BeaverFever Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 (edited) Well Sweden wasn’t part of NATO until recently so not a preferred provider 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: You can operate almost any modern fighter on a highway, or prepared runway. and any airforce can have a mobile truck repair shop...we have that already for our green helos. No the other fighter alternatives especially f-35 are high maintenance and need high end facilities and tools. You cannot sustain them for extended periods in an austere environment working out of the back of a truck. 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: It does not have to be fast, it's sensors and radar will see most combatants well before they even know the f-35 is there. it kills at distance...That being said it is not that much slower, gripen top speed is 1323 mph, , f-35 is 1200 mph not that slow..., and it caries 2 long range missiles and 2 short range...and when in beast mode, your also forgetting airforce normally scrambles x 2 aircraft at minimum...when chasing down Russian aircraft in the north.. Speed also means time to intercept, time to target, ability to outrun adversaries and the air defences trying to target you. F35’s top speed is mach 1.6. Current CF-18 is mach 1.8., Gripen is mach 2.0 Long range missiles aren’t fool proof they can be countermeasures and as soon as the enemy is locked onto he will know you’re there. Beast mode requires the f-35 to carry all those extra weapons externally giving it the same radar cross section as f-16 or cf-18 thereby eliminating its greatest asset while making it even slower and less maneuverable. And guess what the enemy also has air superiority fighters with powerful radars and long range missiles notably the SU35 and similar variants from the family of SU27 derivatives that will be as able to see a “beast mode” F35 as they can anything else. Also when we’re flying off the wing of a trespassing Russian fighter they we’re escorting out of our airspace, all the long range missiles and stealth won’t mean a thing if suddenly it turns hostile. 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: And while Again the question you have to ask yourself is Why did the airforce pick the f-35, we could go back and forth all day about what is better ...but the experts our own air force have chosen the F-35 for many reasons...the other question should be why are there more f-35 users than grippen users, each nation ran a competition and again in most cases the grippen lost...Why ? and when you take a look at most western nations they run either US aircraft or Euro fighters, with exception of France...some nations are running grippens, about 300 grippens have been made, over 1000 F-35 have been produced....that alone has to say something about both aircraft... Global Politics during the post-cold war era has a little to do with it, Sweden not being a historical NATO member also has a lot to do with it. The industrial benefits a lot of countries signed up for when contributing tens of millions to developing the F-35 is a big factor also. But back then the global security threat was low, air superiority was assumed to be guaranteed and the main guiding principle was US interoperability when a coalition gathers to bomb terrorists or some underdeveloped country’s second-rate military. The world has changed now. 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Operate multi fleet of aircraft are possible when they were cheaper to run, and purchase....hence why we have multi role fighters, not experts in one area, but can do all areas good enough...F-35 is that aircraft.... No the F-35 is not that aircraft, like all aircraft there are tradeoffs. It is mot a magical master of all trades There’s a reason the USAF, USMC and USN continue to operate a wide mix of fighter aircraft including F-22, F-16, multiple F-15 variants, F/A-18, EA-18. And they still produce new F/A-18, EA-18, and F-15 doe their own use as well as export. Many if not most F35 customers also acquired either Typhoon or Rafale and/or are planning to operate existing 4th generation aircraft alongside it: UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece . Because they know F35 alone doesn’t cover all the bases and also they don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: If we had to purchase a european aircraft i would pick the Eurofighter hands down...or the french Rafale...the Grippen would be in the back of the pack.... I wouldn’t mind any of them. Typhoon and Rafale are simply expensive to buy and maintain and not as rugged as Gripen but they are awesome. Since we’re stuck with a number of F-35s regardless a Gripen supplement seems reasonable. For the record I never said the Gripen should be our only fighter. Edited March 21 by BeaverFever Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 Smol: Canada's military is far too deferential to the U.S. The dependency mindset at defence headquarters has been evolving for some time. With an increasingly bellicose American president, this is dangerous. Published Mar 20, 2025 • Last updated 12 hours ago • 3 minute read Canada uses a Leopard tank in Zhari District, southern Afghanistan, alongside U.S. infantry and U.S. Army Kiowa attack helicopters in 2007. Photo by Cpl. Jonathan Johansen Over the last few decades, Canada’s direction to our Armed Forces, at every level, has been to garner, expand and solidify close defence relations with the United States. Largely due to Canada’s neglect of its military, this has bred a consistent and increasing pattern of dependency and deference towards the U.S among our Forces and their leadership. Today’s generation of Canadian military officers and non-commissioned officers is the product of serving as an increasingly demilitarized and dependent appendage to an overbearingly dominant American military. An American military which, out of necessity, has had to act more like our defence caretakersand burden-bearers than true allies. A military behemoth whose president and commander-in-chief is now openly serious about annexing Canada. Which prompts an uncomfortably necessary question four our politicians: Does our military leadership have the mindset to deal with defence issues against an isolationist, pro-Russian U.S. administration hostile to Canada? For the last 40 years, in and out of uniform, I have observed a Canadian military that increasingly tends to adapt its collective mindset to that of the U.S. regarding strategy, planning, doctrine, tactics, leadership training, logistics and just about everything else. But why rely on the concerns and observations of a former army reserve captain like me? More indicative of today’s Canadian Armed Forces’ pro-U.S., deferential mindset can be seen in how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have officially declared and articulated their role with the U.S. over the years. In 2003, we chose not to directly take part in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. However, according to Eugene Lang, chief of staff to the then-defence minister, John McCallum, our military did not share that sentiment of non-engagement. In a 2011 article, Lang stated that the Canadian military “pushed really hard not to be in Afghanistan and instead be part of a full-blown boots-on-the-ground Iraq invasion.” Seems our generals in 2003 wanted Canadian troops to follow in lock-step as the U.S. bombed and blasted its way through Iraqi cities in search of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (which we know now did not exist). Then, of course, there were the revelations in recent years that, in 2013-14, the Canadian Armed Forces seriously entertained the idea of becoming fully integrated with the U.S. military when serving overseas. This meant Canadian and U.S military personnel would serve side-by-side in the same units under a supposed “unified” command. A total integration that exceeded even our prior colonial involvement with Great Britain in the First World War, when Canada had its separate units and formations. Because the idea was ultimately rejected, we can only speculate how much command and control the Pentagon would have been willing to delegate to Canada’s National Defence headquarters as part of this unified binational integrated overseas force. I think we all know the answer. Then there were the warm and fuzzy intentions behind the Canada-U.S. Civil Assistance Planagreement of 2008. This provided the framework for a structure that would allow U.S forces to enter Canada in the event of a perceived “national emergency” such as a purported terrorist attack. Of course, Canada has reciprocal power to move its military into the U.S in the event of an alleged “emergency.” But let’s understand how the general laws of diffusion might apply here. In the state our military is in, any commitment on the part of Canada to militarily guarantee the internal security and stability of the U.S. is about as substantial as tiny Luxembourg’s guarantee to protect and shield its NATO allies and neighbours, Germany and France, from Russian attack. Regardless of how our quasi-colonial military relationship with the United States will turn out, the national torch is that of our generals and admirals to hold on high in 2025 and beyond. Let’s just hope that the ground underfoot does not shift so hard and fast that they drop it. Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer and writer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is currently completing a PhD in military history. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/military-deference-canada-us Quote
CdnFox Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: So respected it is used by how many nations ?, all of which ran their own competitions,It comes with a long list of failed bids.... it came in second in Canada only after most dropped out because Canada was asking for to much offsets... You can operate almost any modern fighter on a highway, or prepared runway. and any airforce can have a mobile truck repair shop...we have that already for our green helos... It does not have to be fast, it's sensors and radar will see most combatants well before they even know the f-35 is there. it kills at distance...That being said it is not that much slower, gripen top speed is 1323 mph, , f-35 is 1200 mph not that slow..., and it caries 2 long range missiles and 2 short range...and when in beast mode, your also forgetting airforce normally scrambles x 2 aircraft at minimum...when chasing down Russian aircraft in the north... https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/11/the-f-35-can-go-into-beast-mode-carrying-22000-pounds-of-bombs/ And while Again the question you have to ask yourself is Why did the airforce pick the f-35, we could go back and forth all day about what is better ...but the experts our own air force have chosen the F-35 for many reasons...the other question should be why are there more f-35 users than grippen users, each nation ran a competition and again in most cases the grippen lost...Why ? and when you take a look at most western nations they run either US aircraft or Euro fighters, with exception of France...some nations are running grippens, about 300 grippens have been made, over 1000 F-35 have been produced....that alone has to say something about both aircraft... Operate multi fleet of aircraft are possible when they were cheaper to run, and purchase....hence why we have multi role fighters, not experts in one area, but can do all areas good enough...F-35 is that aircraft.... If we had to purchase a european aircraft i would pick the Eurofighter hands down...or the french Rafale...the Grippen would be in the back of the pack.... Like most military purchases, our politicians have turned it into a political football, we have seen this over and over, just look at the Sea king replacement...the government should be kept out of the whole process, instead approve the amount of funding and thats it...unless it is a strategic piece of equipment, like nuke subs... dude, whether you like it or not for political reasons we probably aren't going to use the F-35 and we shouldn't. We should not be buying American Products for our military I understand why you feel that may not be the best decision but it is the best decision when you take into account the political side of things as well So people are going to have to figure it out and find a way to take another option and make it work one way or another. Either we develop our own, or we develop our grades for other platforms, or something. Are we act like the ukrainians and find a cheap way to get past the hyper expensive tools that the other guy is using We cannot put our nation safety in the hands of someone who is not our ally. Especially when they live on our border. So you're going to have to think of a second best option 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 17 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Well Sweden wasn’t part of NATO until recently so not a preferred provider No the other fighter alternatives especially f-35 are high maintenance and need high end facilities and tools. You cannot sustain them for extended periods in an austere environment working out of the back of a truck. Speed also means time to intercept, time to target, ability to outrun adversaries and the air defences trying to target you. F35’s top speed is mach 1.6. Current CF-18 is mach 1.8., Gripen is mach 2.0 Long range missiles aren’t fool proof they can be countermeasures and as soon as the enemy is locked onto he will know you’re there. Beast mode requires the f-35 to carry all those extra weapons externally giving it the same radar cross section as f-16 or cf-18 thereby eliminating its greatest asset while making it even slower and less maneuverable. And guess what the enemy also has air superiority fighters with powerful radars and long range missiles notably the SU35 and similar variants from the family of SU27 derivatives that will be as able to see a “beast mode” F35 as they can anything else. Also when we’re flying off the wing of a trespassing Russian fighter they we’re escorting out of our airspace, all the long range missiles and stealth won’t mean a thing if suddenly it turns hostile. Global Politics during the post-cold war era has a little to do with it, Sweden not being a historical NATO member also has a lot to do with it. The industrial benefits a lot of countries signed up for when contributing tens of millions to developing the F-35 is a big factor also. But back then the global security threat was low, air superiority was assumed to be guaranteed and the main guiding principle was US interoperability when a coalition gathers to bomb terrorists or some underdeveloped country’s second-rate military. The world has changed now. No the F-35 is not that aircraft, like all aircraft there are tradeoffs. It is mot a magical master of all trades There’s a reason the USAF, USMC and USN continue to operate a wide mix of fighter aircraft including F-22, F-16, multiple F-15 variants, F/A-18, EA-18. And they still produce new F/A-18, EA-18, and F-15 doe their own use as well as export. Many if not most F35 customers also acquired either Typhoon or Rafale and/or are planning to operate existing 4th generation aircraft alongside it: UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece . Because they know F35 alone doesn’t cover all the bases and also they don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. I wouldn’t mind any of them. Typhoon and Rafale are simply expensive to buy and maintain and not as rugged as Gripen but they are awesome. Since we’re stuck with a number of F-35s regardless a Gripen supplement seems reasonable. For the record I never said the Gripen should be our only fighter. So Gripen sales are a failure becasue they have just recently become a NATO partner, and now they are a NATO partner their fighter all of a sudden is a contender...Sorry can't wrap my mind around that logic...The Grippen has failed in over 15 competitions to meet the top fighter jet...Including Canada's and not once did they mention the reason for failure was they were not a NATO country, several of those countries border Sweden... When i was in germany back in the day, NATO ran all sorts of aircraft from highways, including our F-18's , typhoons, all sorts of french aircraft, all maintained on the side of the road, by repair trucks...IF it requires to deep maintenance then it can be flown to an airfield....It should be noted that at the time "cold war" only 1/2 of the aircraft were expected to return form the first sortie, and only 1/2 of those remaining aircraft would return for a third sorties.. Not many aircraft would survive so your concern about need a deep maintenance facility is a moot point is it not...During the gulf war every aircraft returned to a major airstrip with deep maintenance facilities.. Operating off a highway would be a blue moon event... https://www.twz.com/f-35a-has-flown-from-a-highway-for-the-first-time F-35 does not need speed to defeat adversaries, it relies on high tech sensors and EW capabilities you can't kill what you can't see...be air defenses, or a knife fight ...lets not forget there is always at a minimum 2 fighters per intercept... or more depending on enemies numbers... Not all missiles require a radar lock on...therefore do not give the enemy advance warnings of an attack.for that matter F-35 aircraft have the ability to paint a target for another aircraft missile launches...so it can remain hidden from other enemy radars. and for the most part they are very effective or they would be using something else...enemy aircraft would not know what is going on until one of their aircraft blew up... Note i did not say master of all things , but it does all thing well...unlike your Grippen, which is an air defence aircraft that can do air to ground... Yes the US does fly several aircraft types , they can afford to do just that, not many countries can do that and still maintain top of the line aircraft...If we ever plan to meet our 2 % of GDP on strictly military expenditures then that may be possible... Not true, most F-35 users have a single fighter...the F-35...some countries such as Britian, Germany, spain, operate F-35 and typhoon, or are in the process of getting rid of older fighters that f-35 are replacing. France does not operate f-35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_operators i would love to see canada operate a multi type air force, but i don't think the grippen should be in that mix, either the french rafale, or typhoon would be a much better option....and if we were really concerned about cost we would stick to the F-35 and get more for our money, or the new F-15EX which would exceed almost all of the grippens high spots with ease...And while you have listed a lot of good points about the Grippen, i want to add this one most important point...we need to pick an aircraft that has the best chances of survival in combat... that is the F- 35 which has sold more than 1000 copies for a very good reason, this aircraft will be flown by our nation for another 40 plus years as we historically have already proven ,The F-35 has just started its journey as a top notch aircraft with unimaginable capabilities our F-18 pilots have never had, that are still growing and still improving...cheaper is not always better....as proven by the sales of each aircraft we have mentioned.... https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-typhoons-land-and-take-off-from-a-road-for-the-first-time/ Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 16 hours ago, CdnFox said: dude, whether you like it or not for political reasons we probably aren't going to use the F-35 and we shouldn't. We should not be buying American Products for our military I understand why you feel that may not be the best decision but it is the best decision when you take into account the political side of things as well So people are going to have to figure it out and find a way to take another option and make it work one way or another. Either we develop our own, or we develop our grades for other platforms, or something. Are we act like the ukrainians and find a cheap way to get past the hyper expensive tools that the other guy is using We cannot put our nation safety in the hands of someone who is not our ally. Especially when they live on our border. So you're going to have to think of a second best option Look fox, i really don't give a rats ass about political reasons... none of those reason are going to save a life when it counts...throwing away all of that becasue we don't like one president is not worth the effort our pilots put into protecting this country.... Politics should be taken out of all purchases we make be it for DND or any other department...political reasons don't win battles...people and equipment do...to many time have i operated equipment purchased for political reasons and have put my life in danger...replacing the Ilitis jeep, with the G wagon was one of those instead of purchasing harden MRAP like the Americans had...cost the lives of not only soldiers but a diplomat as well, most of our equipment is a political purchase... Just to be clear, respectfully....We and that includes all Canadians have put our nation's' security at risk....because of poor decisions our government has made and our citizens let them...you can point at trump for pointing that out but nothing he did forced us into our decisions... I find it a little ironic that Canadians are starting to wake up now to the fact we are basically undefended, when it has been the case for over 30 years now...even more so under the liberals rule of the last 8 plus years. we have given our security of our nation to the Americans decades ago, and even bragged about it...so that excuse we can't put the safety of our nation into a nation that is not an ally is a moot point...we have done that long ago... My point is this Trump is going to be around for 4 years....historically we have had excellent relations with the US...this is a blip in our over all history....these decisions we make in purchasing military equipment will be here defending our nation for over 40 more years.... why would we not want to purchase the best equipment available now...which that line of reasoning has proven to save lives of Canadians service members....just because we dislike one American....is your pride worth more than one service member life....That's what your asking...buy something that is second rate, in this case something that placed second place only because the others quit the competition because of government wanted to much in the way of offsets.. Want to punish trump then do it with other trade, not our military whos' very lives depend on what we buy... same as Helo purchase, what is next we cancel the P-8 contract, or Awacs contract, our weapons for our frigates,all of which would put those programs back years....sounds silly... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BeaverFever Posted March 21 Author Report Posted March 21 Canadian Forces pushing for sole source deal for U.S. weapons as Trump continues attacks on Canada The Canadian military wants the government to buy a U.S.-built High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, according to defence industry officials. Canada's military leadership is pushing for a sole source deal for the U.S.-built High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS. Photo by Lance Cpl. Nicholas Guevara U. /24TH MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT Canada’s military leadership is pushing for yet another sole source deal for American equipment despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to economically damage this country and eventually annex it as the 51st state. The Canadian Forces wants the Liberal government to purchase the U.S.-built High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS, according to defence industry officials. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Ukraine has been using HIMARS in combat against Russian forces, but Trump was recently able to reduce the effectiveness of the weapon system by limiting the flow of data and intelligence needed for its operations. Trump has continued his threats against Canada, bringing in tariffs on March 12 against Canadian steel and aluminum. On March 11, Trump said he planned to eliminate Canada’s auto industry, which would throw thousands of Canadians out of work. The plan being proposed by the Canadian Forces senior leadership would see the purchase of a number of HIMARS built by Lockheed Martin. The sole-source deal could be handled through a Foreign Military Sale in which Canada would receive the equipment directly from the U.S. government. Asked why it was considering a HIMARS purchase from a country that was threatening to annex Canada, Department of National Defence spokesperson Kened Sadiku responded in an email that “the Long-Range Precision Strike (Land) project will significantly enhance Canada’s defence capabilities, both domestically and abroad. “This project is progressing well and we are expecting to share additional details in the coming months,” Sadiku added in his email to the Ottawa Citizen. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. He noted that Canada’s procurement decisions were based on national security priorities, but added that the federal government was “closely monitoring the trade situation in the U.S., and assessing potential impacts to existing projects.” A 2024 Canadian Forces briefing on the Long Range Precision Fires project, obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, noted that the acquisition of the equipment could be worth approximately $5 billion. The project would involve purchasing launchers, fire control software, munitions and spare parts. The briefing included photos of HIMARS. The proposed acquisition, as well as other recent Canadian defence purchases, is being questioned by military analysts and Canadian industry officials. One defence industry official, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution against his organization, said the Canadian military leadership was “tone deaf” to the threat posed by the Americans. Canada’s military leadership is pushing for a sole source deal for the U.S.-built High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS. Photo by Sgt. Adam L. Mathis U.S. Depar /U.S. ARMY As recently as Feb. 12, Defence Minister Bill Blair downplayed the threat posed by Trump, saying that the president’s talk of annexing Canada is not a “real threat.” Blair’s office did not provide comment on the proposed HIMARS deal. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. At a March 7 technical briefing about the purchase of new Canadian warships, equipped with large amounts of U.S. technology, Canadian defence officials stated military relations between the two nations remains strong. But, as analysts have pointed out, such relations are meaningless when Trump is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. The Canadian Forces is facing a dilemma in that the U.S. controls much of the technology on its equipment. For instance, the Americans have full control over software and hardware upgrades on Canada’s $19-billion fleet of F-35 fighter jets which are on order. The aircraft are being built by Lockheed Martin in the U.S. The Ottawa Citizen revealed Feb. 14 that defence industry officials had also warned that the U.S. controls many of the key systems onboard Canada’s new warships, allowing the Americans to hold this country hostage over future upgrades or even the provision of spare parts. Despite that, under pressure from the U.S., the Liberal government and military have doubled down on ordering American-supplied equipment. In 2023, it ordered almost $30 billion in new military systems, most of those exclusively from U.S. firms. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. That included an $8-billion sole-source deal with Boeing for the purchase of new surveillance aircraft. Previously, Liberal cabinet ministers had claimed Boeing was not an industrial partner that could be trusted. Another $2.5 billion is being spent to purchase drones from a U.S. firm. The Liberal government had hoped the deals would placate American politicians who raised concerns Canada was not spending enough on defence. But the deals did not alter that criticism. Canadian defence suppliers have warned that the push by the Canadian Forces to buy American has provided little benefit for domestic firms. But the Canadian military leadership is close to their U.S. counterparts and is reluctant to shift its focus from America. Some retired Canadian Forces senior officers, such as former chief of the defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier, have voiced support for a Canada that is integrated more closely with the U.S. On Feb. 15, Hillier went on the social-media website X to express his support for Canadian businessman and Trump supporter Kevin O’Leary’s proposal for a common dollar, integrated border and immigration requirements with the U.S. https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/canadian-forces-sole-source-u-s-weapons-trump Quote
CdnFox Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Look fox, i really don't give a rats ass about political reasons... none of those reason are going to save a life when it counts.. Fine and dandy, but the people footing the bill definitely do care. And if you were unaware of it, the military is in fact a political Entity. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong about the F-35 being the best tool for the job from a purely functional point of view. But that is not the only consideration whether you think it is or you don't 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Politics should be taken out of all purchases we make be it for DND or any other department No it shouldn't. And in fact it can't. If you want that you need to privatize the army. How the army is equipped, how the army is used and deployed, how the army is structured are all political factors. The army does not exist on its own independent of the nation and the nation is political. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Just to be clear, respectfully....We and that includes all Canadians have put our nation's' security at risk....because of poor decisions our government has made and our citizens let them Sure. Let's agree to that for the purposes of this conversation. But that doesn't really change anything. We absolutely have to start making better decisions, and we have to start making real investments and commitments into our military. But that doesn't change some of the fundamental factors that come into play. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: I find it a little ironic that Canadians are starting to wake up now to the fact we are basically undefended, when it has been the case for over 30 years now Yeah but that's to be expected. Nothing makes you think about what kind of helmet you got more than a man pointing a gun at your head 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: why would we not want to purchase the best equipment available now... Because that equipment is available from somebody who could shut us off and kill our supply in 30 seconds if they wanted to and has demonstrated that they will do exactly that if it crosses their mind. It's the very best plane in the world was made by the Russians, I would still say don't buy from them. If the Chinese had the most sophisticated fighter system in the world I would still say those are not the people we should be giving our money to and trusting to provide us parts for in a conflict. That's why. Not to mention the fact that people will bulk at it and then there's no political will to keep buying the military any hardware. You keep grousing about the fact that Canadians are not interested in the military and then you want to pretend that the political ramifications and how the public perceives things makes no difference. I'm sorry but it does. All of that means the same thing. The military is going to be constrained by certain political realities including the fact that you don't put your national defense in the hands of someone who may turn on you at any second no matter how good their year is. The best plane that can't fly because you don't have any parts is the worst plane. So the military is going to have to look at what is available and come up with methods and tactics and strategies that maximize the strengths of what we can get in creative ways and then go with that. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Fine and dandy, but the people footing the bill definitely do care. And if you were unaware of it, the military is in fact a political Entity. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong about the F-35 being the best tool for the job from a purely functional point of view. But that is not the only consideration whether you think it is or you don't No it shouldn't. And in fact it can't. If you want that you need to privatize the army. How the army is equipped, how the army is used and deployed, how the army is structured are all political factors. The army does not exist on its own independent of the nation and the nation is political. Sure. Let's agree to that for the purposes of this conversation. But that doesn't really change anything. We absolutely have to start making better decisions, and we have to start making real investments and commitments into our military. But that doesn't change some of the fundamental factors that come into play. Yeah but that's to be expected. Nothing makes you think about what kind of helmet you got more than a man pointing a gun at your head Because that equipment is available from somebody who could shut us off and kill our supply in 30 seconds if they wanted to and has demonstrated that they will do exactly that if it crosses their mind. It's the very best plane in the world was made by the Russians, I would still say don't buy from them. If the Chinese had the most sophisticated fighter system in the world I would still say those are not the people we should be giving our money to and trusting to provide us parts for in a conflict. That's why. Not to mention the fact that people will bulk at it and then there's no political will to keep buying the military any hardware. You keep grousing about the fact that Canadians are not interested in the military and then you want to pretend that the political ramifications and how the public perceives things makes no difference. I'm sorry but it does. All of that means the same thing. The military is going to be constrained by certain political realities including the fact that you don't put your national defense in the hands of someone who may turn on you at any second no matter how good their year is. The best plane that can't fly because you don't have any parts is the worst plane. So the military is going to have to look at what is available and come up with methods and tactics and strategies that maximize the strengths of what we can get in creative ways and then go with that. Thats the point , Canadians and our government don't really care OR we would not be in the crises we are right now...and yes i am very aware that our military is a political tool.. In the eyes of those tasked with protection of this country, protection that might cost them their lives, it is the only consideration....what considerations would trump the lives of Canadians.... How the army is equipped should be solely a military decision, with a few exception such as strategic equipment such as Nuclear weapons' etc...how and what equipment to be purchased like tanks, aircraft, ships should be done by the military, with politicians approving the amount of funds that can be used... How the army is equipped, how the army is used and deployed, how the army is structured are all political factors. The army does not exist on its own independent of the nation and the nation is political. Do you let your wife / Kids pick out your power tools, or your car, or your Home....No but your wife does care how much you spend How the Army is used or deployed is a political decision, the military serves our government and it's wishes... Today purchases of military equipment is not done solely by DND, there are a huge amounts of federal governmental department that have a say or add to each contract..."perhaps Flyer can expand on this" he has seen first hand all the issues with purchasing...anything....it took 10 plus years just to buy new 9 mm pistols....If the military was allotted a pot of money and told go out and buy new pistols i'm sure it could be done in a few years ...but add to the fact that each purchase is political it takes 10 years...consider an average purchase time... The only nation that could produce the results your looking for is Canada itself, every other nation has it's own agenda...and while our military is almost non existent it's military industrial complex is even smaller, making it ourselves is the only answer to your demands, that being said we only fund our military every 30 to 40 years, what company is going to wait for military orders for that long.... We still have to stick with those we are in alliance with...Russia and China are threats to our national security and have been since the close of WWII, and Korea, the US on the other hand has been our allied for hundreds of years, and most likely hundreds more after trump has faded into the sun set...canceling military contracts does not make any sense just becasue he has fill the media with empty threats...US is a trusted source as a whole.... I never said that public opinion does not make a difference, i said I don't care about political interference in military procurement.......public opinion is everything...and public opinion is why we are today, that works both ways when pointing fingers....military members are getting out in record numbers, because of this public opinion...Military members are asking themselves why should i sign up for our military and possibly lose their lives when the public could not even bother to equip them properly....our equipment is to old, the training budget is almost non existent, the military is asked to do more with less, hence my signature below... The military has always been constrained by our own government and people, that is nothing new, It was our government and people who gave the US responsibility for our defence...and bragged about it over and over again...waking up today and telling everyone we got this is not all that ensuring, now for what i'm gathering your telling us sit down we will tell you what to buy and where to buy it because we are in charge now... kind of like getting your house built by the police department...or your wife picking out your tools....hey be happy i bought the leaf blower instead of the lawn mower...now go cut the grass... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted March 21 Report Posted March 21 15 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Thats the point , Canadians and our government don't really care OR we would not be in the crises we are right now...and yes i am very aware that our military is a political tool.. In the eyes of those tasked with protection of this country, protection that might cost them their lives, it is the only consideration....what considerations would trump the lives of Canadians.... How the army is equipped should be solely a military decision, with a few exception such as strategic equipment such as Nuclear weapons' etc...how and what equipment to be purchased like tanks, aircraft, ships should be done by the military, with politicians approving the amount of funds that can be used... How the army is equipped, how the army is used and deployed, how the army is structured are all political factors. The army does not exist on its own independent of the nation and the nation is political. Do you let your wife / Kids pick out your power tools, or your car, or your Home....No but your wife does care how much you spend How the Army is used or deployed is a political decision, the military serves our government and it's wishes... Today purchases of military equipment is not done solely by DND, there are a huge amounts of federal governmental department that have a say or add to each contract..."perhaps Flyer can expand on this" he has seen first hand all the issues with purchasing...anything....it took 10 plus years just to buy new 9 mm pistols....If the military was allotted a pot of money and told go out and buy new pistols i'm sure it could be done in a few years ...but add to the fact that each purchase is political it takes 10 years...consider an average purchase time... The only nation that could produce the results your looking for is Canada itself, every other nation has it's own agenda...and while our military is almost non existent it's military industrial complex is even smaller, making it ourselves is the only answer to your demands, that being said we only fund our military every 30 to 40 years, what company is going to wait for military orders for that long.... We still have to stick with those we are in alliance with...Russia and China are threats to our national security and have been since the close of WWII, and Korea, the US on the other hand has been our allied for hundreds of years, and most likely hundreds more after trump has faded into the sun set...canceling military contracts does not make any sense just becasue he has fill the media with empty threats...US is a trusted source as a whole.... I never said that public opinion does not make a difference, i said I don't care about political interference in military procurement.......public opinion is everything...and public opinion is why we are today, that works both ways when pointing fingers....military members are getting out in record numbers, because of this public opinion...Military members are asking themselves why should i sign up for our military and possibly lose their lives when the public could not even bother to equip them properly....our equipment is to old, the training budget is almost non existent, the military is asked to do more with less, hence my signature below... The military has always been constrained by our own government and people, that is nothing new, It was our government and people who gave the US responsibility for our defence...and bragged about it over and over again...waking up today and telling everyone we got this is not all that ensuring, now for what i'm gathering your telling us sit down we will tell you what to buy and where to buy it because we are in charge now... kind of like getting your house built by the police department...or your wife picking out your tools....hey be happy i bought the leaf blower instead of the lawn mower...now go cut the grass... I get the sentiment. In a logical world government was set the budget and the military would spend that budget as best they feel they could to achieve their goals. We can all agree that that way makes the most sense. That's simply not how it works. And the military that tries to fight that is pretty much destined to wind up not getting anything. Has to the Americans they have not been our allies for hundreds of years. I don't know where you got that but it's just simply not true. They invaded our territories in 1812, we formed into a country because there was a threat of invasion and the united states cut off our free trade agreement back in the 1850s and England said we think they're coming for you you better form a country, They were hostile to us right up until after world war II. There have been many border conflicts that is escalated into shooting conflicts. They didn't show up in world war 1 till most of our people were dead and they didn't show up in world war II until someone bombed the snot out of them. In fact they have never been great allies and what allies they have been has been Since world war II, or more accurately for less than half of our existence And they're not our allies now. They are threatening us and there have been undertones of physical threat as well. They are not our allies. We should not be buying equipment from them. Any more than we should buy it from Russia or anywhere else like that And like I say, a military that ignores that and doesn't read the room is going to wind up with nothing and no purchases Quote
Army Guy Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 54 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I get the sentiment. In a logical world government was set the budget and the military would spend that budget as best they feel they could to achieve their goals. We can all agree that that way makes the most sense. That's simply not how it works. And the military that tries to fight that is pretty much destined to wind up not getting anything. Has to the Americans they have not been our allies for hundreds of years. I don't know where you got that but it's just simply not true. They invaded our territories in 1812, we formed into a country because there was a threat of invasion and the united states cut off our free trade agreement back in the 1850s and England said we think they're coming for you you better form a country, They were hostile to us right up until after world war II. There have been many border conflicts that is escalated into shooting conflicts. They didn't show up in world war 1 till most of our people were dead and they didn't show up in world war II until someone bombed the snot out of them. In fact they have never been great allies and what allies they have been has been Since world war II, or more accurately for less than half of our existence And they're not our allies now. They are threatening us and there have been undertones of physical threat as well. They are not our allies. We should not be buying equipment from them. Any more than we should buy it from Russia or anywhere else like that And like I say, a military that ignores that and doesn't read the room is going to wind up with nothing and no purchases The government designed it that way as with most things under governmental control , nothing makes sense, and if it does someone will quickly change it... You mean something that has happened for the last 30 years or so...So the military really has nothing to lose in this case you put forth...If the civilian population knew how the procurement system really worked it would demand change...which is long over due... Not sure of your definition of hostile, but i'm unaware of any shooting conflicts with the us in the last 150 years...Your talking about a time in history when we were or rather seen ourselves linked to the British crown....since the second world war we have been a close allied with the US. To throw all that away because of one mad man is silly considering the time he is going to be in power.... They are our allied, like it or not....one president does not define that, nor does a few tariffs......in four years we will continue to buy american hardware....because it is some of the best in the world...the fact that China has held Canadians hostages for years, put on major tariffs on multi occasions and we somehow still manage to buy almost everything from them... it seems we are very selective in using your logic.... The military has no need to read the room, it has no power or say in government, nor does it have a say it what major equipment it purchases period..., it does not enjoy the support of the people, it takes whatever scraps it can get and smiles and says thank you...and the condition of your military is in the state it is because of that...our military is not in control of itself or of anything....and even when it does all of that it still does not change how it is treated or what equipment it gets ... Taking politics out of equipment purchases would change very little for the government they control the money, military controls spending....government ensures it is all above board. right now Military sends in specs sheet for what it wants some civilian purchaser from PWSG goes out and see what meets those specs once chosen DND tests it all sends in a report which means squator very little ...government picks whatever equipment it wants...rarely do they get it right... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: The government designed it that way as with most things under governmental control , nothing makes sense, and if it does someone will quickly change it... You mean something that has happened for the last 30 years or so...So the military really has nothing to lose in this case you put forth...If the civilian population knew how the procurement system really worked it would demand change...which is long over due... I have a little doubt that that's true, but we're beginning to conflate two different issues. There are the problems with the procurement process itself and there are the political realities that any process will have to operate under 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Not sure of your definition of hostile, but i'm unaware of any shooting conflicts with the us in the last 150 years.. Oh there have been but they were long ago. But i don't recall any shooting wars with russia either. I would consider them hostile. Haven't had any wars with china but i wouldn't really call them 'friendly' either. 6 minutes ago, Army Guy said: The military has no need to read the room, They do if they want to have gear that's less than 100 years old. I'm sorry but you lament the fact that you're not being taken seriously by the public in one breath and then in the next breath insist that you do not need to be concerned with the public. Reality is reality and you can either deal with it or you can ignore it and suffer the unfortunate consequences I'm not having the support you need 8 minutes ago, Army Guy said: right now Military sends in specs sheet for what it wants some civilian purchaser from PWSG goes out and see what meets those specs once chosen DND tests it all sends in a report which means squator very little ...government picks whatever equipment it wants...rarely do they get it right... Yeah, sounds stupid. The procurement process should change and there should be less government involvement in the minutiae But it is not up to the military to decide which countries are safe to deal with him which are not. That is a political decision. Edited March 22 by CdnFox Quote
eyeball Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: To throw all that away because of one mad man is silly considering the time he is going to be in power.... They are our allied, like it or not....one president does not define that, nor does a few tariffs... It's not just one man, it's also the millions of Americans who voted for him. MAGA Republicans, (are there any other kind left?) are not our friends and we do not want them as allies. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 (edited) 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: I 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: I have a little doubt that that's true, but we're beginning to conflate two different issues. There are the problems with the procurement process itself and there are the political realities that any process will have to operate under Oh there have been but they were long ago. But i don't recall any shooting wars with russia either. I would consider them hostile. Haven't had any wars with china but i wouldn't really call them 'friendly' either. They do if they want to have gear that's less than 100 years old. I'm sorry but you lament the fact that you're not being taken seriously by the public in one breath and then in the next breath insist that you do not need to be concerned with the public. Reality is reality and you can either deal with it or you can ignore it and suffer the unfortunate consequences I'm not having the support you need Yeah, sounds stupid. The procurement process should change and there should be less government involvement in the minutiae But it is not up to the military to decide which countries are safe to deal with him which are not. That is a political decision. Sure there is the military is just another cash cow....for people to take advantage off. it has very little to do with what the military wants....look at the irving ship building program as an example it has gone from 20 bil to well over 100 bil...we just signed a contract for 3 ships at 22 plus billion, how many even blink an eye at that...only 12 more ships to go...thats almost more than the brits paid for their aircraft carrier... you don't remember the cold war....that was with Russia, and as for China, well there is Korea, and the cold war as well. The military has never let this nation down, at any time....they have done exactly as they have been told....you can't say that's true for the opposite side of the coin...and what has it got them...gear that's older than 40 years old...Our military is the way it is because of our government and canadian people want it that way....no more or no less.. you make it sound like the military does not suck up enough, or do enough for the nation...you don't have to be a military expert to see, things are in crisis mode for the military....and this rate it won't be long before the military is not repairable members of the military see that and are are deciding that if their own country men can't make it their priority then why should THEY make it theirs...because somehow Canadians have found a new sense of pride ...or we have been threaten with words by the US...they have been ringing the bell for over 30 years now and nobody cares then ....so yes i'm saying most Canadians don't care about our military, there is not much national pride in our nation and today's generation don't really feel that connected to the nation or our culture to serve...Military did not do that...Canadians did that...and thats not going to change anytime soon, hard to get excited about something the public has not done in over 30 years....i waited 35 years for that to happen...still not here yet....but one man threatens to take over Canada and suddenly it is game on....i really hope for our nations sake this turn out alright and the military gets something out if it...but historically it has not happened yet.... So the military knows nothing is going to get better until a majority of Canadians support the military, and not many members get excited when there is a small burst of support from the people, they seen it hundreds of times, it will go away after the election...wait and see...election promises will come and go, and 4 years from now we will still be waiting for artic bases, i mean harper artic base is only half completed rusting away never used....it is not just a liberal issue, conservatives have done the same thing... The military has not decided anything in this matter, nor will it ever, unless we go to war.......the government and many on here have gone on the bandwagon and decided to go on the warpath, it is not well thought out, nor is it good for both nations, it is a verbal augment that our heads of state are in, nothing more....all talk.... it's like divorcing your wife every time you have a disagreement....and the military is caught in the middle....and is being used as a political football....we all think things are going to be much better on the european side....must have been sooo goood for the UK as they decided to leave....we always want the grass on the other side of the fence....but it is the same grass, Edited March 22 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
TreeBeard Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 Trump wants to sell his allies jets that are “dumbed down”. https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid-trump-wants-to-sell-us-fighter-jets-that-cant-fight-no-thank-you Quote
Army Guy Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 1 hour ago, eyeball said: It's not just one man, it's also the millions of Americans who voted for him. MAGA Republicans, (are there any other kind left?) are not our friends and we do not want them as allies. Sure let's paint them all with one brush....becasue that is what adults do Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 (edited) 10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Trump wants to sell his allies jets that are “dumbed down”. https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid-trump-wants-to-sell-us-fighter-jets-that-cant-fight-no-thank-you you do know every country has equipment that they produce for their use and then equipment they sell that is export versions of that equipment or dumbed down versions....Again the air force knew about this before they picked the F-35 in three separate competitions....not to mention there are 1000 of these aircraft produced today, and not one country has complained about anything the f-35 has to offer...except when trump came along...now for some reason it is garbage but what does the air force know about flying stuff....right.... Edited March 22 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 3 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Sure let's paint them all with one brush....becasue that is what adults do Not all of them, but certainly MAGA, its tickled pink with what Trump is doing. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted March 22 Report Posted March 22 50 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Sure there is the military is just another cash cow....for people to take advantage off. it has very little to do with what the military wants....look at the irving ship building program as an example it has gone from 20 bil to well over 100 bil...we just signed a contract for 3 ships at 22 plus billion, how many even blink an eye at that...only 12 more ships to go...thats almost more than the brits paid for their aircraft carrier... you don't remember the cold war....that was with Russia, and as for China, well there is Korea, and the cold war as well. The military has never let this nation down, at any time....they have done exactly as they have been told....you can't say that's true for the opposite side of the coin...and what has it got them...gear that's older than 40 years old...Our military is the way it is because of our government and canadian people want it that way....no more or no less.. you make it sound like the military does not suck up enough, or do enough for the nation...you don't have to be a military expert to see, things are in crisis mode for the military....and this rate it won't be long before the military is not repairable members of the military see that and are are deciding that if their own country men can't make it their priority then why should THEY make it theirs...because somehow Canadians have found a new sense of pride ...or we have been threaten with words by the US...they have been ringing the bell for over 30 years now and nobody cares then ....so yes i'm saying most Canadians don't care about our military, there is not much national pride in our nation and today's generation don't really feel that connected to the nation or our culture to serve...Military did not do that...Canadians did that...and thats not going to change anytime soon, hard to get excited about something the public has not done in over 30 years....i waited 35 years for that to happen...still not here yet....but one man threatens to take over Canada and suddenly it is game on....i really hope for our nations sake this turn out alright and the military gets something out if it...but historically it has not happened yet.... So the military knows nothing is going to get better until a majority of Canadians support the military, and not many members get excited when there is a small burst of support from the people, they seen it hundreds of times, it will go away after the election...wait and see...election promises will come and go, and 4 years from now we will still be waiting for artic bases, i mean harper artic base is only half completed rusting away never used....it is not just a liberal issue, conservatives have done the same thing... The military has not decided anything in this matter, nor will it ever, unless we go to war.......the government and many on here have gone on the bandwagon and decided to go on the warpath, it is not well thought out, nor is it good for both nations, it is a verbal augment that our heads of state are in, nothing more....all talk.... it's like divorcing your wife every time you have a disagreement....and the military is caught in the middle....and is being used as a political football....we all think things are going to be much better on the european side....must have been sooo goood for the UK as they decided to leave....we always want the grass on the other side of the fence....but it is the same grass, I think you're misreading what i said a bit. I am certainly not chastizing the military for not "sucking it up" or claiming the military has "let anyone down". At all. I'll be crystal clear, i think the precise opposite is true. What i'm saying is that the military is a political entity and a political tool at the end of the day and the military has to face the political realities and also learn to play the politics game well. That's just the way it is. And they have to respect that it's the politicians who decide which country is or is not a threat and whether they can be bought from, and the politicians serve the people. And find a way to work with what they have access to within that framework and get people excited about it so that they get behind it 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
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.