Canadian jet fighter purchase when?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: MTL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian jet fighter purchase when?
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.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-favours-f-35s
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-favours-f-35s
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-favours-f-35s
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-favours-f-35s
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
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto
Age: 59
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was this brilliantly handled project too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...ng_replacement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: MTL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 69
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 ...
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: MTL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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:
Your serve...
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)
- 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.
Your serve...
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
grizzz
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
interoperability. Your closest neighbor, NATO partner and ally perhaps...
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was this brilliantly handled project too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...ng_replacement
Military procurement in Canada is a complete mismanagement of public money and is a disgrace to the taxpayers of Canada.
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.
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.
Last edited by ramble on; 25th Jul 2019 at 07:21.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...