solarz
Brigadier
Oh yes, because there are just SO MANY nations out there that wants to invade Canada, eh?
Canada's sovereignty will be just fine even if it's only got a WW2 era biplane as its airforce and a leaky dinghy as its navy.
Does Canada need 60 F-35's?
- Thread starter pla101prc
- Start date
Oh yes, because there are just SO MANY nations out there that wants to invade Canada, eh?
Canada's sovereignty will be just fine even if it's only got a WW2 era biplane as its airforce and a leaky dinghy as its navy.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Well, I guess I was a little too quick using my words, I didn't want to be rude towards you.
I think I just looked at it from a military perspective. Assuming you want an AirForce consistently capable in multiple tactical tasks the pure number of 60 airframes is just necessary, IMO. For doing Air Policing over Canada's huge terettories, one just needs a certain # as well. A different airplane that puts a greater focus on this aspect might have been a better choice. But to be able to hide in space due to LO capabilities has some advantages of it's own. Plus, if you want to be a player on the world stage, you may want to have expeditionary capabilites, wich the F-35 certainly brings.
And while an invasion of Canada certainly won't happen over an arctic dispute, a strong military force will definitely back your word in an issue of that significance.
Regarding the army complex of problems, it's true that the force is strained. But then again, these long lead procurement and structure decissons shouldn't be made using the current conflicts as an exapmle, but the ones that are anticipated in the future. That indeed is a difficult questions to answer, but in closing, I advocate keeping a rather strong Air Force.
solarz
Brigadier
hey, no problem, I didn't take it as rude.
That's just the thing, I'm sure the F-35 are great planes and all, but does Canada need them? At this moment in time? I think not!
Canada already has an airforce that is more than sufficient for our needs. The Harper gov't tried to justify the F-35 purchase by playing the "Russian Threat" card, which is entirely ludicrous.
Canada's influence on the world stage has *NEVER* been military, and never will. It has always stood out for its non-militaristic diplomacy, and has gained international respect for that: Canada is a country with the same cultural values as the USA, yet does not have the hegemonistic aspirations of the latter. Moving toward a more militaristic diplomacy would only erode that respect, not strengthen it!
Most importantly, however, at least to me as a Canadian tax-payer, I do not want to spend thousands of dollars preparing for a threat that does not exist.
I don't know about that. Canada has a long and proud history of standing up and pulling more than its weight when the West goes to war. WWI, WWII, Korea, Afghanistan. The Canadians performed excellently in all these conflicts and earned the influence you talked about. But from these examples we can see that Canada's contributions have usually been on land. I can't think of a scenario where Canada would be fighting as part of a coalition and would be called upon to dispatch a bunch of F-35s. To contribute to collective defense, Canada should focus on having top-notch light infantry and the fixed/rotor wing assets to support them, and intelligence. America can handle the big expensive stuff better, but you can never have enough good light infantry.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Amen to that, but I like to Add "well equipped"
By "West", I think you mean the US. Most people see Germany as a "Western" country
. But you see -- sorry if this is "political" but I can't help it -- in all these examples, it was NOT ABOUT CANADA'S INFLUENCE AT ALL! Rather, it has been about Canada's relationship with the US (and Britain, in the case of WW I).I think Solarz's point, that nobody threatens Canada is correct, or almost correct. Canada has one neighbor, the US. And it has a near neighbor accross the Arctic. These are the only two powers who would be capable of invading Canada. Neither has tried, at least in quite a while, and it is obvious that the US, the stronger of the two neighbors, would not allow such a Russian adventure.
Because most of the Canadian population, and all of the East-West roads and railroads, are within a few tens of miles from the US border, it would be very easy for the US to cut Canada into little pieces, even without the overwhelming imbalance in military power. Up through WW I and probably beyond, this was seen as the reason for Canada's association with the British Empire.
Obviously, today there is a different arrangement, and a sort of "trust" has been established. My guess is that Canada is a willing ally in most of the major wars its southern neighbor has engaged in because, in a way, it owes its existence to the fact that the US never invaded.
Back to the matter of f-35's: it makes no sense at all for Canada to arm against the US! As to Russia, this is a far fetched scenario at this point, and as to 30 years from now, you would have to judge things according to the situation existing then, and not now (For example, it may well be that China and India, at that point, are the biggest powers on the planet). But yes, if Canada intends to continue helping its southern neighbor, then by all means, it has to keep up with the technological requirements of that. Pretty expensive to do, in my opinion.
Of course Canada could go without F-35, but we are a country that tries to pull its own weight in the international stage. We have a proud military history (albeit short). And it's important that we have an asset such as F-35 to remain relevant. And out of the possible fighter jets we get, the only ones that truly make sense are F-35 and F-18E/F. We pretty much need to get something that will be in service with US to lower the cost of maintenance and repairs. We will also be eligible to all of the possible upgrade over their life time.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
What I found interesting was Dassault complaining about not being asked to participate. The Rafale is a modern multi-role, modular aircraft that can perform many different tasks very well. A factor that AIRCOM is always in favour of in addition, it is a twin engine aircraft. The technical aspects are not the only reason I mentioned the the Rafale was 'interesting' though, it also indicates that France is desperate, desperate for foriegn orders for the Rafale as all previous hopes for export, other than Brazil and India so far (which are HARDLY a sure thing), have completely evaporated which, I assume would make Dassault, and the French government who is propping them up, rather nervous. If Canada were to consider the Rafale, they would almost certainly be in a power position to ensure a good deal with Dassault with the proper amount of arm twisting.
solarz
Brigadier
I would rather have 2000$ in my own pocket than spending it to "remain relevant", especially at a time of economic uncertainty.