Gov't announces JSF purchase

[culver10]

We need the Defender! http://www.nfb.ca/film/defender/

[Hedley]

there has to be some responsibility with the public purse

Excellent idea!

How about you set a good example by not accepting your generous indexed civil service pension and health benefits?

I didn't think so.

[Sulako]

Yesterday I read in the news that the lefties are now claiming that the G20/G8 summit riots in Toronto were an "inside job", and the riots were in fact conducted by undercover police agents to make the lefties look bad. I honestly have trouble comprehending that kind of left-wing nonsense, but I digress.

Except for the fact that it's actually recently happened before, in Canada.

At the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership’ meeting protests at Montebello Quebec on August 20, 2007, a Quebec union leader caught and outed three masked undercover Quebec Provincial Police operatives dressed as ‘black bloc’ protestors about to start a riot by throwing rocks at the security police. See the following videos documenting this event.

Stop SPP Protest - Union Leader stops provocateurs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Evidence -- Police provoke Violence at SPP protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCRsj06wT64&NR=1

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...16 billion seems like a lot of money to pay for defense, considering that our biggest sovereignty threat is the US (if we stopped selling them oil and/or our delicious maple syrup, how long do you think it would take before they came up and 'liberated' us?) and the few fighters we'd get for our 16 billion would only delay them a little if they really wanted to take us over. I'm not saying that's likely at all (it isn't), but it's a lot more likely than, say, Venezuela or Korea invading.

[Old fella]

there has to be some responsibility with the public purse

Excellent idea!

How about you set a good example by not accepting your generous indexed civil service pension and health benefits?

I didn't think so.

I got one for you.......... how about that sinkhole NDHQ in Ottawa. You wanna see wasted bucks(and pensions) amongst all the top military brass as they prepare for the entry into the military/industry lobby upon completion of their gold plated positions(and pensions) at that money pit(NDHQ) , start there. No, I didn't think so as well... sounds that is your spot/lot in life!!!

[Shiny Side Up]

First I can't say that I think the expenditure is the best possible one, there are good and bad possibilities with it. It does seem like a lot of money - one also has to remember that the costs of stuff is only going to keep going up, it would be nice to see a cost comparrison of when we bought the Hornet dollars verses today's dollars. Though the airplane also isn't a perfect fit, I don't see that many other options. Like some others here, I fantasize about us getting a good deal on some super-hot Sukhois, but there's got to be a lot more time to dispell those cold war ghosts before that's ever going to happen. That leaves few other options probably most notably the Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, possibly the french Rafale and the Swedish Gripen, all of which essentially we'd be either buying used, and don't improve much on what we have. With the exception of the Super Hornet, they also have limited possibilty for longevity and definitely are less possible in terms of creating idiginous industry to support them, they also offer less in our "making nice" with our biggest neighbor.

As Sulako says above, probably our biggest threat to soverignty is our southern neigbor, but not in the form most of us percieve. If we didn't show some capability to defend our airspace, they'd want to do it for us - remember for them, there's still a big spectre of the Red Menace out there (and the Russians ain't doing much to dispell it, they still would like to play at being a superpower if they could) so while we as Canadians don't see the rest of the world as a threat, Americans definitely have a different point of view. I'm sure they'd be happy to start establishing a series of large bases across our country to provide security for us... It would start small. And don't think they're mostly after our Oil, we don't have enough of that to really slake their thirst for the stuff, we do have another resource though that they do really badly want in considerably larger volumes that can't be shipped in tankers from the middle east. But that's another story.

Regardless, whether we like to think they do or not, they have a big influence on how we decide to defend ourselves up here. With that in mind we should make that as favorable of a deal to us as we possibly can. That currently leaves us with the choices of the F35 and the super hornet - unless we can persude them to let us have some F-22s, which might be the best choice, but so far those are off the bargaining table. It would be nice to have a better idea of the capabilities of the F35 before we make that leap - but to be honest I don't think we can afford to hum and haw on the fence before we make that decision. If we're going to go through with it, for once lets not do things by halves. What I would like to see is our government really pushing to have some portion of the production of these machines moved here and push for a strong hand in the development of it. Anyone remember how the Canadair Sabres were known as the best performers and the most sought after machines for second hand purchacers? While the super hornet is a good machine, and possibly would give us a bigger bang for our immediate buck - either more for the same price or less cost for the same number of machines, I think it has more limited future potential.

In 30 years, or F-18s only partook in one real mission, which was the carpet bombing of former Yougoslavia, to free up the country from its ex-soviet past.
I do not see any other need for this type of operations in the future, as the world will wake up some day...

With that train of thought also probably thinks a new firestation is a waste of money because his house has never burned down. The military has the unenviable task of trying to purchace today for tomorrow's needs. We're a long way from the production days of the Second World War when we could gamble on new designs, and go from paper to prototype in a few weeks. Even if today we promise we're never going to send them to another Afghanistan, we don't know what the next place we might have to send them to will hold for them. Much like condoms, I'd rather have our new F35s and not need them, than to not have them and need them.

[square]

This is BS, how are the pilots supposed to get any good jobs when they get out of the military with no multi time?

[. ._]

They can get jobs doing Group 3 IFR stuff in a C172.

[zed]

Just to add a bit... Our military expenditures haven't reached epic proportions and the military pinch pennies with the best of them. At least better then many other questionable ministries. The exception is when it comes down to talking about risking soldiers lives, in which case the purse strings can be loosened a bit. But hardly without limit, the necessary value must still be obtained at the best price. Not necessarily the lowest.

But to just inject some comparative numbers, here is a list of NATO nations and their Defence Expenditure as a % of GDP (2009).

Canada 1.5% (used to be 1.1% back in 2002, only ones less then us back then were Luxemburg and Iceland)
Albania 2.0%
Belgium 1.2%
Bulgaria 1.9%
Croatia 1.6%
Czech Republic 1.6%
Denmark 1.4%
Estonia 1.9%
France 1.9%
Germany 2.1%
Greece 3.1%
Hungary 1.1%
Italy 1.4%
Latvia 1.2%
Lithuania 1.1%
Luxemburg 0.5%
Netherlands 1.5%
Norway 1.6%
Poland 1.7%
Portugal 1.4%
Romania 1.5%
Slovak Republic 1.5%
Slovenia 1.6%
Spain 1.2%
Turkey 1.8%
UK 2.7
US 4.0%

We're certainly not a big spender in the world of defence, but we are definitely no longer one of the cheapest out there anymore. As was the case a number of years back. In the last decade our military expenditure have gone up as I noted above. But this is largely the result of our heavy commitment in Afghanistan and the serious role we take especially in the Khandahar province. The increase that's occuring now is also the result of previous decades of decision making not to replace ageining equipment and to defer those expenditures in order to save money in those current year expenditures. However, you can only defer so long. Then the bill comes due, or you accept that you send out soldiers with second rate equipment and tell them to get the job done. And oh yah, don't lose anyone. Catch-22?

[Hedley]

This may sound really weird, but ...

The Canadian military needs to hire a PR firm. A good one.

Canadians don't see their military.

Canadians don't know what their military does.

Canadians don't view their military as "their own".

Because of the above, and the whacky Trudeau years, many Canadians think they don't need a military, so they wonder, why spend all the billions of dollars on something we don't get any return from?

IMHO the Canadian military needs to spend the same amount of money on PR - and education - that one hollywood movie does.

Can we hire the guys that did this trailer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMDC76D9 ... r_embedded

I know everyone here thinks I'm eight points to the right of Atilla the Hun, but undefended borders isn't going to give you what you really want in the long run.

sounds that is your spot/lot in life

Not sure I understood that rant. Are you implying I am a high-ranking military officer?

That's pretty funny.

[rigpiggy]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

One of the other forums I visit has a similar thread, I say the F15SE. 2/3 the price, the same frontal RCS as the"export F35", longer legs, bigger warload etc...... What we need is an aircraft that can fly from Cold Lake-Sachs Harbour, 10 min intercept, and recover to Inuvik for refuelling. the SuperBug, F35 cannot do it on internal fuel the F15 could, and yes I know you can hang some tanks on the other 2, but then so much for Stealth, the big reason for buying it..... The Israelis are presently looking at this option, and they are way more likely to use them than us.

['effin hippie]

+1

[niss]

Why should we spend those shekels on an supposedly JOINT strike fighter, when one party of the project limits the features available to other parties?

Perhaps we could use that kind of $$ and invest it into the Canadian economy and develop our own a/c again?

Come on, its not that hard.....who's with me? We can do it, does anyone remember how to carve a prop and laminate it with moose glue?

[Expat]

First, the US exports de-rated planes, even to the UK, or Canada. And they are over-priced as well.
If we think about Af, we would better be off buying C-172s, to do the pipeline patrols...
It is funny how successful UAVs are here. They are slow and low, but there is no opposition to them. They have no problems blowing up a wedding party.
You are right about one thing. Canada should spend its money for the protection of its borders, not for some stupid economic war far away, that will never produce any benefit to us.

[Xander]

F-35? Terrible mistake. We should buy their old F-15's instead.

[oldncold]

not to hi-jack the thread but today the gov't announced that the jrs is back on with 2ships insead of a 3 though the option for the 3rd is a remote possibility. back on track about the jsf35

further expat , waste of money? well im sure some canadian company engineer's are very pleased to put food on the table as a result of the money spent on the jsf . let alone the tech tranfer to canada. I understand the the securtiy clearance process to work on that project is similar to going to the proctologist for a mid life plumbing check. ( uncomfortable and through ).

next why are you so foolish or naive to believe that the the usa does anything that does not benefit them first. ? as for all the left wing wankers . the beloved former pm P.E.T. in a lucid moment said> "if your going to live under the us defence umbella you better help hold it up. " otherwise you lose credibility and risk losing soveriegnty .

the jsf should be augmented by 100 f22 . if the usa does not trust canada then we should be starting to REALLY build the cf . If they are so worried about the technology then we should look at the 1960' 70's example of havin nukes guarded by usa marines at our air bases that were hung under the cf101 voodoo..

the usa by jan 01/11 will demand that all pass overflying usa airspace be forwarded to the homeland securti;ity regardless if it doesn even land there
ie cyyg to cyyz . just dam well hope our politico's got the same thing , sorry i digress the world is not a nice place it it is not fair nor will it ever be that away . canada was blessed with a extreme abundance of natural wealth . at some pont in time some gov't / will want what is our's without paying for it. it is our JOB as canadians to get off our collective asses and pull the head out of the sand . and demand /purchase or design efficiently ourselves the best most upto date military tools available to ensure that this scenario never happens otherwise > would you like that supersize fries with your burger or chopstick s or a fork or more curry on your lamb./NOTE THIS IS NOT RACISM JUST GEO POLITICAL FACT OF THE 3 IGGEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD OF EMERGING AND ESTABLISHED COUNTRYS THAT NEED HUGE AMOUNTS OF RESOURCES TO FEED AND FUEL THERE LARGE POPULATION. )_ MORE FIGHERS JETS THE BETTER

[Old fella]

".....the usa by jan 01/11 will demand that all pass overflying usa airspace be forwarded to the homeland securti;ity regardless if it doesn even land there
ie cyyg to cyyz . just dam well hope our politico's got the same thing , sorry i digress the world is not a nice place it it is not fair nor will it ever be that away . canada was blessed with a extreme abundance of natural wealth . at some pont in time some gov't / will want what is our's without paying for it. it is our JOB as canadians to get off our collective asses and pull the head out of the sand . and demand /purchase or design efficiently ourselves the best most upto date military tools available to ensure that this scenario never happens otherwise > would you like that supersize fries with your burger or chopstick s or a fork or more curry on your lamb./NOTE THIS IS NOT RACISM JUST GEO POLITICAL FACT OF THE 3 IGGEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD OF EMERGING AND ESTABLISHED COUNTRYS THAT NEED HUGE AMOUNTS OF RESOURCES TO FEED AND FUEL THERE LARGE POPULATION. )_ MORE FIGHERS JETS THE BETTER "


Funny that! I remember 42 years ago doing my final years high school, the very same type commentary was spouted that if we(Canada) didn't join our dearest friends the good ole USA in their struggle against the godless Vietnamese commies, said hoards would soon appear on the shores of beautiful British Columbia. Wake up Canada - the slogan went, you are in a dream world, get off yer proverbial arses and do something to stem the commie tides.... The shooting of King and Kennedy, Motor City hadn't recovered from the burning "Hey Hey LBJ, how many kids you kill today..... that year had it all as I remember it. Followed by that black granite wall with 56,000 names of my generation......

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

You people need to keep in mind those CF18 upgrades were absolutely necessary to keep the fleet on the ball. That was cheaper than buying 80 or so super hornets to replace them.... thus awaiting the JSF. We NEED new hercs, and yes, the CF18s are getting there in age. People complain about military spending; however keep in mind Canada has kept a small fighter force flying for 20+ years. The hercs since the 60s/70s.... WE NEED NEW EQUIPMENT. It's not like the Harper GOV is buying new fighters every other year. These purchases are necessary for national defense into the future. You get what you pay for!

[Expat]

When a country asks us to supply names of cdn pax going to Cuba or other places, you seriously wonder who our ennemy is. No other country has ever requested such information...
That umbrella is seriously leaking...
Name one time when the US did something for another country, defensewise...
They always maintain that their defense and foreign policies are for the interests of the American people...

...and selling us weapon systems is in their interests, not necessarily ours...

[. ._]

According to this website:

http://www.military-heat.com/19/russian ... al-public/

With 16 billion bucks, we could buy 80,000 supersonic jets! Just try to shoot them all down. You can't! You'll run out of missiles!

-istp

[Hedley]

Name one time when the US did something for another country, defensewise

World War One, 1917. Europe.

World War Two, 1941. Europe again.

Learn about a USA President called FDR - obviously you've never heard of him - and prior to the entry of the USA into WWII in late 1941, his "Lend-Lease" program to support the Allies with the aircraft parked at the Cdn border that were towed across at night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

South Korea, 1951. You may recall this little invasion by North Korea. Then again, you may not

etc, etc, etc, etc.

All insignificant events of the 20th century, for any good socialist, I guess.

Do you have to be uneducated to be a socialist, or does it just really help a lot?

[niss]

Name one time when the US did something for another country, defensewise

World War One, 1917. Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... ted_States

Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation of international law and U.S. ideas of human rights. Wilson was under pressure from former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German acts as "piracy".[86] Wilson's desire to have a seat at negotiations at war's end to advance the League of Nations also played a role.[87] Wilson's Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, resigned in protest at what he felt was the President's decidedly warmongering diplomacy. Other factors contributing to the U.S. entry into the war include the suspected German sabotage of Black Tom in Jersey City, New Jersey, and the Kingsland Explosion in what is now Lyndhurst, New Jersey.

So wanting more power on the world stage and revenge for attacks on Americans. Again, hardly with the intent to free France.

World War Two, 1941. Europe again.

Learn about a USA President called FDR - obviously you've never heard of him - and prior to the entry of the USA into WWII in late 1941, his "Lend-Lease" program to support the Allies with the aircraft parked at the Cdn border that were towed across at night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the material was to be used until time for their return or destruction. (Supplies after the termination date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the U.S.) Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.[2]

Interesting way to generate some $ to pull your country out of a depression.

Lend-Lease came into existence with the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". In April, this policy was extended to China as well.[4] Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941.

It still seems that their motivations was keeping the war away from them rather than saving Jews or liberating Europe.

South Korea, 1951. You may recall this little invasion by North Korea.

Was a UN mission which the US took part in, it was not a US war.

How about Vietnam? Where was the righteousness there?

All insignificant events of the 20th century, for any good socialist, I guess.

Do you have to be uneducated to be a socialist, or does it just really help a lot?

It really helps because then we can just glaze over when we see gems like this:

[Hedley]

>> South Korea, 1951. You may recall this little invasion by North Korea.

> Was a UN mission which the US took part in, it was not a US war

Revisionism is such male bovine excrement.

"Smug Canadians". Sigh. Gordon Sinclair was right.

Other factors contributing to the U.S. entry into the war include the suspected German sabotage of Black Tom in Jersey City, New Jersey, and the Kingsland Explosion in what is now Lyndhurst, New Jersey

Huh? The USA in 1941 was hardly anti-German. Hell, the Nazis held their meetings in Times Square. No less than JFK's father - US Ambassador to UK - was pro-German, and so was Charles Lindbergh, rock star extraordinare, whom FDR hated with a passion.

I guess you do have to be uneducated to be a socialist.

[niss]

Huh? The USA in 1941 was hardly anti-German. Hell, the Nazis held their meetings in Times Square. No less than JFK's father - US Ambassador to UK - was pro-German, and so was Charles Lindbergh, rock star extraordinare, whom FDR hated with a passion.

I guess you do have to be uneducated to be a socialist.

At least I can read, that quote was for USAs involvement in WW1.

[Expat]

In military academy, I read stories about Pearl Harbor, and how could and should have been known beforehand, that the attack was coming...
Too many dots not connected there...

And then we have this:

In September, 2000, the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published their imperialistic views for the US. [24] In the document, they warned that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" would likely be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". [25]

A few months later, many PNAC members would become members of the Bush administration. Those members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Richard Perle. [26]

Three month after 9/11, to those who would not yet have understood the benefits of the catastrophic and catalysing event of US military debacle in Pearl Harbor in 1941, Bush would explain: "The four years that followed transformed the American way of war" and "even more importantly, an American President and his successors shaped a world beyond a war."

And, linking 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, he said, "September 11th, 2001 - three months and a long time ago - set another dividing line in our lives and in the life of our nation." [27]

On October 12, 2000, three weeks before the presidential elections, the US population was shortly reminded of the terrorist threat in the world. US Navy destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden was rammed with an inflatable raft with explosives and was damaged. Published detail: it looked as if the raft was coming to help the warship to moor to a buoy. [28] Message: you can trust nobody.

On November 7, 2000 the elections took place. It would be George W. Bush or Al Gore. The counting gave an extremely close result. The results of Florida became decisive, but these results are far from clear.

The opponents fought in many different courts until December 13. It turned out that in Florida, 180,000 votes had been thrown out of the counting. Bush led by less than 600 votes. Partial recounts resulted in much lower estimates. Finally, all recounts could not be executed within the time limit set by the Supreme Court. This is how Bush won the elections. [29]

To be continued...

[trampbike]

Every nation needs to be able to defend itself. We don't need anything approaching the US's military might, but we need to hold our own. Air power rules all in modern war so we can't just ignore it.
Is the F-35 the right choice? I have no idea but we do need to keep up with technology and the F-35 should future-proof us for a good while. At least the F-18's aren't getting replaced with UAVs lol.

Does it? How many of the tens and tens of thousands of US and Canadian soliders killed and injured in the middle east were hit from enemy air strikes?

Touche eh!

What?? Some people really buy this false argument?

The goal of any Air Force is not to be able to shoot down enemy aircraft, but to deny them any access to the sky. This concept is called AIR SUPERIORITY. Now we can take Dash Ate "argument" and affirm that he was in fact proving how important gaining air superiority is important, because this way, our soldiers will not get killed by enemy aircrafts.


@Hedley: I would appreciate you stopping simplifying left/right. It's not as simple as you make it sound, and left wing people aren't all stupid (same goes for left wing oversimplifying right wing arguments and then "proving" how their positions are ridiculous) .

I often consider myself to be left of center, yet my views regarding military spending seem to be exactly the same as yours.