   If not, there are political and economic consequences. 

They also rely on Australia to keep any nasty people away from them.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada “needs” to contribute to the defence of North America for political reasons   Not because it’s necessary for our security but because the less we contribute to continental defence , the more USA dominates us. . 

I’m going to clarify my statements a bit because in retrospect it was overly broad.  Even if we were to fully outsource continental defence to USA to protect against outside threats, that CONTINENTAL defence and that is not the totality of Canada’s NATIONAL Defence. US-only continental defence will almost certainly be limited to threats affecting USA and its interests and not all threats to Canada are threats to USA.  The Alaska panhandle stretches halfway down the BC coast because the lat time we had outsourced our sovereignty and foreign policy to a superpower, the UK decided it was in THEIR interest to cede the land to USA    Canadian sovereignty is not in US interests and in fact US and other Great Powers dispute Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, claiming it to be international waters.
 

Canada “needs” to defend Canadian territory and almost by definition it is not possible for this job to be fully outsourced to a foreign country. Canada doesn’t technically “need” to help defend North America from foreign attack and but failing to do the latter will make it extremely difficult to do the former. 

[I am Groot]

We are in an era where warlords are rising around the world. Ruthless men with a lot of power in China, Russia, India, Iran, Turkey and others. In such a world, you have sovereignty over what you can protect. And right now, Canada can't protect Prince Edward Island, much less the rest of the country. We rely on the US to do that. But the US is increasingly distracted by its internal divisions and less interested in foreign adventures. Donald Trump is not the only corrupt, cynical opportunist with power down there. And it's debatable right now about just how much effort he would be willing to put into defending anyone, particularly if he's blackmailed or paid to not do so.

In WW2 Canada had a booming economy and one million people in the military.

Our population is four times greater and we're told that even as many as 100,000 is far beyond our capabilities. Even properly equipping the roughly 50,000 we have causes grown men to throw up their arms and give up. Not possible, they say. That's utter bullshit. Trudeau has found $54 billion just this year for various things he wants to do, from money to natives to climate change initiatives to new social programs. But properly equipping the military is just not something we can do without bankrupting ourselves.

Somehow.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

I'm looking to see if it is mentioned. It should be. The Liberals' disgraceful lack of interest in any kind of national security issues, from public security to cyber security, to the security of people living here to not be harassed and intimidated by foreigners to the military itself ought to be an election issue. They're very vulnerable on it.

The problem is most of those who care are already voting Conservative, so there's no real need for the Tories to raise it. Besides, if Poilievre does raise it the immediate response will be to ask what his plan is. And as far as I'm aware he doesn't have one.

 

26 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

We are in an era where warlords are rising around the world. Ruthless men with a lot of power in China, Russia, India, Iran, Turkey and others. In such a world, you have sovereignty over what you can protect. And right now, Canada can't protect Prince Edward Island, much less the rest of the country. We rely on the US to do that. But the US is increasingly distracted by its internal divisions and less interested in foreign adventures. Donald Trump is not the only corrupt, cynical opportunist with power down there. And it's debatable right now about just how much effort he would be willing to put into defending anyone, particularly if he's blackmailed or paid to not do so.

In WW2 Canada had a booming economy and one million people in the military.

Our population is four times greater and we're told that even as many as 100,000 is far beyond our capabilities. Even properly equipping the roughly 50,000 we have causes grown men to throw up their arms and give up. Not possible, they say. That's utter bullshit. Trudeau has found $54 billion just this year for various things he wants to do, from money to natives to climate change initiatives to new social programs. But properly equipping the military is just not something we can do without bankrupting ourselves.

Somehow.

I agree with almost everything you say.
I do want to say though, in my 35 years in the Military beginning way back when, and more than 10 years working with the Military after my career, it has not just been liberals that screwed the military. The conservatives are also to blame for the state of our defence systems, (or lack of).

I am not a liberal but I need to reiterate, there were many conservative governments in my Military career too. The decay of the military is shared equally between both government parties.

We have never lived up to our NATO requirements. We have always depended on the US for securing Canadian soil.

We had a huge military complex and military back in WWII but, that was because we were back then "owned" by the British and we just complied with their demand. We had loyalty and pride in Canada back then. We no longer have that. We do not have the young people that will commit to the service of Canada anymore. We cannot force them to join and we cannot force them to stay.  Too many free things and assistance to bother with rather than being a soldier, sailor or airman.

Edited April 11, 2024 by ExFlyer

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah but NATO itself owns 17 E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft (crewed by personnel on secondment from member nations) and has already ordered 7 of the new E-7 Wedgetails. That’s aside from what individual NATO Members might own and be able to bring to bear. AWACS is one of the few military capabilities owned by NATO alliance itself rather than member nations.  UK has 7 E-3s with 3 E-7s on order.  France has 4 E-3s and 2 Carrier-based E2 Hawkeyes.  Turkey has ordered 4 E-7s. Sweden Italy and Greece have AWACS on Bizjet platforms (numbering 6, 2, and 4 respectively) so assuming none are pending retirement that’s at least 52 AWACS available for Europe, not sure Canadian AWACS are needed. 

NATO owns a lot of military assets from cargo aircraft fleets, refueling assets, and yet most countries have invested in  similar fleets.... Canada has employed Surveillance aircraft in the past modified Auro's to surval the gulf area...also northern coast lines, and to assist the army in exercises on the ground...Your assuming AWACS is only capable of tracking aircraft it's capabilities are a lot greater than that... 

Just look at Afghanistan mission for a second, KAF airbase had on it well over 60 to 70 CH-147 from dozens of nations, ...plus dozens of other types of helos... one of the reasons we purchased our own fleet was availability, not to mention the host country could cancel at any time, which often happened, remember your the free loader here, and on their good will to give you a ride...many missions where then transferred to the road where peoples lives were lost...Not sure how the airforce works it air packages, but some where there is a need for AWACS, as other support aircraft. 

I know what it is like to depend on another nation for support, like air support, attack helo support,  we got it providing there was no US need at the time...., and look how many Canadian lives were lost due to screw ups, i would rather have had Canadian pilots providing support. That being said when US A-10 or Apaches arrived on scene, a wave of relief washed over everyone...

Canada has entered more defensive agreements than just NATO, there is NORAD, 5 EYES, and as justin has said they want to be a more active member in AUKUS... 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:53 PM, ExFlyer said:

 

His announcement is all after the next election so...guess what...Defence gets nothing, zero, nada....again.

Agreed but our problems with military spending and a coherent long-term military policy precede this particular government by a fair few decades. It seems difficult to change this in a democracy unless we have an imminent military threat on our doorstep. At least Putin has managed to wake Europe up a bit. 

Edited April 11, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada “needs” to contribute to the defence of North America for political reasons   Not because it’s necessary for our security but because the less we contribute to continental defence , the more USA dominates us. . 

Canada has lived this very post for most of it's most of it's history and it is wrong....And it has cost the lives of thousands of Canadians...thrown into combat with little to no real training, with equipment that was not proven or sub par, just ask the crew of the sherman tank what they thought of their tanks in comparison to Germany's or the Russians...

Man has not learned to talk out it's problems, which is why violence is still a political tool...We need to defend ourselves, and par take in ALL our defensive agreements not becasue it's political but becasue it saves the lives of those men and women that are going to be sent into battle...my son and daughters, and future grand children are at risk as is yours. If we are not willing to defend ourselves, then we don't deserve our current freedoms and rights. Becasue it is nessicary maybe not at this day or week, but at some time we will need to pick up weapons and defend what is right...

Not sure why Canadians are content with having someone else pay for our defense, I'm sure American tax payers are not thrilled about picking up the tab, i know if it was reversed i'd be pissed as well....we as a people have become fat and lazy, we spend our time trying to see what we can glean off our government instead of having any pride whatsoever and stepping up...

Sometimes it is embarrassing to be Canadian.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Agreed but our problems with military spending and a coherent long-term military policy precede this particular government by a fair few decades. It seems difficult to change this in a democracy unless we have an imminent military threat on our doorstep. At least Putin has managed to wake Europe up a bit. 

As I said, I spent 35 years in the military and another 10+ around the military. Lots of governments were there during my tenure and they all disregarded the men and women that served.

In praise of them all, they did so much with so little and were constantly under appreciated.

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

NATO owns a lot of military assets from cargo aircraft fleets, refueling assets, and yet most countries have invested in  similar fleets.... Canada has employed Surveillance aircraft in the past modified Auro's to surval the gulf area...also northern coast lines, and to assist the army in exercises on the ground...Your assuming AWACS is only capable of tracking aircraft it's capabilities are a lot greater than that... 

J....

Canada has entered more defensive agreements than just NATO, there is NORAD, 5 EYES, and as justin has said they want to be a more active member in AUKUS... 

Canada was not an invitee to AUKUS and never will be. AUKUS is The Trilateral Security Partnership Between Australia, U.K. and U.S. Navy.  It is primarily to acquire nuclear subs and Canada will never go down that path.

AWACS are also and often the airborne command and control centre.