7 ms·

> The initial pledge not to purchase the F-35 was basically a signalling of anti-Americanism Yeah no sorry, not buying the f-35 is just sensible decision makin

> The initial pledge not to purchase the F-35 was basically a signalling of anti-Americanism Yeah no sorry, not buying the f-35 is just sensible decision making. The idea that Canada is in a position to be playing with the most expensive death toys in the world is just comic absurdity. That's no world in which we use anything like the f-35 effectively, even if it lived up to the hot air that was blown about it. Conservative hype about it was about as well placed as their attempts to get anyone excited about celebrating the war of 1812.

nickff 5y ago
It all depends on what you think Canada's military is there to do: If you think Canada is a nation of peace-keepers (which it really hasn't done all that much of), it doesn't need fighters at all. If you think Canada needs to defend North American aerospace, the F-15EX (or maybe Eurofighter Typhoon) looks quite good. If you think Canada needs to be able to support her NATO allies in an armed conflict overseas against a peer adversary, the F-35 is the best fit.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  I think your third scenario is imagining scenarios that aren't really realistic, even if its premise is accepted. It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there. For Canada to have projection into Europe or Australia we would just need so much more than just some fancy jets. We'd need carriers that are worth a damn to bring them there, battleships to support the carriers, bombers to support the battleships, etc. A whole whack of infrastructure we don't really have anymore, if we ever did, and that after buying the f-35s we probably couldn't afford anyways. If the only way Canada can support NATO is by propping up the US military-industrial-complex then we probably don't belong in NATO.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there." Canada used to have fighters in Germany, to forestall or intercept Soviet aggression, and they were relatively well-equipped and well-trained units. I am not 'imagining scenarios', I am just laying out alternatives.
    - stormbrew 5y ago
      Is there any particular reason it's better for Canadian jets to be sitting in Germany than for Germany to just have more jets if they feel they need them for defence? This is a thing that makes sense for European countries to do with each other, or north american countries likewise, but it's just downright silly to buy billion+ dollar jets ostensibly for the defense of Canada and then stick them in Germany. Like, other than symbolic ones where we try to pretend we're contributing in a way similar to the US with its little plots of american land in half the countries of the world even though we have neither the means nor the stomach to do so.
      - nickff 5y ago
        All of this depends on what you think Canadian Armed Forces are there for. Canada could have a number of aircraft available as a quick-reaction force, and forward-deployed in Germany for convenience (as well as to help out an ally). Alternatively, Canada might forward-deploy to Germany to set a 'tripwire' against Russian aggression, or maybe to improve cross-training with other European countries.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Canadian F-35s wouldn't need aircraft carriers to deploy to trouble spots in Europe. They have a decent ferry range with external tanks, and could just fly there with one or two refueling stops. Of course they would still need logistical support from NATO allies for any sort of sustained operations.
- mthoms 5y ago
  What if the answer is NA defence and meeting NATO commitments? Why did you frame it as either/or? (Peace keeping has nothing to do with a jet fighter acquisition. The only reason you brought it up was so you could add a jab - very classy.)
  - nickff 5y ago
    I was just trying to lay out different mission profiles, along with the best jets for the job. If Canada only wants to do peacekeeping, it doesn't really need fighters. In addition to that, trying to get a one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      >one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'. Isn't that precisely what the F-35 has been criticized for? :) So if you accept the "mission profile" of defending NA and meeting NATO commitments while having a reasonable price tag, is the F-35 still the obvious winner in your opinion?
      - nickff 5y ago
        My personal paradigm is a bit different from the conventional ones. I think that if Canada wants to do air defense/Arctic interceptions, the F-15EX is a great plane, with long legs, very powerful radar, and great weapon load capabilities. Canada could then choose to specialize in a niche role for NATO purposes; close-air support would probably be the best one, given Canada's recent commitments. Canada could then purchase surplus A-10 Warthogs (I mean Thunderbolt IIs of course) and Super Tucanos for that mission.
        mthoms 5y ago
        Exactly. You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints? Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"If you think Canada needs to be able to support her NATO allies in an armed conflict overseas " I have an idea. How about not starting armed conflict?
  - bavell 5y ago
    Speak softly and carry a big stick - sometimes you're not the one starting the armed conflict.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      Since WWI NATO countries either together or separately had participated in truckloads of military conflicts. Now remind me please how many of those had started because some country directly attacked NATO member. I am not against having big stick just in case. That is what nukes are for.

nickff 5y ago

It all depends on what you think Canada's military is there to do: If you think Canada is a nation of peace-keepers (which it really hasn't done all that much of), it doesn't need fighters at all. If you think Canada needs to defend North American aerospace, the F-15EX (or maybe Eurofighter Typhoon) looks quite good. If you think Canada needs to be able to support her NATO allies in an armed conflict overseas against a peer adversary, the F-35 is the best fit.

stormbrew 5y ago
I think your third scenario is imagining scenarios that aren't really realistic, even if its premise is accepted. It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there. For Canada to have projection into Europe or Australia we would just need so much more than just some fancy jets. We'd need carriers that are worth a damn to bring them there, battleships to support the carriers, bombers to support the battleships, etc. A whole whack of infrastructure we don't really have anymore, if we ever did, and that after buying the f-35s we probably couldn't afford anyways. If the only way Canada can support NATO is by propping up the US military-industrial-complex then we probably don't belong in NATO.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there." Canada used to have fighters in Germany, to forestall or intercept Soviet aggression, and they were relatively well-equipped and well-trained units. I am not 'imagining scenarios', I am just laying out alternatives.
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    Is there any particular reason it's better for Canadian jets to be sitting in Germany than for Germany to just have more jets if they feel they need them for defence? This is a thing that makes sense for European countries to do with each other, or north american countries likewise, but it's just downright silly to buy billion+ dollar jets ostensibly for the defense of Canada and then stick them in Germany. Like, other than symbolic ones where we try to pretend we're contributing in a way similar to the US with its little plots of american land in half the countries of the world even though we have neither the means nor the stomach to do so.
    - nickff 5y ago
      All of this depends on what you think Canadian Armed Forces are there for. Canada could have a number of aircraft available as a quick-reaction force, and forward-deployed in Germany for convenience (as well as to help out an ally). Alternatively, Canada might forward-deploy to Germany to set a 'tripwire' against Russian aggression, or maybe to improve cross-training with other European countries.
- nradov 5y ago
  Canadian F-35s wouldn't need aircraft carriers to deploy to trouble spots in Europe. They have a decent ferry range with external tanks, and could just fly there with one or two refueling stops. Of course they would still need logistical support from NATO allies for any sort of sustained operations.
mthoms 5y ago
What if the answer is NA defence and meeting NATO commitments? Why did you frame it as either/or? (Peace keeping has nothing to do with a jet fighter acquisition. The only reason you brought it up was so you could add a jab - very classy.)
- nickff 5y ago
  I was just trying to lay out different mission profiles, along with the best jets for the job. If Canada only wants to do peacekeeping, it doesn't really need fighters. In addition to that, trying to get a one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    >one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'. Isn't that precisely what the F-35 has been criticized for? :) So if you accept the "mission profile" of defending NA and meeting NATO commitments while having a reasonable price tag, is the F-35 still the obvious winner in your opinion?
    - nickff 5y ago
      My personal paradigm is a bit different from the conventional ones. I think that if Canada wants to do air defense/Arctic interceptions, the F-15EX is a great plane, with long legs, very powerful radar, and great weapon load capabilities. Canada could then choose to specialize in a niche role for NATO purposes; close-air support would probably be the best one, given Canada's recent commitments. Canada could then purchase surplus A-10 Warthogs (I mean Thunderbolt IIs of course) and Super Tucanos for that mission.
      - mthoms 5y ago
        Exactly. You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints? Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage.
FpUser 5y ago
>"If you think Canada needs to be able to support her NATO allies in an armed conflict overseas " I have an idea. How about not starting armed conflict?
- bavell 5y ago
  Speak softly and carry a big stick - sometimes you're not the one starting the armed conflict.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    Since WWI NATO countries either together or separately had participated in truckloads of military conflicts. Now remind me please how many of those had started because some country directly attacked NATO member. I am not against having big stick just in case. That is what nukes are for.