Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[Moose47]

<<<teacher
Post subject: Re: Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:42 pm
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:25 pm
Posts: 1137
To add to the 7500ing I suggest all Canadians READ THIS EDITORIAL.>>>

Excellent piece and thanks for posting it teacher.

I wish people would quit perpetuating this peacekeeping myth about Canada. That was only one small part of the overall role of the military.

Also, the same people who want us to get out of Afghanistan would have no problem with the deaths of Canadian servicemen and women if they died during a 'warm and fuzzy' U. N. mission. Oh sure they would say how sorry they are but would not think about bringing the troops back home. The Congo and Darfur as some have suggested we get involved in will make the 'Stan' look like Boy Scout camp.

[SunWuKong]

Making military plans, speaking about a jet fighter when this is only about drone/nuclear power nowaday, and above all about economic war...
It is happening right now, the world is shifting, and we focus on the details, not mentioning the useless proudness and ego we can read now and then here.

You want to understand what's going on? You want to know what are the best moves, including with the military? The threat and war has changed shape and nature.
Do like me, fly your airplane, or teach flying, and listen to some teacher or nobel prize when it comes to something out of our field, watch this video for example:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/5/n ... uels_fears

[fish4life]

Another +1 to Darwing's post well said

[55+]

And it keeps piling on........ questions are getting deeper with this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A95IF20101110

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Buy 200 of the bloody things alongside 50 F22s..... let people bitch and moan .... and a few months later they will be over it ... Hell maybe in the next 30-50 years, people may actually say "thank w/e diety exists, that we had purchased those platforms. I would rather be saying thank (w/e) that we did , instead of I wish we did ....

[trampbike]

Again, the F-22 is not available.

[Big Pistons Forever]

One of the unfortunate aspects of the current debates about Canada's Military is how tenuous the connection between the citizens of Canada, especially the policy makers, and anybody who has actually served in the Canadian Forces. Most Canadians not only have no personal experience with the Military and they don't even know anybody who does/used to to wear a uniform. This IMO has lead to a very superficial debate on pretty much all aspects of Defense Policy. My commisioning scroll was signed by the then MND, The Hon Giles Lamontagne. He flew Spitfires in WW2 and many of the members he sat with in Cabinet also had personal experience with military service. I think they understood in a way Stephen Harper and his circle of Yes Men never will, the consequences of spending Canadian blood and treasure.

So what does this have to do with the F35 ? Well if it is the best aircraft for Canada's current and projected Military missions, than lets buy it. However if it means short changing the army and Navy for the next 20 years than I am not so sure. I think it is time the government explain how they are going to afford all the rest of the CFs' equipment needs. What I don't want to see is shiny fighter jets over the battlefield while the soldiers are wearing Northern forest Camoflage in the Jungle, or the Navy ship is inside the Antiship missile arcs with an obsolete self defense system.

[Nark]

What I don't want to see is shiny fighter jets over the battlefield while the soldiers are wearing Northern forest Camoflage in the Jungle, or the Navy ship is inside the Antiship missile arcs with an obsolete self defense system.

And the quandary of a fine socialist country...

A budget is a wonderful thing. Canada doesn't have the GDP, as large as it is, to support all the damned social programs and fund a military.
I'm beginning to think the average Canadian would rather see a documentary about Dieppe (National Film Board of Canada), than to have their sailors, airmen and soldiers with the right tools to do the job, and come back home to tell their stories (in order to make future documentaries).

[Shiny Side Up]

And the quandary of a fine socialist country...

Actually if we were truly a socialist country we wouldn't have that quandry. Most socialist countries have a significantly higher military budget. Not a fair comparisson since there are no other countries that have a similar land area to people ratio and have the same operational requirements as Canada to fulfil. The best comparisson would be Sweden where if maybe we were more socialist, we might still have our own homegrown weapons and aerospace industry to supply our needs and we would be having a different discussion here. Incidentally most socialist nations have maintained somewhat of an industry to fulfil their needs to some degree in this capacity. They also have mandatory military service as well which certainly helps out - citizens have a different view of military spending if they some day will have to depend on that equipment, and so will their sons and daughters.

[Moose47]

Big Pistons Forever
Post subject: Re: Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:26 pm
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:17 am
Posts: 1615
Location: West Coast
One of the unfortunate aspects of the current debates about Canada's Military is how tenuous the connection between the citizens of Canada, especially the policy makers, and anybody who has actually served in the Canadian Forces. Most Canadians not only have no personal experience with the Military and they don't even know anybody who does/used to to wear a uniform. This IMO has lead to a very superficial debate on pretty much all aspects of Defense Policy. My commisioning scroll was signed by the then MND, The Hon Giles Lamontagne. He flew Spitfires in WW2 and many of the members he sat with in Cabinet also had personal experience with military service. I think they understood in a way Stephen Harper and his circle of Yes Men never will, the consequences of spending Canadian blood and treasure.>>>

Your 'Yes Men' description could easily apply to any number of the previous liberal governments as well.

R104784 Warrant Officer Joseph Georges Gilles Claude Lamontagne was a bomber pilot. He was 'Mention in Despatches' while with No. 425 "Alouette' (B) Squadron. The award was effective on the 1st of January, 1945 as per London Gazette while he was a P.O.W.

Cheers...Chris

[trampbike]

One of the unfortunate aspects of the current debates about Canada's Military is how tenuous the connection between the citizens of Canada, especially the policy makers, and anybody who has actually served in the Canadian Forces. Most Canadians not only have no personal experience with the Military and they don't even know anybody who does/used to to wear a uniform.

The CF need a PR department.
Most Canadian have no idea what the CF do, why they do it and who does what. Sadly, they know even less about the CF past.

[Siddley Hawker]

They don't need a PR department. We need an education department that teaches Canadian History in the schools.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Again, the F-22 is not available.

CANADA SHOULD GO ALL THE WAY AND BUY 100+ F22S!!!!!!!!! WE COULD WORK IT OUT!

[Moose47]

<<<trampbike
Post subject: Re: Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project
PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:20 pm
Online
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:11 pm
Posts: 311
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
One of the unfortunate aspects of the current debates about Canada's Military is how tenuous the connection between the citizens of Canada, especially the policy makers, and anybody who has actually served in the Canadian Forces. Most Canadians not only have no personal experience with the Military and they don't even know anybody who does/used to to wear a uniform.


The CF need a PR department. >>>

Canadian Forces Public Affairs Officers of the Public Affairs Branch answer to the Director General of Public Affairs.

[trampbike]

Allright then: The CF needs a very efficient PR department.


Siddley Hawker may be right though about the education...


@winds_in_flight_wtf, Japan is really trying hard to buy a downgraded F-22 version and I think Australia is/was trying too. So far none have been successfull.

[Heliian]

The opposition were just shot down 100 to 170 in a house vote. Let's get the jets and kick some ruskie ass! or danish or whoever wants to step into our yard.

[W5]

<<<teacher
I wish people would quit perpetuating this peacekeeping myth about Canada. That was only one small part of the overall role of the military.

Also, the same people who want us to get out of Afghanistan would have no problem with the deaths of Canadian servicemen and women if they died during a 'warm and fuzzy' U. N. mission. Oh sure they would say how sorry they are but would not think about bringing the troops back home. The Congo and Darfur as some have suggested we get involved in will make the 'Stan' look like Boy Scout camp.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/colum ... 93266.html

Why blue berets don't work
Traditional peacekeeping a mythical concept that isn't compatible with modern warfare

By MERCEDES STEPHENSON, QMI Agency

Last Updated: November 7, 2010 2:00am

Autumn always heralds the next big fashion trend, however this year it appears the retro influences popularized in Milan and Paris have marched off the runways and into influencing ideas about foreign and defence policy.

While retro is great when it comes to the return of elegant styles, it's a poor guide for shaping Canada's role in the world. Particularly when the retro ideas being appealed to artificially construct a mythical past that skews reality and is out of touch with the radically different, modern, global environment.

In recent surveys, Canadians have expressed a desire to return to UN blue-beret peacekeeping, rather than engaging in more dangerous roles, like Canada's current mission in Afghanistan.

Michael Ignatieff played to this sentiment in a speech he delivered this past week to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations, stating "Canada must wear the blue beret again."

The problem is the days of UN blue berets are long gone and the Pearsonian legacy of peacekeeping has been twisted beyond recognition in the public consciousness.

Ignatieff is appealing to a myth of Canada's past that never really existed and advocating a solution to international problems that hasn't worked for decades.

The desire to return to blue-beret peacekeeping is driven by Canadians' good intentions, but reflects an ill-informed understanding of the experiences of Canada's peacekeepers.

Prime minister Lester B. Pearson conceived of peacekeeping as an armed force standing between two states that no longer wanted to fight each other. Political will is essential to the success of this kind of peacekeeping - Pearson did not advocate intervening where two parties still wanted to quarrel, or in situations not fully controlled by state actors.

It is the latter situation that describes reality around the world in 2010. Conflict is primarily defined by non-state actors: Genocidal militias, terrorists and warlords who relish killing one another and unfortunate civilians who get in their way. When states do fight, it isn't with each other; rather, merciless governments attack their own populations.

This reality requires armed international intervention, but necessitates more than can be accomplished through lightly armed peacekeeping. The dichotomy between peacekeeping and war fighting has long since evaporated: Modern peacekeeping operations are peace enforcement where bullies are forced to put down their guns by someone driving a tank.

Ignatieff knows the tragic failures of blue-beret peacekeeping (he refers to the failure in Rwanda as peacekeeping's "Waterloo") and has written and spoken extensively about the dangers of relying on a fantasy to formulate feel-good foreign policy.

In 2005 Ignatieff visited Trinity College in Dublin, where he bemoaned Canadians' unwillingness to pay the cost of international citizenship. He argued that real "peacekeeping" is carried out by the Pentagon because "men with guns" had a superior ability to protect vulnerable people from predators. Ignatieff derided moral suasion and criticized Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper as "entirely bogus."

Previously, Ignatieff has opposed blue-beret peacekeeping and advocated a more robust, armed force that is not reliant on the fickle UN. Before entering politics he wrote in The New York Times that the UN secretariat "should stop running peacekeeping operations, and blue-beret forces should stop going where armed resistance can be expected."

Canadian soldiers who served in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia tell heartbreaking tales of bearing witness to atrocities, frantically calling back to UN Headquarters in New York for permission to engage or heavier armaments, only to be met with radio silence.

Canadian peacekeepers' experiences have been anything but peaceful. They have been shelled, shot at and killed on peacekeeping operations - realities governments hushed up because it conflicted with the myth of peacekeeping that was politically expedient.

More than 100 Canadian Forces members lost their lives on "peacekeeping" missions and countless others suffered life-changing physical and operational stress injuries.

Before Canadians advocate a return to something "easier" and supposedly less dangerous, we must take stock of global realities rather than a self-indulgent version of our history.

mercedes.stephenson@sunmedia.ca

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/colum ... 93266.html

[SunWuKong]

And the quandary of a fine socialist country...

Actually if we were truly a socialist country we wouldn't have that quandry. Most socialist countries have a significantly higher military budget. Not a fair comparisson since there are no other countries that have a similar land area to people ratio and have the same operational requirements as Canada to fulfil. The best comparisson would be Sweden where if maybe we were more socialist, we might still have our own homegrown weapons and aerospace industry to supply our needs and we would be having a different discussion here.

Interesting. True.
If you look at sweden, a country with less unhabitant than Ontario but able to build its own jet fighter. Aside they even have one of the lowest rate of poverty in the world... So it is possible.
Many other example in western europe.

[Shiny Side Up]

But then not everything's completely rosey either. Most of these socialist countries pay far higher taxes than us Canadians do, nothing comes for free after all. Many socialist eastern bloc countries did manage to maintain a decent aerospace industry, even under the thumb of the old Soviet Union and still manage to compete with the successor CIS. Poland and Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia) being the most notable examples.

One has to wonder that Canada's largest remaining aerospace industry has seemingly very little by the way of military application, alone amongst all its global competitors.

[SunWuKong]

Comparing Canada with Sweden, western europe, was kind of making sense, in fact we I read your post I thought, yeap! Exactly! Many similarities between both countries, large area (very low population density in both country), GDP per capita somewhat similar, industrialization rate and business similar, with sweden having 4 times less inhabitant than Canada but able to produce its own jet fighter. I thought that your comparison was really making sense and was right on topic. But now that you are talking about former USSR communist country I don't quite follow you anymore. That is a whole different universe and it is hard to do any comparison.

You could have taken Norway, some similarities (But Norway being far much richer than Canada, they have a GDP per capita twice as much as in canada) and no jet fighter of their own.

[fish4life]

Again, the F-22 is not available.

CANADA SHOULD GO ALL THE WAY AND BUY 100+ F22S!!!!!!!!! WE COULD WORK IT OUT!

I'm sure some sort of agreement could be made to work eg "we let you install all those missile defense systems in the arctic in exchange for 100 half price F-22's lol

[x15]

...One of these days we're going to need air support, God forbid, and 2 guys in a J3 with a 410 and a stick of dynamite ain't gonna cut it...

+1

[Shiny Side Up]

But now that you are talking about former USSR communist country I don't quite follow you anymore. That is a whole different universe and it is hard to do any comparison.

Step away for a bit from the "C" word and realise that in essence both of these countries - much like Canada - were and still dominated, economically and in military considerations by a larger, more populous neighbor with a larger defence industry. Even though the iron curtain is largely gone, they still remain with that sphere of influence, and remain heavily Socialist in economic/political leanings (remember that communism is essentially a form of socialism, much like marxism, leninism, maoism, stalinism and a variety of others - the real differences being how much control the state has and how it enforces it, but I digress)

Aero and PZL have both managed to survive albeit in considerably lessened capacity and still have production and design capacity within their home countries. Canada by contrast has lost ours - Since Bombardier took over Canadair. Oddly enough even our competitor in Brazil maintains the some capacity within its industry.

You could have taken Norway, some similarities (But Norway being far much richer than Canada, they have a GDP per capita twice as much as in canada) and no jet fighter of their own.

A good comparrison, since Both from influence from NATO and requirements Canada and Norway have a similar task from their militaries (both are also constitutional monarchies as well, though Norway slightly more socialist than we are, though less than Sweden if you're stuck on that part) Unlike Canada, who performs partly its commitment to NORAD as the air defender for the U.S. Norway performs as a sea defender. The larger threat there being, in the days of the Cold War, Russian subs leaving their pens in the north. Consequently, instead of requiring fighter planes, they are more concerned with having a good submarine fleet...

[W5]

Can Lockheed deliver on the Joint Strike Fighter dream?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... dream.html

[Beefitarian]

I hear we're paying to keep Bombardier running anyways. I vote we buy one JSF and copy it to save on building the rest.