Canadian jet fighter purchase when?

[Back door]

Originally Posted by RobertP

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]

Originally Posted by 4runner

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]

Originally Posted by ramble on

...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by yyzflightpath

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

Originally Posted by VFR Only Please

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.

Originally Posted by VFR Only Please

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.asp...t=index&lang=e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_...mons_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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by UltraFan

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]

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

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.

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

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?

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

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?

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

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]

Originally Posted by Back door

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]

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

. 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-c...uel-subsidies/​​​​​​

[Old Dogs]

Originally Posted by UltraFan

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=Old Dogs;10533529]

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

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-c...uel-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]

Originally Posted by Old Dogs

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]

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

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. 😏

[Mostly Harmless]

Originally Posted by Old Dogs

"Opinion does not equal reality."

What a concept. 😏

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...

[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)