# Canada reportedly has approved $7-billion purchase of 16 F-35 fighter jets



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

Yay or nay?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1605265163267239936


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Wow... 16 planes will really give us an air force to take out the Russians on snowmobiles on Ellsemere Island. Why have we not ordered 100 or them or so? If we are going to have armed forces, at least have armed forces.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would rather we spend most of our military budget on few nuclear equipped submarines. 

They would be far more of a deterrent to an enemy and we could probably buy them for a good price from the US who are upgrading their fleet.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

There’s no money for 100 of F-35


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Do you mean nuclear powered subs? Canada should probably have an improved sub fleet. Though really, diesel electric subs can be quite capable and we don't have the same kind of requirements for long range operation as the US. If you mean a nuclear deterrence, then you are just being silly. Canada can't afford and does not need a nuclear deterrent. I think it anything it would make us less secure to have that capability. We'd be far better off investing in our air force and navy. That is what Canada needs to be able to assert control over its territory, which we fail to do adequately today.

Australia ordered 72, Netherlands 50-ish. So yes, proportionately Canada should have about 100 F-35s.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> I would rather we spend most of our military budget on few nuclear equipped submarines.
> 
> They would be far more of a deterrent to an enemy and we could probably buy them for a good price from the US who are upgrading their fleet.


Submarines don't enforce air sovereignty

That's like buying coast guard ships to police the streets of Regina. If Russia or China send strategic bombers a submarine provides nothing, even if it happened to be in the right place at the right time, because it certainly wouldn't relocate fast enough

Crazy we can get a 4 ship of F-35s for about the amount we donated to IBM for Phoenix Pay


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nobody is going to invade Canada.

MAD is the best deterrent.

With all their military might the world is intimidated by North Korea because they have nukes.

We can still maintain a coastal defense.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The US, France, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, all have nukes for a deterrent and Iran soon will.

One nuclear submarine equipped with nuclear tipped ICBMs is more powerful than our entire military.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Russia or China drop bombs on us, we send multiple ICBMs at Moscow or Beijing from a submarine at sea.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Do you mean nuclear powered subs? Canada should probably have an improved sub fleet. Though really, diesel electric subs can be quite capable and we don't have the same kind of requirements for long range operation as the US. If you mean a nuclear deterrence, then you are just being silly. Canada can't afford and does not need a nuclear deterrent. I think it anything it would make us less secure to have that capability. We'd be far better off investing in our air force and navy. That is what Canada needs to be able to assert control over its territory, which we fail to do adequately today.
> 
> Australia ordered 72, Netherlands 50-ish. So yes, proportionately Canada should have about 100 F-35s.


Diesel subs can't operate under ice. If we ant to patrol the north we need nuclear powered subs.

We only have about 75 CF-18s left.
I think this is a bit low, we should have enough to put half a dozen in a few locations across the country, plus the capability to deploy 

If we deploy Canadian Troops, we should always provide some air support. 
I don't care if it actually ends up being provided by allies (ie the US), but we should at least have some assets in theater to return the favour.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Nobody is going to invade Canada.
> 
> MAD is the best deterrent.
> 
> ...


Yea you have no idea what you're talking about as usual

The arctic is very much threatened. No country has replaced conventional forces with nuclear weapons not even north korea. It makes no sense to anyone who actually knows the very basics of what they're talking about

If you want to tell us how warehouses work go ahead. Stay in your lane


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The point is we need to up our defense spending to 2% of GDP like most other NATO allies are now doing, and particularly our newest members from Eastern Europe. We have been derelict in our duty for far too long. We need more fighters and air transport, more Coast Guard to patrol our shores, more frigates to support them, and more troops and army equipment. It is pathetic what we could not gift to the Ukrainians.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> We'd be far better off investing in our air force and navy. That is what Canada needs to be able to assert control over its territory, which we fail to do adequately today.


We need to invest in all 3 elements.

If you don't have troops on the ground, you don't control the ground.
Without air cover and air superiority, it's very dangerous.

We also need a modern navy to patrol our massive shoreline.


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

Personally, I think we should get more than 16. Air superiority is pretty important for a country's defense, and I don't think we should have to solely rely on the US to defend us. Our current F-18's are a joke compared to Russia's New SU-57's, and China's J-20's.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Why have we not ordered 100 or them or so?


As others have noted, they are too f-ing expensive. I think we should have bought the updated F-18 super-hornets as a stop-gap and then licensed the ability to build Saab Gripens in Winnipeg.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree the F-35 is not necessarily the right (expensive) choice but regardless, we need a heck of a lot more (quantity and competitive) military jets than we have. We have been an embarrassment for decades.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fisherman30 said:


> Personally, I think we should get more than 16. Air superiority is pretty important for a country's defense, and I don't think we should have to solely rely on the US to defend us. Our current F-18's are a joke compared to Russia's New SU-57's, and China's J-20's.





AltaRed said:


> I agree the F-35 is not necessarily the right (expensive) choice but regardless, we need a heck of a lot more (quantity and competitive) military jets than we have. We have been an embarrassment for decades.


This first order is hopefully the training squadron.

The F35 might not be the best, but it's really good.
It's also a good political choice, and will interoperate well with allied nations. 

I think the interoperability part is easy to underestimate, but that's a HUGE force multiplier.


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> This first order is hopefully the training squadron.
> 
> The F35 might not be the best, but it's really good.
> It's also a good political choice, and will interoperate well with allied nations.
> ...


Yeah, the F-35 is pretty cool. When a formation of F-35's are flying together, each F-35 pilot can select a different enemy target, and they can take out an entire enemy formation simultaneously with air to air missiles.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

More planes will be purchased. A few countries made small initial orders, then made a subsequent much larger order. I’d suspect we’ll end up with between 50-75.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fisherman30 said:


> Yeah, the F-35 is pretty cool. When a formation of F-35's are flying together, each F-35 pilot can select a different enemy target, and they can take out an entire enemy formation simultaneously with air to air missiles.


Or launch them from the F15 flying miles behind them.


----------



## Faramir (11 mo ago)

Canada since Chretien has woefully funded or not funded its military. So in general we need to spend more on our military to not be an international joke and to be able to flex our power independently.


----------



## Faramir (11 mo ago)

AltaRed said:


> The point is we need to up our defense spending to 2% of GDP like most other NATO allies are now doing, and particularly our newest members from Eastern Europe. We have been derelict in our duty for far too long. We need more fighters and air transport, more Coast Guard to patrol our shores, more frigates to support them, and more troops and army equipment. It is pathetic what we could not gift to the Ukrainians.


Agree 100%. How can we have foreign policy independent of the US if we refuse to fund our military and continue to borrow from America?


----------



## Faramir (11 mo ago)

m3s said:


> Yea you have no idea what you're talking about as usual
> 
> The arctic is very much threatened. No country has replaced conventional forces with nuclear weapons not even north korea. It makes no sense to anyone who actually knows the very basics of what they're talking about
> 
> If you want to tell us how warehouses work go ahead. Stay in your lane


Canada is threatened probably more by the predatory power of China. Just brainstorming here when I think of threats to Canada. China has its fingers all over the place among the Chinese community and its supporters in Parliament. Who knows what the future portends?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> We need to invest in all 3 elements.
> 
> If you don't have troops on the ground, you don't control the ground.
> Without air cover and air superiority, it's very dangerous.
> ...


Canada is never going to be a land power. It doesn't really make sense for us to have a fleet of tanks that we can't even deploy as an expeditionary force. I think it makes sense to invest in artillery systems and armoured vehicles. Countries have to make decisions about where to allocate scarce resources, and frankly, Canada has very little need for extensive ground forces and we would get more value in our own territorial integrity and support for our allies by investing in air and naval capabilities.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Faramir said:


> Canada is threatened probably more by the predatory power of China. Just brainstorming here when I think of threats to Canada. China has its fingers all over the place among the Chinese community and its supporters in Parliament. Who knows what the future portends?


China is considered a threat to the arctic. Russia could become a vassal state that supports China

Japan just announced they will significantly increase military spending because of China. Australia has been for awhile. Neither think it makes sense to neglect conventional forces

Thing is you can't build up a fighter capability "just in time" You have to develop, train, maintain it


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

We need to be able to ante up our share of equipping NATO forces when asked to do so and the transport aircraft to move it there. To have had only 37 M777 towed howitzers before we gave a few (a few day's worth) to Ukraine is an example of having 'nothing'. 

I agree we probably are not in a position to have a significant tank force but there is far more ground mobile equipment we should have and be able to move on a moment' notice.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Canada is never going to be a land power. It doesn't really make sense for us to have a fleet of tanks that we can't even deploy as an expeditionary force. I think it makes sense to invest in artillery systems and armoured vehicles. Countries have to make decisions about where to allocate scarce resources, and frankly, Canada has very little need for extensive ground forces and we would get more value in our own territorial integrity and support for our allies by investing in air and naval capabilities.


We don't really have tank capacity, and it's very expensive to maintain that capacity.
Maybe it makes more sense to have sufficient anti-tank capability and just use AFVs

The big problem is that we have virtually no anti-aircraft ability.
It's nice to assume that we'll always have air dominance, but if we lose it, those troops are in a LOT of trouble.

For defence we need to be able to effectively disrupt supply lines, that's navy and airforce.
For foreign operations, we need land forces.

Also it is VERY hard and quite expensive to build real military capability.
Even at the most basic levels, It's not as simple as handing someone a gun and telling them which way to point it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> This first order is hopefully the training squadron.
> 
> The F35 might not be the best, but it's really good.
> It's also a good political choice, and will interoperate well with allied nations.
> ...


F-35 is also interoperable with NORAD upgrades. Interoperability is why nothing else makes sense.

Gripen doesn't even use the same jet fuel whereas the F-35 can be supported by any nation that operates them. This was painfully obvious since the campaign in Libya but also things like logistical challenges for the F-18s in Romania

With recent announcements to commit to NORAD missile defenses we would be foolish to buy anything else - but I suppose dumber things have happened before



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wayne-eyre-arctic-russia-china-defence-1.6621040





> Politically Canada was not aligned with US missile defenses but this is no longer true with the NORAD upgrades especially when anyone points to how much missiles are being used in Ukraine.
> 
> Eyre said the war in Ukraine has weakened Russia to the point where it could become a "vassal state" of China.
> 
> ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Russia can't even successfully invade and occupy a small country like Ukraine.......let alone the vastness of Canada.

Ukraine is 0.56 the size of the Province of Ontario, and Canada is 1,554 times the size of Ukraine.

The threat of invasion by foreign forces into Canada is greatly exaggerated.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Russia can't even successfully invade and occupy a small country like Ukraine.......let alone the vastness of Canada.
> 
> Ukraine is 0.56 the size of the Province of Ontario, and Canada is 1,554 times the size of Ukraine.
> 
> The threat of invasion is greatly overstated.


They have successfully invaded and occupied Ukraine since 2014 saggy old brains

While there is no immediate threat, there is definitely a threat and you don't wait for "just in time" solution like a GM supply chain would for this stuff

A capability acts as a deterrence. There is a reason CBC doesn't interview the GM warehouse expert for this stuff


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

sags said:


> Russia can't even successfully invade and occupy a small country like Ukraine.......let alone the vastness of Canada.
> 
> Ukraine is 0.56 the size of the Province of Ontario, and Canada is 1,554 times the size of Ukraine.
> 
> The threat of invasion by foreign forces into Canada is greatly exaggerated.


Dumb.

Military is like a set of car tires - it's quite literally one of the things you should never cheap out on. Expensive or not, you need it and the more you have and the better quality it is will end up paying off in the long run.

I bet the same people with your line of thinking drive a 45 minute commute on the 401 with 2 year old all seasons in the middle of winter.

"they'll salt the roads, I'll be fine."

"We won't need the military, we'll be fine."

You're fine until you're not.
Especially in a country with a dictator as a "leader" who doesn't want it's citizens to own guns.

At least if the Russians ever do come (or anyone for that matter) I'll be prepared.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Hope they get the order right this time (ahem, with engines).

The Harper administration completely botched it last time.


----------



## Faramir (11 mo ago)

m3s said:


> They have successfully invaded and occupied Ukraine since 2014 saggy old brains
> 
> While there is no immediate threat, there is definitely a threat and you don't wait for "just in time" solution like a GM supply chain would for this stuff
> 
> A capability acts as a deterrence. There is a reason CBC doesn't interview the GM warehouse expert for this stuff


He has a good point though. For myself I have always been worried about Poland and the Baltic States falling to Russia. But apparently Russia can't even defeat the Ukraine after many months. They have shown themselves to be completely incapable of expanding their empire.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

For those that voted No, what is the reason? Not enough planes? Too expensive? Not needed? Just curious.

I think we need something for sure. I don't know if a stealth fighter is needed, that's more of an offensive weapon. I would like to see Canada focus on a few things, military-wise, and be best in class at it. Like heavy air lift capacity (which is useful for humanitarian missions). Have outsized capacity for our needs. Or anti-drone warfare/defences. Or anti-aircraft. Or maritime patrol.

On procurement, I wish we could just go with the best capability for the lowest cost. Forget trying to get Canadian content. I don't care if patrol ships come from Korea or Italy or Estonia or Germany. They'll get done faster and cheaper, which is a better value to the military and the tax payer.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Faramir said:


> He has a good point though. For myself I have always been worried about Poland and the Baltic States falling to Russia. But apparently Russia can't even defeat the Ukraine after many months. They have shown themselves to be completely incapable of expanding their empire.


Russia is succeeding its strategic objectives as much as the US did in Iraq. Both Iraq and Ukraine are very much altered for a long time despite appearing much less than wins on CNN. War is messy and expanding empires are no longer border lines as much as geopolitical landscapes

Poland and Baltic states fall under NATO article 5. Perfect example of conventional forces acting as deterrence there (including Canadian conventional forces) US and NATO have increased conventional forces significantly there for good reason

Mainstream media soap opera for boomers would certainly offer a different flavour of misinformation. Bottom line sending a few nuclear submarines doesn't magically solve Russia and China threats. US is heavily supporting Ukraine and China could support Russia


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

m3s said:


> Russia is succeeding its strategic objectives as much as the US did in Iraq. Both Iraq and Ukraine are very much altered for a long time despite appearing much less than wins on CNN. War is messy and expanding empires are no longer border lines as much as geopolitical landscapes
> 
> Poland and Baltic states fall under NATO article 5. Perfect example of conventional forces acting as deterrence there (including Canadian conventional forces) US and NATO have increased conventional forces significantly there for good reason
> 
> Mainstream media soap opera for boomers would certainly offer a different flavour of misinformation. Bottom line sending a few nuclear submarines doesn't magically solve Russia and China threats. US is heavily supporting Ukraine and China could support Russia


M3s - you seem to be very knowledgeable and experienced on military - curius what you think Canada should do with its military if you were in charge. Reason I ask is I know NOTHING about military and my opinion seems to want to rely on the USA and use the $ for roads, hospitals, etc.. but I know it doesnt work that way...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Faramir said:


> He has a good point though. For myself I have always been worried about Poland and the Baltic States falling to Russia. But apparently Russia can't even defeat the Ukraine after many months. They have shown themselves to be completely incapable of expanding their empire.


It's not that clear cut.
After Russian invaded and annexed Crimea, Ukraine invested extremely heavily in their military. They boosted spending to 5% or more of GDP. 
US is around 3.2%, 

Massive spending, massive training along with heavy support from friendly nations. 

Could you imagine the military we'd have if we 4x'd our spending, plus engaged in heavy training to properly utilize it.

We'd jump to 3rd largest in military expenditures.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Gumball said:


> M3s - you seem to be very knowledgeable and experienced on military - curius what you think Canada should do with its military if you were in charge. Reason I ask is I know NOTHING about military and my opinion seems to want to rely on the USA and use the $ for roads, hospitals, etc.. but I know it doesnt work that way...


I know you asked M3s, but my opinion is.

We should have the ability to observe patrol and visit the whole country.

We should be able to send a fully self sufficient force anywhere in the world.
Fully as in all required capabilities, including air defence.
It doesn't need to be a large force, but just enough to cover all of it's needs without relying on partners.
Have basic capabilities in all areas, and pick a few areas to have exceptional capabilities.

Maintain strong partnerships with allied nations.
Honestly it makes more sense to operate as part of a larger coalition.
Rather than sending a dozen aircraft to support our units, allocate them with allied nations then we all have access to a much larger (and broader) support team.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Gumball said:


> M3s - you seem to be very knowledgeable and experienced on military - curius what you think Canada should do with its military if you were in charge. Reason I ask is I know NOTHING about military and my opinion seems to want to rely on the USA and use the $ for roads, hospitals, etc.. but I know it doesnt work that way...


The Canadian defence policies are actually pretty good and written based on knowledgeable input and processes.

Unfortunately the person in charge can't do much unless the treasury board, politicians and voters all agree. No one person is the expert but without one person to make a decision on a coherent long term strategy based on a process that involves research, simulation, testing and experimentation.. which we currently do but then don't follow

Fixing the procurement process would also go a long ways to improve the output of taxpayer money. As it stands we can skip the process when something like ISIS happens but that's like last minute shopping instead of being smart and having a long term plan that isn't based on political favours

We should focus on building up capabilities that can't be created overnight. We can have a plan to scale up and surge some things if required but not everything


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> We should focus on building up capabilities that can't be created overnight. We can have a plan to scale up and surge some things if required but not everything


We're massively under strength and lacking in basic capabilities.

But while we work on that, we should of course also work on building the difficult roles as well.

One we do quite well is pilot training, But we have very limited submarine experience.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> We're massively under strength and lacking in basic capabilities.
> 
> But while we work on that, we should of course also work on building the difficult roles as well.
> 
> One we do quite well is pilot training, But we have very limited submarine experience.


Strength and basic capabilities can be somewhat scaled and surged. For example if we have the basic equipment, training infrastructure and personnel we can surge because more people tend to join only when there is a need. We also have a reserve force.

Even during ISIS we were buying more advanced capabilities. Luckily the work was done in advance so we could just skip the bureaucracy but also lucky the US is ready to sell capabilities on a moment's notice. During Afghanistan for example we had to buy and lease many things like Leopard tanks and UAVs

You can't just buy ships, F-35 and upgrade NORAD to respond to something though. That takes decades to build rather than months or weeks during a surge. It sounds impossible but it's impressive how fast Ukraine is able to adapt to modern army equipment from various countries


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

m3s said:


> Gripen doesn't even use the same jet fuel


Really? They use the same General Electric F414 engine as the new "super" F-18. Is it the F35 that doesn't run on JET-A1? That would be a bit of an annoyance.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Strength and basic capabilities can be somewhat scaled and surged. For example if we have the basic equipment, training infrastructure and personnel we can surge because more people tend to join only when there is a need. We also have a reserve force.


It's actually a lot of work to train up. 
Also our reserve force is way under strength.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

gardner said:


> Really? They use the same General Electric F414 engine as the new "super" F-18. Is it the F35 that doesn't run on JET-A1? That would be a bit of an annoyance.


Jet A1 is normally for civilian aircraft. I just remember that Gripens had to cancel their first missions in Libya because of this.

Military aircraft normally use JP-5 and JP-8 with lower flash points. That means military air refuellers and and military bases would normally have those. Refueling was one of the most hectic issues in Afghanistan, Romania and Libya

It's not insurmountable but it sure makes things a lot easier if we use the same equipment as the US. Otherwise you have to send a lot more of your own logistics and support and source your own parts etc.

Imagine being in Alaska or Afghanistan and needing a special part delivered from Saab in Sweden instead of just borrowing from the US while waiting


----------



## Jericho (Dec 23, 2011)

m3s said:


> Yea you have no idea what you're talking about as usual
> 
> The arctic is very much threatened. No country has replaced conventional forces with nuclear weapons not even north korea. It makes no sense to anyone who actually knows the very basics of what they're talking about
> 
> If you want to tell us how warehouses work go ahead. Stay in your lane


Problem is, a few on here just like to hear themselves speak, regardless of merit of content.

You are right. Our arctic is very threatened. And we've not the tools, equipment or manpower to do much about it, let alone do anything about it in a nuclear war.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> It's actually a lot of work to train up.
> Also our reserve force is way under strength.


Sure but in a wartime scenario there are some jobs we could pump out a lot faster than others

They may also be the jobs that keep getting used for random things other than their primary role during peacetime

Not saying it's ideal or good. Ukraine has far exceeded expectations for learning new equipment fast though


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Sure but in a wartime scenario there are some jobs we could pump out a lot faster than others
> 
> They may also be the jobs that keep getting used for random things other than their primary role during peacetime
> 
> Not saying it's ideal or good. Ukraine has far exceeded expectations for learning new equipment fast though


That's what years of high intensity training and lots of money does.
We're not even close.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

[QUOTE="m3s, post: 2210085, member: 5510"
That's like buying coast guard ships to police the streets of Regina.
[/QUOTE]

🤣👏


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

JTs big push to get elected was that Canada didn’t need stealth F35s and that regular older designs such as the Super Hornet would meet Canadas needs at just a fraction of the price….. then JT pissed off Boeing, thanks to Bombardier. JT tried to buy a small order of F18E fighters to get the infrastructure started, but basically Boeing said F.Off. Then JT bought us some expired Ausie F18s…. Nice. Now there’s a war in Europe, we really need a new airforce, Boeing wants nothing to do with us, and JT is spending a fortune on F35s. We should have just let Harper buy them originally the way it’s was playing out. JT you moron, we are buying the same aircraft at a huge cost increase…..


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

As for our Navy, the Libs bought us 4x old used British diesel subs…. We almost sank one, people died, and I think to this day these ships may be relegated to more of a coast guard duty than anything else…. 

If we want a sub we need a good designed diesel electric, prob 8+ of them. Call our German friends, they will make us a great ‘new’ DE sub. Nuclear ? No, not at all, Canada has nothing nuclear & we would Fx it up. We have to much political delays and beurocrats slowing things down, nuclear reactors require quick action and we aren’t able. We can’t even build a pipeline, let alone run reactors…. There was one out east and it made medical cancer treatments and it went belly up if my memory is correct….


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

hfp75 said:


> JTs big push to get elected was that Canada didn’t need stealth F35s and that regular older designs such as the Super Hornet would meet Canadas needs at just a fraction of the price….. then JT pissed off Boeing, thanks to Bombardier. JT tried to buy a small order of F18E fighters to get the infrastructure started, but basically Boeing said F.Off. Then JT bought us some expired Ausie F18s…. Nice. Now there’s a war in Europe, we really need a new airforce, Boeing wants nothing to do with us, and JT is spending a fortune of F35s. We should have just let Harper buy them originally the way it’s was playing out. JT you moron, we are buying the same aircraft at a huge cost increase…..


I'm not entirely against the Super Hornet. But you just have to look at the long list of countries that considered it and then ultimately purchased the F-35. The F-18s worked out extremely well so naturally it's a contender.

Something designed to slam down on short aircraft carriers happens to be a robust platform and we use the cable on icy runways and also fold up the wings to save on heating large hangers. The Swiss loved the F-18 for the same reasons, considered the Super Hornet and also went with F-35 (which can also be ordered with the more robust landing gear, arrester cable hook, larger folding wings that can also fly slower as well as more fuel) I have to check if Canada is ordering the full aircraft carrier C version but that's what I would do. Flying slower has a tactical advantage and better for landing in adverse winter conditions, more range is better for Canada and the other upgrades like the landing gear doesn't hurt at all. Sometimes rough landings happen

The biggest difference is the modern interoperability. Buying the Super Hornet is like buying a Nokia flip phone when everyone is on smart phones apps. Considering how long we keep these aircraft it just doesn't make sense to buy something that old today to fly for decades


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

m3s said:


> I'm not entirely against the Super Hornet. But you just have to look at the long list of countries that considered it and then ultimately purchased the F-35. The F-18s worked out extremely well so naturally it's a contender.
> 
> Something designed to slam down on short aircraft carriers happens to be a robust platform and we use the cable on icy runways and also fold up the wings to save on heating large hangers. The Swiss loved the F-18 for the same reasons, considered the Super Hornet and also went with F-35 (which can also be ordered with the more robust landing gear, arrester cable hook, larger folding wings that can also fly slower as well as more fuel) I have to check if Canada is ordering the full aircraft carrier C version but that's what I would do. Flying slower has a tactical advantage and better for landing in adverse winter conditions, more range is better for Canada and the other upgrades like the landing gear doesn't hurt at all. Sometimes rough landings happen
> 
> The biggest difference is the modern interoperability. Buying the Super Hornet is like buying a Nokia flip phone when everyone is on smart phones apps. Considering how long we keep these aircraft it just doesn't make sense to buy something that old today to fly for decades


The original plan was to purchase the A variant with some minor BC upgrades (parachute and refuelling probs).

once in the air, the A seems the most potent. The extra fuel in the C appears to offset the added weight, and does not extend the range.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Money172375 said:


> The original plan was to purchase the A variant with some minor BC upgrades (parachute and refuelling probs).
> 
> once in the air, the A seems the most potent. The extra fuel in the C appears to offset the added weight, and does not extend the range.
> 
> View attachment 23993


Yea, I'm a bit rusty on the variants

C variant also removes the gun to save weight and has an external gun pod. Looks like the folding wings just brings it back to about the size of the A anyways

C variant is 5k lbs heavier when empty


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

While Canada contemplates the purchase of new fighters, Putin attends the launch of several new Russian naval warships and 2 nuclear submarines with ballistic missile capability. The war in Ukraine doesn't appear to be slowing down the Russian military production as some have predicted it would.

With all the military spending, it looks like the Cold War is ramping up again.

_President Vladimir Putin on Thursday oversaw the commissioning of several new warships and a nuclear-powered submarine as he vowed to further strengthen Russia's navy.

Among the newly-commissioned vessels were a corvette, a minesweeper and the Generalissimus Suvorov nuclear-powered submarine which is capable of launching ballistic missiles.

Another nuclear submarine, the Emperor Alexander III, was put to sea on Thursday and will be officially commissioned following trials.

"We will increase the pace and volume of construction of various ships, equip them with the most modern weapons," the Russian leader said in televised remarks.

"All in all, everything to reliably ensure Russia's security, the protection of our national interests in the world ocean," he added._









Power outages in 'most regions' of Ukraine after Russian strikes, Zelensky says


Most regions in Ukraine are without power in freezing temperatures following a fresh barrage of Russian strikes, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday. Some 69 Russian missiles targeted cities across…




www.france24.com


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

sags said:


> While Canada contemplates the purchase of new fighters, Putin attends the launch of several new Russian naval warships and 2 nuclear submarines with ballistic missile capability. The war in Ukraine doesn't appear to be slowing down the Russian military production as some have predicted it would.
> 
> With all the military spending, it looks like the Cold War is ramping up again.
> 
> ...


That's fine. The Ukrainians will undoubtedly add some of Putin's new toys to this list:



http://imgur.com/3w0WtnE


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608849790586228737


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

hfp75 said:


> Nuclear ? No, not at all, Canada has nothing nuclear & we would Fx it up.


Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean for military applications? I can assure you Canada has a lot of expertise in the nuclear industry. It is big business in Ontario, and there are a number of startups in the nuclear space (SMR and fusion) in Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't know how anyone could keep accurate statistics on the Russian losses.

Just the other day, Russia sent a barrage of hundreds of missiles into Ukraine.

There is nothing stopping the production of weapons in Russia as long as they have access to everything they need from China and other countries.

Reporters on the ground have said there are heavy losses on both sides as they slug it out in trench warfare and missile attacks.

The war has reached a stalemate both on the ground and in negotiations.

It is depressing that the world's most powerful military is useless in halting the carnage of war because Russia has nuclear weapons.

No wonder North Korea and Iran seek the same level of power.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I don't know how anyone could keep accurate statistics on the Russian losses.


It's just data collection, not easy in a warzone, but you can watch the units rotate in and rotate out and get an idea.



> Just the other day, Russia sent a barrage of hundreds of missiles into Ukraine.
> 
> There is nothing stopping the production of weapons in Russia as long as they have access to everything they need from China and other countries.


That's the point of sanctions.
They also need the production capacity.

That's also why the US requires military equipment to be purchased from domestic sources.



> It is depressing that the world's most powerful military is useless in halting the war because Russia has nuclear weapons.


And the fact that Ukraine isn't a NATO member.

Being invaded by the US is likely better than being invaded by Russia, but it wouldn't be welcomed by all.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> I don't know how anyone could keep accurate statistics on the Russian losses.


There are well documented websites with pictures/videos. That is just open source from telegram chats. Governments have far more surveillance tools

To get an idea of what a good journalism can do - watch this detailed documentary Exposing the Russian Military Unit Behind a Massacre in Bucha | Visual Investigations (NSFW)



sags said:


> Just the other day, Russia sent a barrage of hundreds of missiles into Ukraine.


Ukraine shot them down using missile defenses from western nations. Unfortunately when you shoot down a missile it still lands somewhere

This is well documented even with video of cruise missiles shot down by manpads. It's impossible to protect everything - war is messy



sags said:


> There is nothing stopping the production of weapons in Russia as long as they have access to everything they need from China and other countries.


They are using sanctioned US microchips and processors. This is very well documented now. They probably get them from ebay or just buy something for the computer chip.

Canadian military equipment is so old even we have to buy old processors off eBay sometimes.



sags said:


> Reporters on the ground have said there are heavy losses on both sides as they slug it out in trench warfare and missile attacks.
> 
> The war has reached a stalemate both on the ground and in negotiations.


Reporters don't seem to understand how military strategy works. If Russia's intent was to cripple Ukraine's economy and morale than it is succeeding.

Trench warfare has been completely changed from how we trained 20 years ago. Now they have commercial drones that can spot trenches and drop grenades



sags said:


> It is depressing that the world's most powerful military is useless in halting the carnage of war because Russia has nuclear weapons.
> 
> No wonder North Korea and Iran seek the same level of power.


US doesn't want direct conflict with a near-peer. As much as people think America would destroy Russia without heavy losses it simply isn't based on reality. War is very messy

Western nations have donated equipment and supplies that are halting carnage


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

m3s said:


> The biggest difference is the modern interoperability. Buying the Super Hornet is like buying a Nokia flip phone when everyone is on smart phones apps. Considering how long we keep these aircraft it just doesn't make sense to buy something that old today to fly for decades


So, Uhhh, why didnt we let Harper buy them 8 years ago ? It would have been WAYYY cheaper...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

hfp75 said:


> So, Uhhh, why didnt we let Harper buy them 8 years ago ? It would have been WAYYY cheaper...


Because not making investments in our military is a political benefit to the Liberals.
They LOVE to stop warmongering Conservatives.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Full order details announced. 88 total aircraft.



https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6707769


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

"Anand said Monday that, by waiting, Canada will be buying a proven aircraft..."

With this logic I am surprised they didn't just wait to buy them used from Australia.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Canada is very fortunate NOT to have purchased the F35's in the past. They were overpriced dogs.

For years Lockheed and the US were pressuring Canada to only buy an overpriced lemon that was not fit for purpose. Buyers would then have to pay for the extensive upgrades to bring them up to date!

Canada is just one of several potential astute buyers that thankfully did not fall into this trap. They wanted to use Canada as a purchase reference to 'prove' to other national buyers that the product was solid. Fortunately....no sale!

Until recently they have been serious problems with them. The US continued to flog them however my understanding is that the problems and limitations became well known in the international military community. So serious that the US forces stopped purchased and insisted on new, updated avionics among other things. Just one of the many upgrades.

And...the price apparently went down and the industrial benefits to Canada were increased because of the competition.

A critical component of any huge tender/buy evaluation is the benefits/ spinoff to the Canadian economy section. How much will be produced in Canadian manufacturing facilities, where, and how many net new jobs will it yield.









Canada avoided early F-35 problems, saved money by delaying original purchase of fighter: ex-test pilot


Not only has the cost per plane come down over the years, but the F-35's software 'is dramatically more advanced now than it would have been' a decade ago,…




nationalpost.com













F-35 Problems: Late IOTE, F-35A Gun Inaccurate, F-35B Tires, Threat Data, Cyber... - Breaking Defense


WASHINGTON: Perhaps the most damning thing a director of Operational Test and Evaluation can say about a weapon is that it is not “operationally suitable.” Here’s what the new DOTE, Robert Behler, says about the F-35 Joint Strike fighter in his office’s latest annual report: The operational...




breakingdefense.com


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

F-22 had some pretty serious problems as well. Maybe even worse but it's safer to just not discuss

The military industrial complex has proven that it is far more efficient at extracting profits than the public R&D system


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

m3s said:


> F-22 had some pretty serious problems as well. Maybe even worse but it's safer to just not discuss
> 
> The military industrial complex has proven that it is far more efficient at extracting profits than the public R&D system


The quality problems were so serious with the Boeing transport plane by that the US military stopped delivery. They even found manufacturing tools, etc left in the fuselage. No surprise given the 737 Max fiasco.

It is one reason why Airbus has overtaken Boeing in the commercial space when it comes to numbers of orders/deliveries.


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

Covariance said:


> "Anand said Monday that, by waiting, Canada will be buying a proven aircraft..."
> 
> With this logic I am surprised they didn't just wait to buy them used from Australia.


There must be a few Wright brothers aircraft still available?


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

ian said:


> Canada is very fortunate NOT to have purchased the F35's in the past. They were overpriced dogs.
> 
> For years Lockheed and the US were pressuring Canada to only buy an overpriced lemon that was not fit for purpose. Buyers would then have to pay for the extensive upgrades to bring them up to date!
> 
> ...


I understand your message on the Aircraft and its issues. I merely find it intelliectually dishonest and a disservice to those in uniform that rely on tools to get the job done. Spinning from we don't need expensive jets ordered by Harper, the used F18 fiasco and now this grand strategy with huge benefits is beyond words.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Canadians should be outraged at the cost of things like Phoenix pay system

Everyone hyper focused on the cost of fighter jets because they're shiny and cool but have no perspective of what is wasted on everything else

We burn insane money trying to maintain things that would have been financially savvy to replace - let alone capability wise


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

m3s said:


> Canadians should be outraged at the cost of things like Phoenix pay system
> 
> Everyone hyper focused on the cost of fighter jets because they're shiny and cool but have no perspective of what is wasted on everything else
> 
> We burn insane money trying to maintain things that would have been financially savvy to replace - let alone capability wise


couldn't agree more. I would add that travel app to the list.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Covariance said:


> I understand your message on the Aircraft and its issues. I merely find it intelliectually dishonest and a disservice to those in uniform that rely on tools to get the job done. Spinning from we don't need expensive jets ordered by Harper, the used F18 fiasco and now this grand strategy with huge benefits is beyond words.


I do not think it was a grand strategy.

I believe that the folks in both the Harper and the Trudeau Governments were aware that the F35 was not ready prime time during the multiple times the US tried to pressure Canada into buying a pig in a poke as it were. 

So they said thanks, but no thanks. That is the bottom line. Both had the foresight to say no to a non starter. Even if it meant some domestic hear and US heat. We should be thankful to both and to the various military and procurement folks that in all probability made the no buy recommendation(s).


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

Wait a gosh darn second. How much of the purchase price is going toward the carbon tax. Hmm? Those F-35 account for more than their fair share of carbon!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> Wait a gosh darn second. How much of the purchase price is going toward the carbon tax. Hmm? Those F-35 account for more than their fair share of carbon!


These things will cost $70B over their lifecycle. I think jet fuel, much less carbon tax, are a rounding error in that cost.


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

andrewf said:


> These things will cost $70B over their lifecycle. I think jet fuel, much less carbon tax, are a rounding error in that cost.


I was being facetious. But Trudeau should consider the E-version fighter jet. It's the right thing to do for the environment.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Haha, I think combat aircraft are basically the last domain of transportation to not rely on combustion fuel, other than rockets. Though to be fair, there are some small battery powered drones that are capable of some pretty incredible performance--just not for very long.






Want some nightmare fuel--there is inevitably going to be a drone like that with a small explosive charge. Good luck running away.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> I was being facetious. But Trudeau should consider the E-version fighter jet. It's the right thing to do for the environment.


Full load is 10k L, and that's gives a 2k range, actually not bad, only 5L/km for range, and that's under cruise conditions.

They use massive amounts of fuel, and if there was a group justifiably sensitive to "range anxiety", it would be fighter pilots.


----------



## AlwaysMissingTheBoat (8 mo ago)

MrMatt said:


> Full load is 10k L, and that's gives a 2k range, actually not bad, only 5L/km for range, and that's under cruise conditions.
> 
> They use massive amounts of fuel, and if there was a group justifiably sensitive to "range anxiety", it would be fighter pilots.


Again, sarcasm on my part. I guess I should be using the appropriate emoji.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AlwaysMissingTheBoat said:


> Again, sarcasm on my part. I guess I should be using the appropriate emoji.


No, I think it could happen, just power/weight is key in fighters, and the tech isn't there yet.
Heck they can jettison extra fuel to improve that ratio during combat.


I think low observability electric drones are a likely path.

Imagine a drone, travelling at bird speed, with a bird scale radar cross section, great use for battery power.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada dodged an expensive bullet by delaying the purchase of the F35 fighters. There have been significant advances to the aircraft since 2010.

The Trudeau government also took advantage of Canada's early partnership in financing the development of the fighter.

The economic GDP to Canada is estimated at $480 million dollars annually, while the purchase cost is spread over many years.

All in all.........a job well done by the Trudeau Liberals.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags said:


> Canada dodged an expensive bullet by delaying the purchase of the F35 fighters. There have been significant advances to the aircraft since 2010.
> 
> The Trudeau government also took advantage of Canada's early partnership in financing the development of the fighter.
> 
> ...


I do not know if it is a job well done. Just prudent military procurement for a change.

The Government should be thanked for not bending to immense US pressure and some domestic pressure from lobby groups with a financial interest. NATO countries did not of course say that much because it meant that a few European suppliers may be in with a chance.

The US story of the F35 is cringeworthy. Plane was rolled out early with poor attributes. The USAF, US Marine Air, and the US Army Air had nothing but problems. Billions were spent on this product. What Canada bought is essentially a new plane. My understanding that over the past 10 years that the only part of the plane that did not need substantial upgrade/replacement was the airframe.

We will not get ours in any number for quite some time. But at least, hopefully, will have the right product at the right price.


----------

