|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 5, 2012 13:49:06 GMT -5
ArticleA cheesy headline...but the story is something that was in the news in the past year or two. I can't find the thread now....but IIRC, many defense specialists deemed it impossible for the Harper gov't to buy those fighters at the price it reported. Even the maintenance estimates were way under what they would actually be. One statement said they got their numbers from military advisors.....but how could people who are several steps closer to the military be off by $10-billion? (I'm not buying that excuse, though....it's just deflection, IMO.) 1. Why are they so intent on getting those stealth fighters.... 2. Do we need them?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 5, 2012 14:03:14 GMT -5
well, we do need something . . . and iirc, it was the Liberals that started the ball rolling with these planes . . . the Conservatives were just too dumb to let it go . . . it's like everything else: once they have something in their sights . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2012 14:47:59 GMT -5
We need something we can't get. F-22's. As far as intercept capabilities, the F35 is second rate to the F22.
Conservative or not, I do NOT want an airplane that can bomb Libyan strongholds. I want a plane that can scare the Saperlipopette out of Russian warship in the Arctic. NOTHING speaks "you're f****d if I wanted to f*** you" like an F-22 blasting by the ships tower at Mach 2 when NOTHING showed up on their radar screen....other then their spilled vodka.
We should shut off the oil lines until Americans bend over and let us buy/built the F-22.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 5, 2012 15:53:52 GMT -5
Two ways to look at it.
1. We're sitting ducks if we don't. We need to defend the homeland.
2. We plan on aggression.
Which way is more marketable to the people? #1 no question about it. Fear and self-preservation are always good sales points....whether it's true, or #2 is the real reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2012 22:26:47 GMT -5
More like we need to be able to deal with aggression. If we have the means to deliver destruction, the Russians will take us a lot more seriously then putting on our best Sunday diapers and running to the UN.
Just in case there is any doubt about projection of power....
Turkey wanted to play the big tough guy with Cyprus over their development of some gas fields. This week, the US, Israel and Greece are holding naval exercises right in front of Turkey...and Turkey is going to do what? Other then drink Turkish coffee?
Respect goes to those with the biggest guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2012 18:16:39 GMT -5
I had a reply all typed out over lunch at work the other day, but the boss came in and sent us on our way for the long weekend.
I think it might just come down to two things:
a. What missions does Canada foresee in the future? and,
b. What does Canada need to meet the tasks for these missions?
HA, I don't have a crystal ball, but I don't think we'll see the return of the blue berets anytime soon. Canada's military is now respected as a highly-reliable combat force. That's a huge asset to NATO and a major shot of credibility to the nation internationally. Having said that, I think we'll still see BUNMO (Battalion United Nations Military Observer) positions being filled, but as far as actually deploying troops wearing UN berets, I really can't see it.
However, I think Canada's biggest shortfall has been it's limited logistical ability to sustain operations by themselves. The Tories purchased four C-17 Globemaster II's from the USA back in 07/08 and that's a great start. Before they came along, I remember one of the guys who deployed with the DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) saying the deployment was a jug-mess (so to speak). The operational equipment came in on 25/30 C-130 Hercules flights into where they were in India. The aircraft carrying the final operational kit actually went back with a few items for the redeployment back to Canada. Two Antonov's rented for another deployment and that's all it took, but you can see that we simply didn't have the logistical ability.
How will the F-35 facilitate that need? Well, I suspect that if the purchase were to go ahead, just the upkeep to those aircraft alone could possibly be enough that it might affect funding in other areas of the military budget. Which department is robbed to pay the other? I'd say, no, we don't need a cash-sucker like this aircraft at this point in time.
We're not there just yet, but the military budget has been slashed this year by $1 billion (plus), so I think we're looking at status-quo. At least until the books are balanced once again. That doesn't leave any funds for an F-35 purchase, or so I believe anyway.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 7, 2012 21:00:57 GMT -5
We're not there just yet, but the military budget has been slashed this year by $1 billion (plus), so I think we're looking at status-quo. At least until the books are balanced once again. That doesn't leave any funds for an F-35 purchase, or so I believe anyway. Cheers. Cuts to the military? We didnt need a crystal ball to see that.  Can't say it's going to sway my vote, though. The Tories have provided more financial options to me around tax time and they know how to maintain and promote a strong military. I can't say for sure, but under the NDP I can see the military going back to blue berets (an honourable calling), having their numbers slashed and their equipment neglected (like under the Liberals). And, again while I don't know for sure, I'm thinking we're going to be taxed out the hoop for the social programs Mr Layton wants to implement. The worst-case scenario might be comparing us to Denmark where 50% + on personal income taxes is the norm and has been for years now. I'm not ready for that to be honest. Cheers. My wife works for the federal government ... they were told before the election that Ottawa is looking for "efficiencies" (yep thats what they were called) and cuts have to be made throughout government. Her department is going to be hardest hit apparently (DFO). But Harper has to find billions of dollars for his promises too Dis ... and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts the military does not come out unscathed. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2012 21:13:48 GMT -5
one of my friends is a political junkie/hack [actually placed to be "in the know"].
he considers this the best Liberal budget in 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2012 13:15:53 GMT -5
Dis,
I think you misread my post. When I said "running" to the UN, I didn't mean that we will get back to peacekeeping. I meant running to the UN if the big bad bear claims our north. They will be as a useful as used diapers. You can't believe how much contempt I have for the UN. I prefer to won the means to deliver defence or offence.
As for sustaining operations overseas. Why? Leave the military adventurism to the big powers. I prefer to spend the money on aa missiles and high speed interceptors. In fact, it's high time we had an high end indigenous military complex. I'm tired wasting time on third world countries that go back to their caveman ways the minute we leave. If we can design world class cell phones, we can design world class anti-aircraft missiles.
AA missiles.....long range stealth interceptors.....tankers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2012 13:16:40 GMT -5
Dis,
I think you misread my post. When I said "running" to the UN, I didn't mean that we will get back to peacekeeping. I meant running to the UN if the big bad bear claims our north. The UN will be as a useful as used diapers. You can't believe how much contempt I have for the UN. I prefer to won the means to deliver defence or offence.
As for sustaining operations overseas. Why? Leave the military adventurism to the big powers. I prefer to spend the money on aa missiles and high speed interceptors. In fact, it's high time we had an high end indigenous military complex. I'm tired wasting time on third world countries that go back to their caveman ways the minute we leave. If we can design world class cell phones, we can design world class anti-aircraft missiles.
AA missiles.....long range stealth interceptors.....tankers.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 8, 2012 13:28:49 GMT -5
Better to invest in the acquistion of something new, and phase out the F-18s, then to do what Chretien and Martin did with the helicopters. That was one of the most fiscally irresponsible things ever done in Canada, and it should have cost both of them their jobs.
As for the differences between the 22 and the 35, I don't think we need a supreme dog fighter. We need all purpose planes that can put a lot of hours on a tank, patrol our borders effectively, and handle the weather here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 8, 2012 15:50:08 GMT -5
Dis, I think you misread my post. When I said "running" to the UN, I didn't mean that we will get back to peacekeeping. I meant running to the US if the big bad bear claims our north. They will be as a useful as used diapers. You can't believe how much contempt I have for the UN. I prefer to won the means to deliver defence or offence. As for sustaining operations overseas. Why? Leave the military adventurism to the big powers. I prefer to spend the money on a missiles and high speed interceptors. In fact, it's high time we had an high end indigenous military complex. I'm tired wasting time on third world countries that go back to their caveman ways the minute we leave. If we can design world class cell phones, we can design world class anti-aircraft missiles. AA missiles.....long range stealth interceptors.....tankers. Right on, HA. I re-read your post and I can see what you're saying now. However, it's Easter Sunday and I'll have to respond later. Only have time to eat turkey (nothing to do with the naval exercises mind you ;D ) and drink some beverages. One quick thing, though: Those who have the biggest guns are usually nations who demand respect rather than command respect. This has been my experience anyway. More to follow after I'm stuffed! Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2012 18:53:13 GMT -5
Better to invest in the acquistion of something new, and phase out the F-18s, then to do what Chretien and Martin did with the helicopters. That was one of the most fiscally irresponsible things ever done in Canada, and it should have cost both of them their jobs. As for the differences between the 22 and the 35, I don't think we need a supreme dog fighter. We need all purpose planes that can put a lot of hours on a tank, patrol our borders effectively, and handle the weather here. It's more then just dog fighting. It's the fastest, stealthiest, deadliest delivery system for air superiority. It will be on top on anyone we want in our Arctic and they can't do a damn thing about it. If we want to show military presence, it will do that. If we want to erase their aircraft, it will do that. If we want to OSB (Occupy Sea Bottom) their ships, it will do that. Anytime, anywhere. The F-35 is a compromise. I can't think of a single reason that we need to bomb caves. I can't think of a single reason we need to show our strength in Syria, Libya or Timbuktu. They got a problem? Open a Tim Hortons, offer them free coffees and a piece of paper to write down their problems......and solve them themselves. If they figure it out, give them free donuts. I'm a Conservative supporter but that F-35 decisions sucks. Just for the record, the F-22 is the spiritual successor of the Arrow. 60 years after the Arrow and the solution is still the same kind of plane. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2012 19:07:17 GMT -5
BTW...what happened 5 years ago with the F-22 doesn't mean a damn now. The US military budget is getting hacked and I'm sure there is plenty of screaming for those high paying jobs. They want our oil? They want to be our best friends? They also need to sell us their best and transfer some manufacturing.
And in case they don't get the message, Harper should go to China and visit one of their military air shows. I hear they have cut rate J-20 that they will sell for a tenth of the price.
500,000 barrels of oil per aircraft to the US. 100,000 to China. In a month of oil sands production, we got ourselves an airforce second to Yanks. In two months, we will be the Evil Canadian Military Machine.
Am I crazy? Like a fox.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 8, 2012 21:40:28 GMT -5
The F-22 would be a very good air superiority fighter to say the least. And it might be an easier aircraft for Canada to support. One of the shortfalls with the F-35 was that we didn't have the capability of providing in-air refueling. We have it for the CF-18s, but I'm not sure what the problem is with the F-35. All I know is that we don't have it for that aircraft. It would be a wise purchase, but our track record for wise purchases has a few holes in it. A few years back Canada was offered six Black Hawk helicopters at a bargain price but the Tories turned them down. I guess they wanted helicopters that could carry a platoon (30 guys) as a minimum, and that were big enough to carry the new howitzer. To me, that's all well and fine, but those Black Hawks could have come in very handy for quick response requirements, as well as security. The other side of the coin could be as the article says as well; that there wasn't a guaranteed delivery date. However, I can also see having to train two crews for each air craft. That ties up a lot of resources both for training and for operations. Another bad one were those submarines. Man! The deal was in exchange for full use of Suffield training area by the Brits over a number of years. That meant they'd have full dining three times a day and quarters to stay in all at the expense of our government. Well, the papers for that deal have since been quietly ripped up. We were taken to the cleaners on that one and the Liberals got rid of it as quickly as they brought it in. F-35s? Great aircraft, but we really don't need them. F-22s? Great aircraft, but how many do we need, or how do we get a sufficient quantity with DND's budget getting slashed by over a billion? I wouldn't be mothballing the CF-18 just yet. It's still a pretty good all-purpose fighter and we might have to squeeze a bit more out of them. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 9, 2012 0:16:59 GMT -5
We need about 50-60 F-22's to more then cover us from coast to coast. Plus 3-4 tankers. I don't want to sink that much resources in them since I doubt we will have manned craft in another 20-30 years.
And I want to build them here. Let's start counting the oil barrels.....
BTW...if anyone thinks I'm kidding about trading with oil.....why exactly are we accepting payment of a fiat currency that the Americans can produce hundreds of billions more at a touch of a a few buttons? It's glorified monopoly money. Oil for planes. They need oil, we need planes.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Apr 11, 2012 23:31:02 GMT -5
From what I understand, one the issues with the F-22 is its very high maintenance costs due in part to the surface stealth coatings. Other issues include its limited use in small wars such as what we saw in Libya due to the fact that it lacks the optics and laser targeting that are common in attack helicopters, UAVs, the F-35 and our existing CF-18s.
The main concern I have over the procurement of the F-35 is the small numbers being considered due to cost. There seems to be no allowance for losses due to attrition over the expected 40 year life of the aircraft. The 65 planes being acquired could very well be whittled down to 30 by the time they reach end of life. There is also the issue of access to the software code which the Americans refuse to share. This means all major avionics and weapons updates cannot be done in Canada and need to be done by LM in the U.S.
Perhaps it might be better if we consider a larger number of cheaper, less capable airplanes that we can service ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 12, 2012 6:29:16 GMT -5
Perhaps it might be better if we consider a larger number of cheaper, less capable airplanes that we can service ourselves. That's something I've thought about too. Do we want air superiority, or do we want a presence? Let's face it, who is likely to go through the north? The Russians... and the Americans. Yeah, maybe a few tankers and freighters from Norway or something, but those guys don't need the most technologically advanced planes in the world to blow them out of the water, should you be so inclined. No, what you would need the F-35 for would be if and when the Yanks and Ruskies start cruising some destroyers through the North, just for fun. And the question you have to ask yourself then is "what are you going to do?" You're not going to intimidate either one of those nations with military superiority, especially not with such a limited number of planes. And politically would you even be allowed to start blasting away at ships that come through the north? Are we, as a nation, ready to go to war over it? I would say no, we are not. So for me having the "best" plane is not an issue. They say you shouldn't point a gun at somebody unless you are prepared to kill them, and I don't think we're prepared to kill anybody, no matter how big or expensive our guns might be. So I think a better approach might be to go for a cheaper plane that we can get more of (heck, maybe even start producing them here again), and which can be used as a "show" of force over the Artic. Instead of 3 high-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot, we can have 12 medium-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot. Might be easier to galvanize public opinion, both here and abroad, if you're throwing big numbers at them, even if those in the military know it's all just for show. "CANADA SCRAMBLES 12 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH!" versus "CANADA SCRAMBLES 3 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH (but they're really good jets!)" Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 12, 2012 7:38:29 GMT -5
My concern is that we're to become an aggressor...to join our friends to the south on hegemonic "missions".
Corporate interests politically laundered as patriotism...a tactic used for centuries to "sell war" to the general public. All you need is an "incident"....and SOLD!
Reprehensible misuse of a military force. These men and women enlist and dedicate their lives to protect their country...not to clear a path for industry.
I'm not saying that IS the reason....but it's a real concern to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 12, 2012 8:22:59 GMT -5
We could afford large numbers of the "Spirit of St. Louis" aircraft, but they wouldn't be very effective.
Realistically 30 planes won't throw a big scare into Russian submarines somewhere off the coast of Tuktoyaktuk.
The planes won't support our silly efforts keeping Crete free of outright war.
Canada's prime need is to protect our 200 mile limit from fishing trawlers and drug dealers. We aren't going to invade Argentina and we aren't worried about Iran invading Baffin Island.
Canada is a big country full of snow far from Gaza, Eritria and Afganistan.
We are wedged between the US and Russia and 10 to 50 fighter jets won't mean much against either one. The US will stop Russia from attacking us and Russia won't let us attack them (not that we are planning to).
We have no business using our young men as UN targets for terrorists in places we don't belong.
Canada has been very successful economically (oil is a good thing to have) and we avoided a lot of financial problems the US is currently facing.
To address Canada's biggest international problem, "how many planes do we need to get Bettman to move the Coyotees from the desert to either Hamilton or Quebec City?"
How do we stop Pakistan from invading the suburbs of Toronto?
How do we protect our vital interests against Nigeria's computer scammers?
Protect our Kia parts suppliers from Kim Il Sun's son.
Canada is a good safe place to live and the less spent on ultra expensive fighter jets, the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 12, 2012 8:33:10 GMT -5
Perhaps it might be better if we consider a larger number of cheaper, less capable airplanes that we can service ourselves. That's something I've thought about too. Do we want air superiority, or do we want a presence? Let's face it, who is likely to go through the north? The Russians... and the Americans. Yeah, maybe a few tankers and freighters from Norway or something, but those guys don't need the most technologically advanced planes in the world to blow them out of the water, should you be so inclined. No, what you would need the F-35 for would be if and when the Yanks and Ruskies start cruising some destroyers through the North, just for fun. And the question you have to ask yourself then is "what are you going to do?" You're not going to intimidate either one of those nations with military superiority, especially not with such a limited number of planes. And politically would you even be allowed to start blasting away at ships that come through the north? Are we, as a nation, ready to go to war over it? I would say no, we are not. So for me having the "best" plane is not an issue. They say you shouldn't point a gun at somebody unless you are prepared to kill them, and I don't think we're prepared to kill anybody, no matter how big or expensive our guns might be. So I think a better approach might be to go for a cheaper plane that we can get more of (heck, maybe even start producing them here again), and which can be used as a "show" of force over the Artic. Instead of 3 high-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot, we can have 12 medium-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot. Might be easier to galvanize public opinion, both here and abroad, if you're throwing big numbers at them, even if those in the military know it's all just for show. "CANADA SCRAMBLES 12 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH!" versus "CANADA SCRAMBLES 3 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH (but they're really good jets!)" Just my opinion. It's a really big north for 3 jets to cover. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 12, 2012 9:24:12 GMT -5
We're not there just yet, but the military budget has been slashed this year by $1 billion (plus), so I think we're looking at status-quo. At least until the books are balanced once again. That doesn't leave any funds for an F-35 purchase, or so I believe anyway. Cheers. Cuts to the military? We didnt need a crystal ball to see that. My wife works for the federal government ... they were told before the election that Ottawa is looking for "efficiencies" (yep thats what they were called) and cuts have to be made throughout government. Her department is going to be hardest hit apparently (DFO). But Harper has to find billions of dollars for his promises too Dis ... and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts the military does not come out unscathed. [/quote] Believe it or not, Skilly, I actually started remembering this post as I read through it. Right on ... I don't have a lot of time right now, but we had our cuts identified before the budget actually came out. 59 positions, mostly public service and contractors, will be cut mostly by attrition. Public servants who have been identified for cuts will be given two years to either re-train (at taxpayers expense) or to find another job. Contractors identified for cuts will be given 30-days notice. Here at work, 30 contract teachers were given their notice, but only 7 of them were given pick slips. These teachers were mostly on their last few years before retirement or who were using the job(s) to pad their retirement savings. In short, these teachers created no waves when they got their slips. We're not immune to future cuts where I work, but we're actually short-staffed as it is now, and the school commandant knows this. RMC is a different ball game, though. They're losing a lot of professors, associate professors and support staff positions over the next few years. So, having said all of that, as I was saying before, I honestly believe these talks about what equipment we need/don't need is really all just that ... talk. The Tories would like to support the military more, but the war requirement simply isn't there and as a result DND has been told to cut well over $1 billion to their budget. Duster brought up some excellent points about the F-22 that I really never knew about, so it's a good day insomuch as I learned something new. However, even though the war requirement isn't there any longer, the Tories will have re-address the northern sovereignty issue. No, we don't need F-22 fighters to patrol the skies if in the event of a hostile takeover; however, not having a presence up there will give other nations substantiation that the Canadian arctic is, in fact, international waters. What I'd like to see is the Tory promise to build three icebreakers that are robust enough to patrol the northern straights at any time of the year. That would included upgrading an existing port, or even building a complete new one to accommodate these three vessels. All that said, if Canada does deploy into another theatre of war, I honestly believe we're going to need more, moderized equipment in order to be self-sufficient. New fighters would go a long way towards that. The existing F-18s are good all-purpose fighters, and the pilots are exceptional, but if the Canadian military is to continue on it's current direction, that is being a fully functional combat fighting force, then new fighters will go a long way towards that. And further to that, on the premise that "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" the need for a self-sustaining military, that is a military that can deploy and resupply itself, upgrading our logistical processes become even more paramont. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 12, 2012 9:45:53 GMT -5
It's a really big north for 3 jets to cover. but they're fast jets . . . really really fast. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 12, 2012 15:15:09 GMT -5
It's a really big north for 3 jets to cover. but they're fast jets . . . really really fast. I once speed read "War and peace" in 3.2 minutes. I think it was about Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 12, 2012 19:57:13 GMT -5
That's something I've thought about too. Do we want air superiority, or do we want a presence? Let's face it, who is likely to go through the north? The Russians... and the Americans. Yeah, maybe a few tankers and freighters from Norway or something, but those guys don't need the most technologically advanced planes in the world to blow them out of the water, should you be so inclined. No, what you would need the F-35 for would be if and when the Yanks and Ruskies start cruising some destroyers through the North, just for fun. And the question you have to ask yourself then is "what are you going to do?" You're not going to intimidate either one of those nations with military superiority, especially not with such a limited number of planes. And politically would you even be allowed to start blasting away at ships that come through the north? Are we, as a nation, ready to go to war over it? I would say no, we are not. So for me having the "best" plane is not an issue. They say you shouldn't point a gun at somebody unless you are prepared to kill them, and I don't think we're prepared to kill anybody, no matter how big or expensive our guns might be. So I think a better approach might be to go for a cheaper plane that we can get more of (heck, maybe even start producing them here again), and which can be used as a "show" of force over the Artic. Instead of 3 high-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot, we can have 12 medium-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot. Might be easier to galvanize public opinion, both here and abroad, if you're throwing big numbers at them, even if those in the military know it's all just for show. "CANADA SCRAMBLES 12 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH!" versus "CANADA SCRAMBLES 3 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH (but they're really good jets!)" Just my opinion. A limited number of planes that can destroy an entire fleet in seconds. You're not getting within 25 kms of a Russian destroyer with those cheap and cheerful planes. So what exactly are those 12 cheap planes going to do? Besides getting lit up like a Christmas tree? Russian destroyers have 360 radar and 50-60 missiles. The sky will be flooded with AAM's within a minute. What you want to achieve with the F-22 is MAD stance. Do they really want to put their ships in harms way if they know that you have the means to wipe them out? If they do and we wipe them out, then what are they going to do about it? Full scale invasion? With the US backing us, NOTHING. IF we have no credible threat, then we might as well cede the Arctic to them now and avoid the humiliation. I'm not sure why we are missing the lesson Turkey is getting taught right this minute, as we speak. They have NO credible threat to American, Israel and Greece doing whatever the hell they want off their coast......and everybody knows it. So they sit there like good little obedient muppets, whimper some inanities and look the other way. I don't have the slightest doubt the Russians will do EXACTLY the same thing to us....unless we can sink them at will. Either arm or bend over...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 12, 2012 20:18:11 GMT -5
Duster brought up some excellent points about the F-22 that I really never knew about, so it's a good day insomuch as I learned something new. However, even though the war requirement isn't there any longer, the Tories will have re-address the northern sovereignty issue. No, we don't need F-22 fighters to patrol the skies if in the event of a hostile takeover; however, not having a presence up there will give other nations substantiation that the Canadian arctic is, in fact, international waters. What I'd like to see is the Tory promise to build three icebreakers that are robust enough to patrol the northern straights at any time of the year. That would included upgrading an existing port, or even building a complete new one to accommodate these three vessels. All that said, if Canada does deploy into another theatre of war, I honestly believe we're going to need more, moderized equipment in order to be self-sufficient. New fighters would go a long way towards that. The existing F-18s are good all-purpose fighters, and the pilots are exceptional, but if the Canadian military is to continue on it's current direction, that is being a fully functional combat fighting force, then new fighters will go a long way towards that. And further to that, on the premise that "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" the need for a self-sustaining military, that is a military that can deploy and resupply itself, upgrading our logistical processes become even more paramont. Cheers. I don't think ice breakers establish sovereignty. Military might and credible deterrence does that. Turkey is getting that lesson taught to them right now. A Sovremenny class destroyer or three is going to sail right by our ice breakers and then what? In the event of a hostile takeover, what are we going to do about it? With what? We don't have the ships that can threaten their destroyers. Our submarines? As for equipping our forces for more military adventurism. Pass. What I am talking about with Turkey.... www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-greece-conduct-joint-naval-drill-amid-ongoing-tension-with-turkey-1.421907 |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 12, 2012 20:32:56 GMT -5
From what I understand, one the issues with the F-22 is its very high maintenance costs due in part to the surface stealth coatings. Other issues include its limited use in small wars such as what we saw in Libya due to the fact that it lacks the optics and laser targeting that are common in attack helicopters, UAVs, the F-35 and our existing CF-18s. The main concern I have over the procurement of the F-35 is the small numbers being considered due to cost. There seems to be no allowance for losses due to attrition over the expected 40 year life of the aircraft. The 65 planes being acquired could very well be whittled down to 30 by the time they reach end of life. There is also the issue of access to the software code which the Americans refuse to share. This means all major avionics and weapons updates cannot be done in Canada and need to be done by LM in the U.S. Perhaps it might be better if we consider a larger number of cheaper, less capable airplanes that we can service ourselves. The coatings are an issue but them again, the F-22 with drop tanks has a smaller radar image then a clean F-35. The F-22 is not designed to be a an all around plane. It's designed to enter a theatre, destroy and leave before even a modern military can react to it. Stealth, speed and lethality are it's only criteria. As for Libya and the like, the most effective plane in those kinds of theatres is a ground attack plane like the Warthog A-10's. They are cheap, old technology planes that are also very robust. But, they are only useful if you have air-superiority. Against an enemy equipped with AAM's, like Russians, they are fodder. F-18 are better, but only by degree. The F-35 is better yet but by the time we have them operational and with improving missile technology, they will be far more susceptible then the far stealthier and manoeuvrable F-22. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 13, 2012 6:34:53 GMT -5
That's something I've thought about too. Do we want air superiority, or do we want a presence? Let's face it, who is likely to go through the north? The Russians... and the Americans. Yeah, maybe a few tankers and freighters from Norway or something, but those guys don't need the most technologically advanced planes in the world to blow them out of the water, should you be so inclined. No, what you would need the F-35 for would be if and when the Yanks and Ruskies start cruising some destroyers through the North, just for fun. And the question you have to ask yourself then is "what are you going to do?" You're not going to intimidate either one of those nations with military superiority, especially not with such a limited number of planes. And politically would you even be allowed to start blasting away at ships that come through the north? Are we, as a nation, ready to go to war over it? I would say no, we are not. So for me having the "best" plane is not an issue. They say you shouldn't point a gun at somebody unless you are prepared to kill them, and I don't think we're prepared to kill anybody, no matter how big or expensive our guns might be. So I think a better approach might be to go for a cheaper plane that we can get more of (heck, maybe even start producing them here again), and which can be used as a "show" of force over the Artic. Instead of 3 high-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot, we can have 12 medium-tech planes buzzing a destroyer with no intention to shoot. Might be easier to galvanize public opinion, both here and abroad, if you're throwing big numbers at them, even if those in the military know it's all just for show. "CANADA SCRAMBLES 12 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH!" versus "CANADA SCRAMBLES 3 JETS TO PROTECT NORTH (but they're really good jets!)" Just my opinion. A limited number of planes that can destroy an entire fleet in seconds. You're not getting within 25 kms of a Russian destroyer with those cheap and cheerful planes. So what exactly are those 12 cheap planes going to do? Besides getting lit up like a Christmas tree? Russian destroyers have 360 radar and 50-60 missiles. The sky will be flooded with AAM's within a minute. What you want to achieve with the F-22 is MAD stance. Do they really want to put their ships in harms way if they know that you have the means to wipe them out? If they do and we wipe them out, then what are they going to do about it? Full scale invasion? With the US backing us, NOTHING. IF we have no credible threat, then we might as well cede the Arctic to them now and avoid the humiliation. I'm not sure why we are missing the lesson Turkey is getting taught right this minute, as we speak. They have NO credible threat to American, Israel and Greece doing whatever the hell they want off their coast......and everybody knows it. So they sit there like good little obedient muppets, whimper some inanities and look the other way. I don't have the slightest doubt the Russians will do EXACTLY the same thing to us....unless we can sink them at will. Either arm or bend over...... Again, don't point a gun at somebody unless you are prepared to use it. You know Canada, you know it's politics, it's politicians, it's people... do you think there is the political, media and public will to wipe out a Russian fleet? You ask "Do they really want to put their ships in harms way if they know that you have the means to wipe them out?" but forget that war is a politician's game; you can have the means, but more importantly you need the will. What do you think will happen if tomorrow you wake up and the newspapers are screaming "CANADA SINKS RUSSIAN SHIP! 300 DEAD!" We both know the government doesn't have the public support to do such a thing, it's not in our nature. Look at how we surpressed what happened at the Medac pocket, or the hysteria and angst that came from the Somalia affair. We just don't have the stomach to be the aggressors. Most Canadians have no clue of the daily battles that were fought in Afghanistan, and still tend to think of it as some sort of peace-keeping effort, as opposed to actually, you know, being at war. If we did something like destroy a ship for merely passing through the government would fall, Harper would be arrested, and Quebec would separate. It's just not going to happen. So we will do what we usually do; bluster, yell, whine, and work diplomatically behind the scenes to get something done. And if that doesn't work, then we lose. It has happened before, it will happen again. We're a small dog in a big dog compound. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2012 11:14:36 GMT -5
Duster brought up some excellent points about the F-22 that I really never knew about, so it's a good day insomuch as I learned something new. However, even though the war requirement isn't there any longer, the Tories will have re-address the northern sovereignty issue. No, we don't need F-22 fighters to patrol the skies if in the event of a hostile takeover; however, not having a presence up there will give other nations substantiation that the Canadian arctic is, in fact, international waters. What I'd like to see is the Tory promise to build three icebreakers that are robust enough to patrol the northern straights at any time of the year. That would included upgrading an existing port, or even building a complete new one to accommodate these three vessels. All that said, if Canada does deploy into another theatre of war, I honestly believe we're going to need more, moderized equipment in order to be self-sufficient. New fighters would go a long way towards that. The existing F-18s are good all-purpose fighters, and the pilots are exceptional, but if the Canadian military is to continue on it's current direction, that is being a fully functional combat fighting force, then new fighters will go a long way towards that. And further to that, on the premise that "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" the need for a self-sustaining military, that is a military that can deploy and resupply itself, upgrading our logistical processes become even more paramont. Cheers. I don't think ice breakers establish sovereignty. Military might and credible deterrence does that. Turkey is getting that lesson taught to them right now. A Sovremenny class destroyer or three is going to sail right by our ice breakers and then what? In the event of a hostile takeover, what are we going to do about it? With what? We don't have the ships that can threaten their destroyers. Our submarines? As for equipping our forces for more military adventurism. Pass. What I am talking about with Turkey.... www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-greece-conduct-joint-naval-drill-amid-ongoing-tension-with-turkey-1.421907Haven't read the rest of the replies as yet, HA. We're talking about two different things when it comes to sovereignty. You're talking about building up our north for the possibility of an armed conflict with another nation. I'm talking about maintaining our sovereignty through establishing of settlements and consistent patrolling of our northern waters. You're talking about our northern regions by arming them to the teeth. The USA wanted to do that with their National Missile Defence program, but the Liberals refused. Why did they refuse it? Because such an initiative would have just generated another Cold War scenario (my analogy anyway) and, as the link says, it would create another unnecessary arms race. IMHO, I believe that arming the arctic region to the teeth would promote the same thing and, as a former serving soldier, no, I don't want to see anything like that. I don't want to see another Cold War and I don't want to see any more companies using fear as a platform for profits. This is what your scenario would facilitate, IMHO. However, I do think that an established visual presence is necessary. There was an iniative started by the Tories in which Canada would establish a base in the arctic. It is an ambitious plan that has been put on hold for now, but I'd like to see this revisited once the budget permits. And note how it will be armed. Those icebreakers I talked of earlier, were part of a plan to maintain sovereignty through a visual presence anyway. No, they won't detour any Russian menace, but there's really no menace to speak of anyway, and there's no reason to think there will be a menance anytime soon. In addition to those icebreakers, I think it's necessary to establish new settlements where we can in the arctic, while maintaining the current ones we have. Any country wanting to establish "squatters rights" wouldn't have a case in international court, or so I think anyway. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2012 13:02:41 GMT -5
Again, don't point a gun at somebody unless you are prepared to use it. You know Canada, you know it's politics, it's politicians, it's people... do you think there is the political, media and public will to wipe out a Russian fleet? You ask "Do they really want to put their ships in harms way if they know that you have the means to wipe them out?" but forget that war is a politician's game; you can have the means, but more importantly you need the will. What do you think will happen if tomorrow you wake up and the newspapers are screaming "CANADA SINKS RUSSIAN SHIP! 300 DEAD!" We both know the government doesn't have the public support to do such a thing, it's not in our nature. Look at how we surpressed what happened at the Medac pocket, or the hysteria and angst that came from the Somalia affair. We just don't have the stomach to be the aggressors. Most Canadians have no clue of the daily battles that were fought in Afghanistan, and still tend to think of it as some sort of peace-keeping effort, as opposed to actually, you know, being at war. If we did something like destroy a ship for merely passing through the government would fall, Harper would be arrested, and Quebec would separate. It's just not going to happen. So we will do what we usually do; bluster, yell, whine, and work diplomatically behind the scenes to get something done. And if that doesn't work, then we lose. It has happened before, it will happen again. We're a small dog in a big dog compound. You realise that you are arguing the bend over stance? Right? So why not just buy Sopwith Camels, which I can easily build in my plant and call it a day? I need the work, Canada needs the theater of military power and Bob is our porno addicted uncle. I'm a pacifist like you are. Given the ability, my pacifism extends to arming Canada with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Hello F-22's. We do not have to be the biggest dog, but we do need to be feared for our sharpened canines. Regardless, buying the F-35 is a waste of time. P.S. I know you are not a pacifists. You fell down the same "don't f*** with me" tree that I did. The only question is.....did you hit ALL the branches? |
|
