Canadian jet fighter purchase when?

[Chas2019]

Canada has called for bids to replacement fighter jets. What bothers me is the likelihood it will get bogged in politics and go nowhere. I am sure Australia will sell more of their used F18's if needed.:rolleyes:



https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-government-requests-bids-for-new-fighter-jets-amid-concerns-process-favours-f-35s

[Longtimer]

Canada has called for bids to replacement fighter jets. What bothers me is the likelihood it will get bogged in politics and go nowhere. I am sure Australia will sell more of their used F18's if needed.:rolleyes:



https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-government-requests-bids-for-new-fighter-jets-amid-concerns-process-favours-f-35s

So far the used F18s are in better shape than the used British Subs were / are. :)

[grizzled]

So far the used F18s are in better shape than the used British Subs were / are. :)

Hahaha! Excellent point, Longtimer.

The Canadian gov't seems to prefer shopping at thrift shops rather than buy anything new (65 year old pipelines, 30 year old submarines and aircraft, etc.). If they do buy something new the purchase invariably involves (coincidentally of course) buying from one of several Quebec based companies that Canadian taxpayers have been keeping afloat for years. Sigh...

grizz

[standbykid]

There was this brilliantly handled project too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sea_King_replacement

[Chas2019]

Hahaha! Excellent point, Longtimer.

The Canadian gov't seems to prefer shopping at thrift shops rather than buy anything new (65 year old pipelines, 30 year old submarines and aircraft, etc.). If they do buy something new the purchase invariably involves (coincidentally of course) buying from one of several Quebec based companies that Canadian taxpayers have been keeping afloat for years. Sigh...

grizz

it seems that Quebec industry must be kept afloat for the sake of the country...ships, planes, tanks whatever need a quebec input.

[yyzflightpath]

What direction do you think properly suits Canada's needs? The expensive F-35 fighter bomber from Lockheed? F-18's from Boeing which just torpedoed Bombardier aerospace alongside the US government? Or technologically inferior and less-compatible options like the Gripen or Eurofighter? There simply is no good option on the market right now for Canada. I think the apparent plan to cobble together whatever parts are required through used purchases at least through 2022 is likely prudent. If you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

PS grizzled: A bombardier equivalent based anywhere else in Canada would also consistently be in the running for large Canadian transportation contracts. There simply is not any equivalent transportation and aerospace company in Canada. I loath this petty and simple minded regionalism where we hope for our countrymen to fail, generally to the benefit of foreign corporations. Plenty of other companies in our country, and around the world receive large subsidies and tax benefits to keep them competitive. There is no reason to slag off Quebec companies just because you don't like the province or you think somehow all the politicians in Canada only work for Quebec votes.

[grizzled]

Hi yyzflightpath, and welcome to pprune.

I'm going to cut you some slack -- as you're new here -- and not jump to conclusions about you or make ad hominem attacks, like you did to me: accusing me of "petty and simple-minded regionalism", which I can only assume means you believe criticism of a federal government decision or action that involves my tax dollars, and happens to also involve Quebec, is based on some kind of innate prejudice rather than a considered position or philosophy relating to use of my tax dollars.

I did NOT say, or even allude to not liking the province, nor did I say anything about politicians working only for Quebec votes. Most importantly I was not slagging off Quebec companies; of course there are many Quebec based companies that neither ask for nor receive federal government funds to bail them out. I simply don't like my tax dollars being used to bail out companies that would otherwise be losing great whacks of money, or even be insolvent. Alberta, Quebec, BC -- Nova Scotia, wherever. For a lot of reasons the majority of such bailouts in Canada have been directed to Quebec based enterprises. If you want to continue this discussion with considered opinions, facts and figures, I'm happy to do so.

grizz

[Mostly Harmless]

There is no reason to.... think somehow all the politicians in Canada only work for Quebec votes.

No reason?

Adscam.
SNC Lavalin.
Bombardier

Yes, there are reasons. The list could go on for a very long time and include all the policies designed to cripple the economies of other regions in Canada as well as the bailouts and transfer payments, but these are a good primer.

[yyzflightpath]

The auto industry (also potentially the green energy industry) in Ontario, and oil and gas development out west have both received massive subsidy supports far beyond the $ value bombardier or likely any Quebec corporation ever received. The simple fact is many industries are given subsidy support and federal government support to keep them competitive. Aerospace in particular is generally a government backed venture, from Boeing to Airbus to Embraer all major manufactures have received large subsidy. The benefits of this kind of industry and related industries are generally seen to be worthy of government backing. It's simple minded to think that bombardier does not serve the national interest and is only supported to win votes in Quebec.

No reason?

Adscam.
SNC Lavalin.
Bombardier

Yes, there are reasons. The list could go on for a very long time and include all the policies designed to cripple the economies of other regions in Canada as well as the bailouts and transfer payments, but these are a good primer.

Adscam - kickback scheme total fraud ~$3.5 million
SNC lavalin - Received worse punishment than virtually any other corporation caught in similar circumstances. The Euro's and the American's would have come to a deferred prosecution agreement if they even bothered investigating their own firms for foreign contract bribery.
Bombardier - Aerospace/Transportation company receiving subsidies, like virtually every other similar company on the face of the globe.

You guys can go ahead and believe you are being rational and logical, but in reality you're just perpetuating small minded Canadian regionalism to the detriment of this country.

[VFR Only Please]

Great, an argument over Canadian politics.

People who talk about "tax dollars" paying for these things need to bone up on modern monetary theory. That simply isn't how it works anymore, and hasn't been since we went off the gold standard almost half a century ago.

Quebec has a lot of seats in parliament. Any government with political sense will want to keep it sweet -- hence all the federal installations of various kinds there. But subsidies to a specific company? Maybe in a marginal riding ...

The auto industry (also potentially the green energy industry) in Ontario, and oil and gas development out west have both received massive subsidy supports far beyond the $ value bombardier or likely any Quebec corporation ever received. (...)

Right. In my Ontario childhood it was always explained that part of the tax on gasoline went to develop Alberta's oil industry and hence Canadian energy autonomy. And then what did we see during the 1970s energy crisis? Bumper stickers in Alberta saying "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" Gosh, thanks.
Well it always was a centrifugal country.

Anyway, back to the thread topic. What Canadian government at the moment would go so low as to purchase an American fighter after recent (and not-so-recent) events?

Also (I have to ask this), what purpose do these fighters serve? To strafe Edmonton should Alberta decide to become the 51st state? I'm now citizen of a country where I ask exactly the same question. Some people can get pretty huffy, but nobody has yet produced a convincing answer. And yes, they're F18s, and yes, they're a-gittin' old.

[Chas2019]

Great, an argument over Canadian politics.

People who talk about "tax dollars" paying for these things need to bone up on modern monetary theory. That simply isn't how it works anymore, and hasn't been since we went off the gold standard almost half a century ago.

Quebec has a lot of seats in parliament. Any government with political sense will want to keep it sweet -- hence all the federal installations of various kinds there. But subsidies to a specific company? Maybe in a marginal riding ...



Right. In my Ontario childhood it was always explained that part of the tax on gasoline went to develop Alberta's oil industry and hence Canadian energy autonomy. And then what did we see during the 1970s energy crisis? Bumper stickers in Alberta saying "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" Gosh, thanks.
Well it always was a centrifugal country.

Anyway, back to the thread topic. What Canadian government at the moment would go so low as to purchase an American fighter after recent (and not-so-recent) events?

Also (I have to ask this), what purpose do these fighters serve? To strafe Edmonton should Alberta decide to become the 51st state? I'm now citizen of a country where I ask exactly the same question. Some people can get pretty huffy, but nobody has yet produced a convincing answer. And yes, they're F18s, and yes, they're a-gittin' old.

The Canadian government will only buy american planes as that it the way it has to be because of historic reasons.. The Gripen and Eurofighter are included to make it look like a competition. lol.

[grizzled]

Some here seem to be confusing "subsidies" with "fraud, bribery or kickbacks,".

Specifically, yyzflightpath, if you truly believe that a "deferred prosecution agreement" was / is suitable for SNC Lavalin, I suggest you haven't researched (or perhaps don't care) how they do business and why many Canadians (and others around the globe) consider SNC Lavalin to be an embarrassment to Canada.
How about this short list of proven frauds or scandals involving SNC Lavalin:

Kerala hydro dam (India)
Jacques-Cartier bridge (Montreal)
Illegal political donations (Canada)
Corruption, fraud, money laundering (Libya)
McGill University Health Care (Montreal) – referred to by some as “the biggest fraud in Canadian history”.
Padma bridge (Bangladesh)

I have listed six but there are more. How many more? -- Here’s a summary of SNC Lavalin’s activities and reputation on the world stage:

SNC Lavalin is in the midst of a 10 year ban on bidding for, or being involved in any way, in any World Bank related contracts. The ban was invoked after the Libya affair caused the World Bank to look deeper into SNC Lavalin’s involvement in contracts.
Here are some statistics from the World Bank that make Canada look like a modern day mafia hideout: “Of the more than 250 firms that are banned from bidding on World Bank contracts, 117 are from Canada. Think that's bad (it is)? There’s something even more sinister: SNC and its affiliated companies represent 115 of those 117 companies.

Contemplate all the above -- objectively if you can -- and then tell me again that my opposition to bailouts (and issuing free passes as in Deferred Prosecution Agreements) is because I'm biased against Quebec. I'm biased against giving any of my money to such companies anywhere.

Your serve...

[UltraFan]

In all honesty, does Canada even need an air force? And I'm saying that with all due respect. They have good relationships with everyone. They don't have "archenemies". They have a big strong ally who will defend them if not as a friend then as a buffer zone. Why bother with all this procurement? I'm sure that money can be spent better. Maybe in Quebec. :)

[grizzled]

Ultrafan, I think your first question is a very good one. Analysis of what Canada really needs (v/s wants) for military capability doesn't seem to happen in the higher echelons. Spending billions on fighters, as opposed for example, to much better equipped and resourced SAR capability, is something many Canadians would want to hear more open and realistic discussion on.

grizzz

[4runner]

Anyway, back to the thread topic. What Canadian government at the moment would go so low as to purchase an American fighter after recent (and not-so-recent) events?

interoperability. Your closest neighbor, NATO partner and ally perhaps...

[4runner]

In all honesty, does Canada even need an air force? And I'm saying that with all due respect. They have good relationships with everyone. They don't have "archenemies". They have a big strong ally who will defend them if not as a friend then as a buffer zone. Why bother with all this procurement? I'm sure that money can be spent better. Maybe in Quebec. :)

defence/defense commitments. NATO and UN come to mind. National pride as well. You guys would get made fun of by the bigger kids too if you didn’t have an Air Force with any fangs. The Kenyans have a squadron of F-5’s and the Dutch have 6.5 million people and have greater offensive capability than you do...

[RobertP]

There was this brilliantly handled project too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sea_King_replacement
Correct, an absolute disaster in procurement. Completely the wrong aircraft and still not in service either. Canada is the only country and will remain the only country to order this helicopter because it is not suitable for its intended use.
Military procurement in Canada is a complete mismanagement of public money and is a disgrace to the taxpayers of Canada.

[ramble on]

Canada's position is similar to Australia's and I often wonder what Australia is going to do when the enemy or it’s 5th columnists simply attack the handful of runways, the couple of dozen pilots on the ground (or their families) and the incredibly insecure weak and tenuous support infrastructure (water, food, fuel, ammunition & transport).

We too are living in la la land thinking that a couple of handfuls of FA18s or F35s give us any degree of superiority against smarter more dedicated ruthless and numerous adversary.

We will be overcome by a swarm of simple technology.

[Imagegear]

......that make Canada look like a Quebec a modern day mafia hideout:

There you go...fixed it for you..:E

IG

[SeenItAll]

defence/defense commitments. NATO and UN come to mind. National pride as well. You guys would get made fun of by the bigger kids too if you didn’t have an Air Force with any fangs. The Kenyans have a squadron of F-5’s and the Dutch have 6.5 million people and have greater offensive capability than you do...


Just to keep things factual. The Netherlands has a population of 17 million, not 6.5 million. So it it is about 46% as populous as Canada, not 17.5% as populous. But point taken.

[Back door]

Correct, an absolute disaster in procurement. Completely the wrong aircraft and still not in service either. Canada is the only country and will remain the only country to order this helicopter because it is not suitable for its intended use.
Military procurement in Canada is a complete mismanagement of public money and is a disgrace to the taxpayers of Canada.

The aircraft is indeed in service

[UltraFan]

defence/defense commitments. NATO and UN come to mind. National pride as well. You guys would get made fun of by the bigger kids too if you didn’t have an Air Force with any fangs. The Kenyans have a squadron of F-5’s and the Dutch have 6.5 million people and have greater offensive capability than you do...

National pride? Start a basic military training program at schools like USSR used to have and some European countries have now. A nation that has no large military force and still maintains its safety through other means (particularly diplomacy and good will) is much more respectable in my book than sabre rattling bullies.

And as for bigger kids laughing (and at the risk of derailing the thread), the biggest laugh I had at Canada was when their parliament spent 36 million dollars to investigate a 1-million overspend.

My point is two-fold:

1. Canada's geographic, climatic and political position makes them an extremely unlikely target for any foes, and
2. Even if Canada buys all fighters in the world, their offensive capabilities will still be nill - they are too far from any adversary. (Except one, but Canada attacking the US is less likely than Vulcans attacking Clingons.)

[UltraFan]

...against smarter more dedicated ruthless and numerous adversary.
May I kindly ask who you mean? More dedicated, ruthless and numerous adversary to Australia... I can't imagine. More numerous - definitely Indonesia, but they are hardly ruthless. China and Malaysia are simply too far and, again, not ruthless. Papua New Guinea - hardly dedicated. And Australia has good relationships with all of them. I don't think any nation other than Japan has ever tried to challenge Australia.

Seriously, who Australia considers potential military adversaries?

[Mostly Harmless]

The auto industry (also potentially the green energy industry) in Ontario, and oil and gas development out west have both received massive subsidy supports far beyond the $ value bombardier or likely any Quebec corporation ever received.


Please provide an example where the government of Canada has ever cut a cheque to an oil company. I know this is a beloved myth in certain circles but I can find zero actual times that any government has cut a cheque to an oil company to keep them in business.

You guys can go ahead and believe you are being rational and logical, but in reality you're just perpetuating small minded Canadian regionalism to the detriment of this country.

It strikes me that the one being small minded and regional is you. Besides, you said there were no reasons. I was kindly showing you that you there are reasons. The fact you are not happy about that does not change the facts. And, of course, if that's not good enough then there is always this from our current Prime Minister. https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=680559242068813&_rdr

In my Ontario childhood it was always explained that part of the tax on gasoline went to develop Alberta's oil industry and hence Canadian energy autonomy.

I have no doubt you were told that, but it simply is not true. If you can provide a source that contradicts me, I'd be happy to read it.

And then what did we see during the 1970s energy crisis? Bumper stickers in Alberta saying "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" Gosh, thanks.


Yes, there was a lot of well deserved anger out west at the time. Perhaps you forgot something called the National Energy Program wherein the Prime Minister of Canada, a fellow by the name of Trudeau, decided to nationalize the oil industry. All the companies fled Canada, taking their equipment with them. In case you want an example of how well this works out, Venezuela recently nationalized their oil industry and are a shining example of how well this works. So, Trudeau drove an economically prosperous province into a recession (some would argue depression) that took 15 to 20 years to recover from. Since I lived it, watching my parents both lose their jobs (neither worked in the oil industry), my sibling lose their house and my friend's families all suffering similar fates... there was a lot of anger against central Canada and the seat of power. If you ever wonder why the name Trudeau is still seen as a curse out west, just remember this one person was hell bent on destroying the country to support 2 provinces... one of which you seem to have lived in at the time. Your benefit at my expense. Before you go lecturing me on the events, just tell me you lived through it in any province that wasn't Ontario or Quebec.

Democracy is all about numbers and getting reelected... sadly. The truth is, you only need to win in two provinces to become the ruling party. Any politician trying to get elected will put their resources into giving those two whatever they want even if it is at the expense of the remaining eight provinces and two territories. Liberal, NDP, Green or Conservative, it matters not. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/allo&document=index&lang=e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada Good governance would have a party concerned about all the nation's stake holders. But that doesn't happen often as most of the effort is placed into getting to the seat of power. To do that, you need to win at least one of the two big provinces and several others or, just the big two. It is the reality of our nation.

In all honesty, does Canada even need an air force? And I'm saying that with all due respect. They have good relationships with everyone. They don't have "archenemies". They have a big strong ally who will defend them if not as a friend then as a buffer zone.

Yes. Yes it does. I'm not sure where this concept that we should just leave our own national defense to someone else and hope that they will bear the expense out of the goodness of their heart. Have you followed the news lately? The citizens of the USA are not happy they have been footing the bill for the defense of other nations since at least the 60's. If we want their help, we need to pay for it in one form or another. It would be a lovely day when we don't need a military to defend sovereignty but today is not that day.



My point is two-fold:

1. Canada's geographic, climatic and political position makes them an extremely unlikely target for any foes, and
2. Even if Canada buys all fighters in the world, their offensive capabilities will still be nill - they are too far from any adversary. (Except one, but Canada attacking the US is less likely than Vulcans attacking Clingons.)

Do you realize we are sitting on some of the largest reserves of precious metals and fresh water in the world? Why do you think the Russians have been rearming the arctic? They aren't likely to launch a full scale attack but they are likely to just move in and claim a stake like they did in the Baltic. What then? Roll over and let them have it or hope the Americans come to the damsel in distresses aid? Currently, we are part of a block of nations that use their limited resources as a single unit to prevent such things... but if we are a non-contributing member, others may not wish to risk their resources and lives to protect your freeloading backside. Just something to think about.

The worst thing about all of this is how badly we procure anything for the military. Every politician wants their stamp on things they know nothing about... and when the military does things right (Vice Admiral Mark Norman) people get punished for getting in the way of the politician. Until swarm technology and drones are good enough to do the job, we need something at least capable of presenting a deterrent. No one likes to pay for defense... it's exactly like paying for car insurance. You fork over money in the hopes you will never have to use it but you are always happy that it is there the day you need it.

[UltraFan]

Yes. Yes it does. I'm not sure where this concept that we should just leave our own national defense to someone else and hope that they will bear the expense out of the goodness of their heart. Have you followed the news lately? The citizens of the USA are not happy they have been footing the bill for the defense of other nations since at least the 60's. If we want their help, we need to pay for it in one form or another. It would be a lovely day when we don't need a military to defend sovereignty but today is not that day.
Well, the citizens of the USA may be happy or not but it was their government who started the arms race and got all their "allies" to follow. NATO was founded with just one purpose - fight the imaginary battles with imaginary enemies of a paranoid US president with huge daddy issues. NOBODY is challenging your sovereignity, and the only country that ever tried still has their queen on your money. And today IS the day when you can simply say, enough. You don't need to "foot the bill" for "defense", because you simply don't have enemies. A billion dollars invested in diplomacy will go MUCH further than a billion spent on fighters.

Do you realize we are sitting on some of the largest reserves of precious metals and fresh water in the world? Why do you think the Russians have been rearming the arctic? They aren't likely to launch a full scale attack but they are likely to just move in and claim a stake like they did in the Baltic. What then? Roll over and let them have it or hope the Americans come to the damsel in distresses aid?
Bear with me. So, the Russians are re-arming the Arctic because their own precious metals, oil, gas, diamonds and fresh water they have in their own Far North are somehow inferior to Canadian? And they want to abandon their own icy deserts to conquer yours? Do you realize how outdated this outlook is? You are trying to fight a war that has already ended. And it ended 30 years ago.

As for the USSR invading the Baltin republics, two things you are forgetting. One, the Baltics were Russian for 300 years before that and were only independent from 1918 till 1940. So they were taking BACK what was theirs. Just like, say, US wants Cuba back. And two, it was 80 years ago. Eighty years ago water taps in America were marked "white" and "coloreds", France executed people with guillotine, and women weren't considered clever enough to vote in Canada. Are they all still the same countries? Or has the world moved on?

Currently, we are part of a block of nations that use their limited resources as a single unit to prevent such things... but if we are a non-contributing member, others may not wish to risk their resources and lives to protect your freeloading backside. Just something to think about.

Indeed! It's a block of nations that none of those nations need. And Canada needs it the least. A huge country with most of it under permanent ice. What do you do with it even if you decide to take it? Farm polar bears? Fresh water? You know what Russia has more than any other country in the world, except Brasil? Fresh water. So what exactly are you "defending"? And from whom?

it's exactly like paying for car insurance. You fork over money in the hopes you will never have to use it but you are always happy that it is there the day you need it.
The difference between military expenditure and car insurance is that you at least get something in return from car insurance. I seriously doubt Canada will get much from 80 fighters in case of an imaginary potential conflict with Russia.

[Mostly Harmless]

Well, I guess as far as you are concerned all that needs to be said has been said and the matter is closed. No discussion required.

[Asturias56]

"More dedicated, ruthless and numerous adversary to Australia... I can't imagine. More numerous - definitely Indonesia, but they are hardly ruthless."

If you've ever seen someone in Java run amok you might change your mind....... luckily it's rare and only affects individuals but if you read up on 1965/66 the whole country went crazy - and wiped out maybe 500,000 - 750,000 of their neighbours. I knew a guy who was there at the time (and did over 30 years in total) and he always said there's a lot of repressed tension there

[Old Dogs]

The aircraft is indeed in service

.... sort of.

It is still nowhere near full capability.

[Old Dogs]

Sukhoi 35 is one of the best aircraft out there.

Tough, reliable, twin-engined and an excellent performer.

Some may be worried about Russia attacking the West, I'm not.

I'm more worried about China.

[DelusionsOfCurrency]

. No one likes to pay for defense... it's exactly like paying for car insurance. You fork over money in the hopes you will never have to use it but you are always happy that it is there the day you need it.

Totally agree with the gist of your post. But on this point, I would say more like home insurance. The purpose of auto insurance is to sustain an inherently dangerous transport system for economic purposes by socializing the cost of injury and material damage. That's why motoring interest groups lobbied for mandatory insurance way back when. It prevents drivers from having to face the true consequences of their actions. Ironically, we have been conditioned to believe that having insurance is a sign of responsibility. And so blatant is the socialization-of-cost purpose that, at least here in the People's Republic of BC, it's run exclusively by the government.

[Old Dogs]

[QUOTE=Mostly Harmless;10529067]Please provide an example where the government of Canada has ever cut a cheque to an oil company. I know this is a beloved myth in certain circles but I can find zero actual times that any government has cut a cheque to an oil company to keep them in business.

Please inform yourself:

https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/​​​​​​

[Old Dogs]

Well, the citizens of the USA may be happy or not but it was their government who started the arms race and got all their "allies" to follow. NATO was founded with just one purpose - fight the imaginary battles with imaginary enemies of a paranoid US president with huge daddy issues. NOBODY is challenging your sovereignity, and the only country that ever tried still has their queen on your money. And today IS the day when you can simply say, enough. You don't need to "foot the bill" for "defense", because you simply don't have enemies. A billion dollars invested in diplomacy will go MUCH further than a billion spent on fighters.


Bear with me. So, the Russians are re-arming the Arctic because their own precious metals, oil, gas, diamonds and fresh water they have in their own Far North are somehow inferior to Canadian? And they want to abandon their own icy deserts to conquer yours? Do you realize how outdated this outlook is? You are trying to fight a war that has already ended. And it ended 30 years ago.

As for the USSR invading the Baltin republics, two things you are forgetting. One, the Baltics were Russian for 300 years before that and were only independent from 1918 till 1940. So they were taking BACK what was theirs. Just like, say, US wants Cuba back. And two, it was 80 years ago. Eighty years ago water taps in America were marked "white" and "coloreds", France executed people with guillotine, and women weren't considered clever enough to vote in Canada. Are they all still the same countries? Or has the world moved on?



Indeed! It's a block of nations that none of those nations need. And Canada needs it the least. A huge country with most of it under permanent ice. What do you do with it even if you decide to take it? Farm polar bears? Fresh water? You know what Russia has more than any other country in the world, except Brasil? Fresh water. So what exactly are you "defending"? And from whom?


The difference between military expenditure and car insurance is that you at least get something in return from car insurance. I seriously doubt Canada will get much from 80 fighters in case of an imaginary potential conflict with Russia.

VERY well argued!! I believe that other gentleman is from Alberta so one must make allowances. 🙄

Thanks for this, UltraFan

[Asturias56]

" NATO was founded with just one purpose - fight the imaginary battles with imaginary enemies of a paranoid US president with huge daddy issues"

Hmmm - I seem to remember things like the Soviet takeover in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the pressure on Yugoslavia, the Greek Civil War and of course the Berlin Blockade... but they must have been "imaginary"

And it grew out of an Anglo French Agreement immediately post war to defend against German or Russian threats sometime in the far future............

[Mostly Harmless]

[QUOTE=Mostly Harmless;10529067]Please provide an example where the government of Canada has ever cut a cheque to an oil company. I know this is a beloved myth in certain circles but I can find zero actual times that any government has cut a cheque to an oil company to keep them in business.

Please inform yourself:

https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/​​​​​​

So you are saying a corporate tax reduction is equal to the government writing a cheque to a company? Using that model, the government is subsidizing every medium to large company in Canada. If that is how you feel, I will agree with you that all corporate taxes should be higher and there should be no tax breaks for any industry regardless of where it is headquartered. But do not try to tell me that this is exclusive to the oil industry because that is simply false.

[Mostly Harmless]

VERY well argued!! I believe that other gentleman is from Alberta so one must make allowances. ��

Thanks for this, UltraFan

Very well argued? By what standard? Opinion does not equal reality. However, your derogatory statement towards an entire province tells me all I need to know about you and how much value to assign to your opinions.

[Old Dogs]

Very well argued? By what standard? Opinion does not equal reality. However, your derogatory statement towards an entire province tells me all I need to know about you and how much value to assign to your opinions.

"Opinion does not equal reality."

What a concept. 😏

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/442x366/screen_shot_2019_01_22_at_15_04_53_6aaaa9566ddefac7718ee9799 ac39ae83e11c81e.png

[Mostly Harmless]

"Opinion does not equal reality."

What a concept. 😏

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/442x366/screen_shot_2019_01_22_at_15_04_53_6aaaa9566ddefac7718ee9799 ac39ae83e11c81e.png
That is a beautiful selfie you posted. It encapsulates everything about you in one picture. Well done.

[er340790]

Remind me. Exactly how many enemy aircraft did the CF-18 fleet shoot down the last time Canada got invaded???

The real example to follow is New Zealand:

"Hang on, guys. Do we really need fighter aircraft?"
"Of course! We've always had them!"
"But... erm. Now you mention it. No. Not really."
"New hospitals, anyone?"
"Yeah. OK. Good idea."

Last time I checked, NZ still hadn't been invaded... :E

[ICT_SLB]

To get back to the original question, I once saw a concept drawing of what may well be the sort of aircraft Canada needs given the vast territory to be patrolled. A product of Canadair Advanced Design, it was a Challenger with both a mini-AEW radar and missiles. If anyone thinks that a modified bizjet could not possibly fill the role, I once had a very interesting conversation with a Japanese ECM expert, who wanted a similar modified Challenger. His version carried both jammers & HARM missiles to carry out a defensive version of Wild Weasel! You would have to wonder if a similarly equipped jet on standing patrol would counter the current multiple incursions that are causing the JASDF so much concern.

[Machdiamond]

Something like this maybe? (ELTA ELI-3360)
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/iai_elta_business_jet_bombardier_global_5000_based_maritime_ patrol_aircraft_2_033bc0da19df8d2500f40a248f4fd0eae990631e.j pg

[er340790]

Oh, God... a weaponized Biz-Jet! :eek:

Don't give Donald ideas!!! :ugh: