Slashdot Mirror
Canada Poised To Buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 JSFs
Freshly Exhumed (105597) writes 'Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters. A detailed, 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said. When the F-35 purchase was first proposed, Canadians were alarmed by the colossal price tag, and also that no fly-off competition had been conducted or was planned. This latest news is sure to rekindle criticism that the RCAF's requirements seem to have been written after the fact to match the F-35's capabilities (or lack thereof)."
the plane is still in beta. nowadays beta seems to mean ready to ship.
something sucking less is not a reason to be grateful.
OR - a place to outsource your defense development to. Canada has money, the US has the jets. The US population (face it, Boeing is kept alive by taxes) pays for all the endless R&D and other countries can just buy what they need.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Suckers
Brought to you by the fiscal conservative party of Canada.
Yes, let's absolutely buy the jets that can't stay up in the air and cost ridiculous amounts to purchase and maintain when they do manage not to crash!
In rougher climates than they're designed for! Instead of something cheaper and more rugged that would be just fine for our purposes!
This is the greatest idea ever!
If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.
Why worry? Obama will draw a red line and say "No further!"
Bush saw Putin's soulful eyes and shirtless chest, so we don't have to worry.
What's wrong with a few SuperHornets? Extra survivability in case of an engine failure; both interception and ground attack (unlike the attack-only F35); easier to maintain; larger fuel capacity than the original Hornet; they actually FLY.
Only recently in Australia did the government suggest that it was going to purchase the F-35 as well. This all became clear in the same budget that suggested raising the pension age to 70 and an increase in taxes, and prompted much outrage.
Despite the flaws in the F-35, this purchase seems to be more of a five-eyes strategic thing, than it is any burning need to buy these planes.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
While Harper's cock, pushed by his corporate puppet masters, goes deeper into the average Joe's rectum, I'm super happy that my taxes are going to China via tar sands AND corporate welfare in the USA.
OHHH!!! CANADAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.globalissues.org/ar...
but hey, they are trying to be more ethical ...
http://lubbockonline.com/world...
Palin will see them coming.
And Putin saw our Bush.
And Russia have taken control over so many countries lately .
Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons due to our own internal laws. Nothing to do with the US, and at the time when Canada decided not to house nuclear weapons in Canada, the United States was not too pleased.
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no. The US presence there might keep them away, but otherwise Canada isn't winning any wars.
That's not really the point. Having advanced weaponry also allows Canada to have the ability project their force and affect peacekeeping missions or global security.
If they were worried about Russia invading, they would develop nuclear weapons. Fortunately, Canada is under the nuclear umbrella of the US and does not need to do this. Much like North Korea is under the nuclear umbrella of China.
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.
But then again, so does the F-35.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.
Umm, are you trolling or completely naive about geopolitics? Canada is a NATO member. An attack against one is an attack against all. There are three nuclear armed NATO states, and all three of them share common languages and cultural heritages with Canada. They aren't likely to look kindly upon any attempt to violate her sovereignty.
More to the point, Russia's MO isn't to invade her neighbors. It's to destabilize them, using restless minorities. That strategy works in poor countries with disparate ethic groups that share no common history. It isn't likely to bear fruit if applied to a rich developed country and I doubt that Moscow would try.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The difference is NK leaders are bat-shit crazy and are developing their own nukes anyway.
Canuks are mostly interested in preserving the integrity of the Stanley Cup and the Maple Syrup Cartel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Unfortunately drones aren't quite there yet. This will probably be the last manned fighter purchased by Canada, but we're not quite ready to go drones-only at this point.
That's actually been one of the only really solid objections to this purchase ... it can be persuasively argued that it makes much more sense to try and extend the lifespan of the current CF-18 fleet (or purchase new CF-18s with a much lower price tag than the F-35s) and wait 10-15 years for drone technology to further mature. I'm undecided on the issue. We do need new fighters in the interim, and the F35 is a fantastic piece of technology, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest decision at this point.
I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding what the F-35 is doing and where the 'can't fly' comments are coming from. Basically, your average current F-16 and F/A-18 are still very maneuverable jets. They're relatively light when flown clean and so they are still competitive in this configuration. In order for these planes to go to war effectively, you need to hang a whole pile of mission equipment off of them. IR and laser designator pods, weapons, extra fuel. This makes them heavy, draggy, and slow.
F-35s carry a lot of fuel and all of their mission equipment internally to preserve stealth. It also means it is less heavy, draggy and slow because the jet is aerodynamically clean when it is flown operationally.
For a very narrow suite of missions, this means you are carrying some stuff you don't need. For America, these missions will typically be F-15/F-22 territory. For every other set of missions it is much more efficient than any other strike fighter out there because it won't have as much reliance on external tanks or airborne tankers.
I'm not saying it doesn't have it's problems. It's stealth is only refined in the forward hemisphere. It is expensive and I feel it is forcing countries to adopt smaller fleet sizes to buy it. It does IMO feature design compromises that are forced upon it from being a close to common a tri-service, VTOL capable jet. But, the politicians did that, not the designers.
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.
But then again, so does the F-35.
Fighter Jets became useless 20yrs ago. They're only still around because the current generals running the US military grew up whacking off to topgun.
Why would they want Northern Canada? They have enough problems trying to keep China out of their South-East. Their country is biggest on the planet and has a very low population density already.
Jets are mainly needed for patrol and "believable defense deterrent" - i.e. showing any other regional power that may want to attack that you have enough defenses to make it exceedingly difficult or impossible to do so. Of course, with US as your land neighbour, that makes for a one tall order...
It is probably better than the crap the Canadians got after scrapping the Avro Arrow. Of course the F35 is very expensive as well... Oh, well...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
I think you are confusing creating a military defence force with a vassal state making a tributary payment.
For those various vassal states like Canada and Australia, that money would be far better spent on turning infantry and armoured units into mechanised combat engineers with full infrastructure building skills. Basically as a part of the extended training doing full trades apprenticeships. Of course you shouldn't let that training go to waste. So when the Federal government sponsors infrastructure spending they send in the combat engineers to do the labour, as they are already paid for and it applies their training honing it in a most useful fashion. Then all the government then has to pay for is materials creating huge savings on infrastructure spending. Of course the military are then useful beyond the service employment and easily go into construction careers. Even that ever demanding corporate US military industrial state should consider making that switch in order to repair it's deteriorating infrastructure.
Seriously, the reality, you want to defend you country, just look at North Korea vs Iraq. Just a handful of nukes is all you need. So forget tributary payments to the US in the form of buying tanks and planes just make your own long range stealth cruise missiles and arm the with nukes. No matter how big that invasion force one or two nukes and they are gone, just like they were never there. Never there being the normal outcome of the threat of tactical nukes.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Unless "these are not the drone you're looking for", they're also aircraft. Just sayin' ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Sometimes a new thing looks like a disaster for a while, but in the long run proves itself. The M-16 rifle is a tremendously successful design, but there were issues with the first models that made it look like a huge mistake.
So I am watching the F-35 and I am wondering: will this be as big a disaster as the nay-sayers claim, or will this work out in the long run?
I'm guessing it will limp along as a middle-of-the-road thing: not a complete horrible disaster, just a really expensive airplane that doesn't live up to its expectations.
Also, I have read that it is intended that a bunch of F-35s will share data with each other, and help each other detect and deal with threats; but the giant costs of the program have made it much less likely that enough F-35s will fly together at one time for this to work out.
One thing I am certain about: It's a mistake to try to replace the A-10 Warthog with F-35s. I don't even understand how the F-35 is supposed to do the same mission.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no.
Yea, have fun with that. You have any guesses as to what the US response to that would be? Or any sort of plan for getting an invasion force over here?
We're talking about brunettes not fighter jets,,,
Is that the Mason-Dixon Line?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Lockheed has a cooler sounding name that Boeing.
Claiming them is all fun and games. Whats the plan to put troops on them, and how do you intend to deal with the largest navy in the world (Canada's good buddy) dropping by to say hi?
NATO doesnt need to nuke them. It can just plant an aircraft carrier near Greenland, and let that say "No" in lieu of any nukes.
YOU'VE been playing too much Command and Conquer. Russia attacking Canada would be suicide.
Just a handful of nukes is all you need.
North Korea has Seoul in artillery range and a Chinese protector. They didn't need nukes from 1953 through 2009, and they weren't invaded even when it was well-known that they were developing nukes. See also: Iran.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The Russian and Chinese generals must have watched the same movies because both countries are developing and fielding their own new (5th generation) fighters. No one yet is fielding drones or defenses to match the 5th gen manned aircraft. Maybe the drone replacements will work, maybe they will have their own huge development problems.
We do need new fighters in the interim, and the F35 is a fantastic piece of technology, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest decision at this point.
While I'm sure you had other one in your mind, I don't think "because it's a fantastic piece of technology" is the best argument to bring to justify a 9 billion dollar purchase
Elok
Fighter jets became obsolete 54 years ago !! :-(
That's what we were told when the Regressive Preservative Party scrapped the Avro Arrow !!!!
For those various vassal states like Canada and Australia, that money would be far better spent on turning infantry and armoured units into mechanised combat engineers with full infrastructure building skills.
I don't know if you've been paying attention to this, but if you believe current political rhetoric, Australia's biggest military threat is 16 year olds in leaky fishing boats running aground on Ashmore Island.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
is currently not even a finished aircraft, with multiple problems with its airframe durability, pilot survivability and software and avionics that haven't been fully tested yet.
Just the maintance costs to maintain more than 30 of these aircraft in wartime could exceed the total tax revenue for the united states at 2 trillion.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But Canada hos no problem with US nuclear armed ships and aircraft being in Canada.
While it has no more permanently stationed nuclear weapons as of 1984, Canada continues to cooperate with the United States and its nuclear weapons program. Canada allows testing of nuclear weapon delivery systems; nuclear weapon carrying vessels are permitted to visit Canadian ports; and aircraft carrying nuclear warheads are permitted to fly in Canadian airspace with the permission of the Canadian government. There is, however, popular objection to this federal policy. Over 60% of Canadians live in cities or areas designated “Nuclear Weapons Free”, reflecting a contemporary disinclination towards nuclear weapons in Canada. Canada also continues to remain under the NATO 'nuclear umbrella'; even after disarming itself in 1984, Canada has maintained support for nuclear armed nations as doing otherwise would be counter to Canadian NATO commitments.
Like an H1B job ad, eh.
Table-ized A.I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
more cowbell
What!!! After "wait 10-15 years" everything isn't going to be all peace love and understanding? We have to plan for the next war after the next war we deter?
Next you'll be telling me I am not going to get a flying car before I die.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Of course there was no fly-off and the requirements were tailored for it... THE ONLY OTHER 5TH GEN FIGHTERS ARE THE F22 AND ONES BY RUSSIA AND CHINA THAT CANADA CAN'T BUY.
This isn't controversial. Canada wanted a modern aircraft, and right now, there are only 4 out there. The F22 isn't for export, the PAK FA isn't for sale, and the J-20 (based on stolen F22 tech) is still light years away, and also not for sale.
If there was another candidate, I am sure Canada would have compared them, but when facing $124m USD/plane versus many tens of billions to develop their own, the F35 is a bargain.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I don't care if the F-35 works as planned. It's just another totally corrupt vile thing the Harper government of Canada is doing to lower the nation down to the likes of the USA. (I'm American and I realize we are not #1 at anything. except perhaps the number of literate creationists and global warming deniers.)
Canada could have spent all that $$$$ on robotics and then they could lead the world in the field... plus they could hire China to make a million dumb drones then put in their robotic brains... then maybe we'd have many good robots to battle against Skynet when the USA eventually builds it (which will be tiny because it'll cost 1000x what a robotic overlord should.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Oil and other resources in abundance.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.
Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.
If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.
Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.
Talk about world change......
develop nuclear weapons.
As another commenter said already, Canada went through nuclear disarmament in 1984. (The US wasn't pleased.) "Develop" is definitely the wrong word.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
We'd deal with them the same way we dealt with Denmark. Simple.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Yes but technically Russia would have to go through the United States ticket to Canada, so the US would probably be on top of any incursion before got to Canada.
Yes what Canada needs is a cheap aircraft. Cheap to work on, cheap to fly and cheap to buy many more. :)
The crews can then get many more hours in and work well as a team.
Why play with one jet ready to fly per location when Canada could have its crews getting lots of real flight time on many more aircraft.
Real flight time as a team is what builds any airforce. Not simulators, not rationed hours only for the very best.
Day, night, low level, complex mission over a longer time without the stress of having to return to save on parts costs, give another pilot a share.
As for US exporting sensors, weapons systems, and advanced networking - Canada and Australia should know better by now.
They will get computer help to take off, fly, land and a system to help with next gen missiles - all US export grade and as limited as any past systems where for their generation.
As for stealth, if the other nation has a good spread of Russian, Chinese and EU radars - one will see the expensive jets at some setting.
The US hope that the act of turning radar on is never going to be an issue. Many nations have had years to consider that very complex problem
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.
Let's see what happens when the fighter is swarmed by dozens of them. Paging Van Riper...
So let me see if I get what you're trying to say. Russia, the single largest country in the world, that has exactly one problem with oil and other resources - it lacks people and investment to actually get those resources out of the ground will care about Canadian resources enough to go and grab them? The Russia that sold Alaska to US because it simply could not use its resources and needed investment just to put what it has on the Eurasian continent to some use?
I'm not sure how many hits to the head it takes to be that stupid, but it must be quite a lot.
Don't buy peacetime designs - they are never great. The urgency of war forces designers and engineers to act quickly, with well-defined briefs and no extraneous "nice to have"s; peacetime designs are the opposite - bloated, every Tom Dick and Harry involved wants his pet add-on, and no pressure to get it out the door.
All the great military aircraft ever built have been produced in wartime for the jobs needed doing right then. And I include Vietnam and the Cold War among them. The post-soviet skirmished the west has got involved in don't seem to need fighter planes at all, and in the meantime, the bloated F-35 slithers along, as unpopular as Jabba the Hut.
Where do I begin?
a. Any country that has nuclear reactors can be safely assumed to have a few strategic nuclear bombs stashed down a deep mine shaft. Plutonium has a 25000 year half life, so once you have them you have them. You just have to make triggers regularly.
b. Nuclear bombs are obsolete. It is not necessary to destroy a whole city. Precision guided missiles and bombs are much more useful and cheaper.
c. Russia is not our enemy. Russia is an ally. Russia has never attacked Western Europe or North America, it was always Western Europe attacking Russia, or Western Europe descending into a civil war, then requiring Russia to help fix the mess.
d. Russia is the Slavic big brother that always has to come to the rescue of his little Slavic brothers. They like doing that time and again, just as little as the little brothers like getting slapped upside the head each time.
e. Hysterical propaganda doth not history books make.
f. If you are really looking for an expansionist, evil empire to blame for everything in a simple world view, then you need not look any further than the good Ol' US of A, UK, France or Germany. Blaming everything on Russia doesn't quite fit the facts.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It is best to look at this as an economic stimulus for Ontario. The $9B price tag is for the whole package, including the new air force bases, repair facilities, training facilities, spares production, and so on, over the next ten years. An existing programme such as the CF18 will always seem cheaper, since a lot of that already exists. Ontario's economy is in the gutter and they need something to get them going again. It is a Federal way to force Alberta to bail out Ontario, without stepping up the transfer payments.
The actual planes are not particularly useful at defending Canada against the occasional rogue polar bear or dead bloated whale...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It's like the old WWII joke: "Vun German panzer can beat 5 American panzers." "Ja wohl... but ze Americans sent 6!"
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Canada probably has a few bomb kits stashed away somewhere deep down, but nuclear weapons are obsolete. Precision guided bombs are far more useful and cost effective.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You don't really need to fight in the far north. All you need to do, is keep warm and wait for the other guys to starve and freeze. Both Russia and Canada know that very well.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Ah... so many errors.... Where do I begin?
a)
Sweden and Finland has nuclear reactors. Neither has nuclear weapons.
c)
I would hardly say that Russia has fixed anything. Just recently they invaded the Ukraine.
d)
See above. What in that event was rescuing?
e)
Very true! And it goes both ways......
f)
True as well! But that doesn't mean that there is no blame on Russia. (Well, I do mean the government, not all the people)
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Not to be pedantic, but drones are aircraft.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Not necessarily - they could just go straight over (or under) the North Pole, It may not be the shortest route (I haven't checked distances), but it's certainly the path of least resistance, unless of course Canada has armed their polar bears and mooseseses
Russia has never invaded Western Europe or North America. It is always the other way around. Russia is an ally, not an enemy. Go and read your neglected high school history books. They are Slavs and they take care of other Slavs, whether the other Slavs like it or not...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
australia has just committed to buying 12 billion bucks worth of em as well, they much have some fucking slick sales guys
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Where do you live? Iran? Drones have a long way to go before they can replace a supersonic air superiority fighter.
But then again, so does the F-35.
Fighter Jets became useless 20yrs ago. They're only still around because the current generals running the US military grew up whacking off to topgun.
This is the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. Fighter jets certainly have come in handy when Russia restarted their Cold War era practice of flying nuclear armed strategic bombers right up to United States airspace near where I live here in Alaska. Is it difficult for you to imagine how it might possibly change geo-politics a little bit if Russia was flying strategic bombers in US airspace uncontested?
Buy drones instead. They are rapidly making aircraft obsolete.
Seriously? I'm guessing you don't live in Canada. Even that far north jets are so-so in terms of reliability. One of the reasons why we developed stealth snowmobiles.
Om, nomnomnom...
There isn't anything fantastic about the technology in the F35, especially not for the price, but not even when ignoring the economical aspect.
Modern block designs of F16 and F/A18 have comparable avionics to the F35. The Silent Eagle F15 is just as good at avoiding enemy aircraft radar as the F35, and there is no reason the same technology could not be applied to F/A18's except lack of demand.
There is nothing wise about the F35 except throwing a bone to the US government. Which of course is a big part of any decision to buy fighter aircraft.
No-one is willing to risk using drones that could be interfered with by the enemy over manned aircraft. If the drone needs a data link to a remote pilot it can be jammed or taken over and turned around. If it is autonomous it still has to rely on things like GPS or other navigation aids, and is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks from the air and ground. Drones don't have enough intelligence deal with what a technologically advanced enemy can throw at them yet. Even the Taliban are developing some effective techniques to counter them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The US isn't the only country making military aircraft. There is the Eurofighter, as well as various other European models. They could even buy Russian.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What!!! After "wait 10-15 years" everything isn't going to be all peace love and understanding? We have to plan for the next war after the next war we deter?
Next you'll be telling me I am not going to get a flying car before I die.
You joke. But you'll sing a different tune when the Canadian invasion of the USA begins!
Canada's number one rival in the North isn't Russia. It's another country called the USA. There is a conflict over a part of the sea near the boundary between Alaska and Yukon. Canada's number two rival isn't Russia either. It's Denmark. Canada and Denmark both claim a tiny island which is on the border between the two countries. Russia does not claim any territory claimed by Canada.
Sweden and Finland have the means to produce nuclear weapons.
Same goes for most other countries with nuclear research facilities. It's not as if it's difficult.
---- Sig. gone.
You mean the Superhornets that will be replaced by the F-35 leaving Canada yet again unable to us the US supply chain?
Yes, the SuperHornet in which the US Navy is hoping to purchased the latest "advanced" variant of:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-pleased-with-quotadvancedquot-super-hornet-tests-wants-more-397927/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/09/boeing-aims-to-keep-building-fa-18-jets-through-2020/
The one that costs half as much, so Canada can buy 65 of each, and still have money left over to buy a few Global Hawks and/or Tritons to help patrol its vast coastline that spans three coastlines, Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic.
If Canada buys the F-35, money will also have to be spent on mid-air tankers, as the current CF-18s (which the tankers are suited for) use a different system than the F-35s (probe-and-drogue vs. boom).
Perhaps throw it a few Growlers to help with comms in NATO excercises as well as for shits and giggles.
Fighter Jets became useless 20yrs ago. They're only still around because the current generals running the US military grew up whacking off to topgun.
That's a common misunderstanding. A fighter jet is not an offensive weapon. It doesn't serve to win the war. It serves to dominate the skies so that the rest (ground troops, bombers, helicopters, battle ships...) win the war.
So... does having a good fighter jet make you win the war? No. But not having them sure as hell makes you loosing it!
Without the protection of the jets any tank, ground operation, battle ship can be jumped at any time by an enemy jet and turned to ash.
Which brings us neatly to the F-35: it is meant and conceived as a stealth bomber but not as an air dominance fighter. So will it enable the US and it's allies to dominate the skies? For me that is the real question.
I dont think that's true, IIRC the F35 is meant to replace F16/F18 jet's which are multirole/jack of all trade fighterjets.
The B2 is a stealth bomber. And in today's air battles it's the capabilities of your guided missile systems that win your "dogfights" anyway.
The same way that the British and Spanish got America ...... oh yeah that was "settlement" just like how almost all European settlement was invasion. Oh and how American "settlement" of the west was also invasion.
Stunned bunny back to school for you.
US military bases in Canadian territory? That would be news to me and, I suspect, to our government and military. There are certainly joint exercises here, and US military personnel working with Canadians, and occasional visits by US ships and planes, but no permanent facilities.
Sweden and Finland have the means to produce nuclear weapons.
Same goes for most other countries with nuclear research facilities. It's not as if it's difficult.
It is apparently fairly difficult and expensive to make small, lightweight nuclear weapons. France was still doing nuclear tests in the 1990's, presumably because they still had kinks to iron out in their design.
Canada's jets are based in Alberta. Ontario gets nothing from this, except some small time manufacturing. The real winners are Quebec and Alberta. Losers are , well, everyone else.
Im not sure what world you live in where our response to Russia destroying a $5 billion military asset would be to quietly retreat.
Im also not sure what world you live in where they have the capability to destroy one of our carriers. We have 10 carriers and 62 destroyers. Russia has 1 carrier and 13 destroyers. We could go into nuclear weaponry but I dont think Russia is that dumb, even in a scenario where they decide to attack northern Canada.
Yes, that's when they bomb the Baldwins.
As a Slav I would like to request Russia to stop taking care of other Slavs.
I don't think the current CF-18 is the Super Hornet, just a modified regular Hornet.
There have been quite a few people suggesting that the Super Hornet (or maybe the Advanced version) would be a better fit for the RCAF than the F-35.
For a second there I thought you were saying polar bears with molasses which as the adage goes might be a good way to slow down an invader (slower than molasses in January). Even if the Russians came through Nunavut it would be too close for comfort for the americans in Alaska I think so they'd be involved. What they might get away with is small chunks at a time like they are in europe. Not try to take northern Canada but just a small island, or a few miles into territorial waters for oil drilling. Not a big enough deal for the world to risk a full scale war again but still a douchy move that would be what we've come to expect from Putin.
Exactly. That is Canada's biggest defence from a Russian invasion: distance and climate. You can stretch your supply lines a few thousand kilometers across the artic and get hardly anything of value (in terms of industry/people, there is a bunch of mining interests up there but I don't suspect an invading army to be picking up pick axes any time soon after invading). By the time you get to population centres NATO will have spun up and be waiting in Edmonton or wherever. Then the navy pounds your supply lines in the rear (they are good at that) and you die like Napoleon.
The F35 isn't operational yet. It wouldn't be able to compete with aircraft that actually work.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
$8B Jet Purchase / 35M People = $228.57/Person
I agree that the costs are out of proportion to what Canada should be spending, but it's no where near the number you suggest.
Maybe you can provide a bicycle voucher instead of a car voucher. :)
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
You're not that smart, because now the tables have turned: we're getting you Canucks to help fund our F-35 debacle.
Modern air superiority is done with Cruise missiles. There are no foreign aircraft left by the time our bombers go in. Soon it will all be done with drones.
Russia is strapped for cash. They would probably sell Canada a fleet of Su-27 fighters cheep. The F-35 is plagued with quality control issues, expensive, fragile and maintenance intensive. Mechanics and pilots candidly admit that there are entire systems on the plane that simply do not work yet. Su-27's carry more armaments, have greater range and can outrun, outclimb, and outmaneuver F-35's.
Like they "took care" of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Chechens, Tatars, Hungarians, Germans, Poles, lots of other people who weren't slavs but weren't liked by Stalin. Millions of them ended up dead in Siberia.
Be glad that Russia never reached as far as Western Europe. Not for the lack of trying though... They planned to "bring the communism to Europe on the tips of bayonets" since 1920s, but their hands were too short. Oh, and then there was this guy Hitler who got 20 million of them killed... And then there were nukes.
I agree, do go and read some history books
--Coder
The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.
Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.
If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.
Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.
Talk about world change......
Giving away for free =/= investing. Give a $11K vehicle voucher to every person in the country, and most of it will go down the drain. That is just how human nature and economics are. I understand your sentiment as the whole purchase seems rather wasteful for a country that typically minds its own business and is not looking for opportunities to drop bombs half around the globe.
But your free-for-all vehicle voucher give away analogy is as bad to the economy (and maybe worse) than the purchase above.
You joke. But you'll sing a different tune when the Canadian invasion of the USA begins!
"Begins"? Haven't you noticed how many Canadian military bases are already in occupied parts of the USA?
You act as if it would be easier to traverse Siberia and the Bering straight. It might very well be easier to cross the arctic in winter when pack ice is heaviest than it is to cross Siberia, the Bering straight, Alaska and Northern Canada (all at or above the arctic circle). Given the terrain across Siberia and Alaska and how rough and dangerous the sea is in the Bering straight I'd put odds on putting those supply lines across the pole before I put them on the Alaska route.
Canada is in a unique position that they can enjoy being nuclear free, but has all of the benefits of having them due to proximity to the US.
(Not to mention some of the problems as well - like being a target regardless of their nuclear posture.)
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Umm, are you trolling or completely naive about geopolitics? Canada is a NATO member. An attack against one is an attack against all. There are three nuclear armed NATO states, and all three of them share common languages and cultural heritages with Canada. They aren't likely to look kindly upon any attempt to violate her sovereignty.
You may skipped this class in global politics.
F-35 has crap combat range and Canada has a large airspace to cover. That seems like a pretty good reason to me.
No northern Canada to Edmonton (using Edmonton as an example because I think it is the northernmost major city) is about 2500 km. Add to that whatever distance you go outside of Canadian waters the polar route is still 3000+ km. As the song goes "Canada is really big" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vxDDcTc64c&feature=kp)
I think an argument could be made that it would make more sense to buy fewer F35s and buy a larger fleet of dedicated aircraft for close ground support, long-range recon, etc.
The Canadian gov't is trying to use the F35 for many different roles. It may be a fantastic air superiority fighter, but I'm not convinced it'd be better than something like an A-10 for ground support.
If you start with the assumption that we need 5th gen aircraft then the F35 is the only option. But I don't think it's valid to start with that assumption--we should start with the missions that need to be fulfilled.
That is incorrect. "The only other user [of the nuclear missile Genie] was Canada, whose CF-101 Voodoos carried Genies until 1984 via a dual-key arrangement where the missiles were kept under United States custody, and released to Canada under circumstances requiring their use. The RAF briefly considered the missile for use on the English Electric Lightning." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
The GENIE and Bomarcs deployed in Canada were missiles designed to engage clouds of incoming Russian bombers, and by 1984, that tactic was pointless as the Russians most certainly had MIRV ICBM's, making a bomber attack obsolete.
At best they will dick around with test models for another few years until Obama or Empress Hillary kills it.
A NATO response would not necessarily be confined to the Arctic theater. All of Russia would be a target.
The Kremlin is well aware of this - they don't make their moves based on Hollywood plot ideas.
I think the Swedish Saab Gripen fits the bill nicely. In a cost effective manner to boot.
Brazil went with them, partly out of reaction to the Snowden revelations, but I think the decision stands on the merits of the plane as well.
For clarity, its RANGE is 1300 miles. Its COMBAT RADIUS is 600 on internal fuel. Which means it can fly 600 miles, maneuver around a a target for a short while, turn around, and fly 600 miles back. Alternatively, it can fly 900 miles to a target, turn, and fly 400 miles to a friendly area to refuel or land.
> Anyone who has thought about trying to combine a Corvette with a pickup truck with a front loader understands what an utterly ridiculous idea
In some ways, it makes sense to have dedicated equipment designed for each job. If you're designing a truck for construction industry, build it like a Ford F-350. If you're designing a car to drive to work and back, a Honda Civic. On the other hand, the Ford F-150 is incredibly popular. It's small enough to have reasonable gas mileage as a daily driver AND you can stop at the hardware store on the way home and pick up some 2X4s or plywood. Versatility can be a very good thing.
Many wars have been lost by the side who had prepared to fight the previous war. Jets like this are a long term proposition and the F-35 will probably be flying in 2045. Are you sure that in 2045, (or 2025) you'll want a plane narrowly optimized for the role you needed to fill in the Gulf War of the 1990s? A more generalist platform may well be better suited for the unknown conditions of the next three wars.
> How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)?
First mission: kill some bad guys
Next mission: kill some bad guys
100 missions later: get shot down
Generally, a pilot doesn't keep flying around after a mission, waiting to get shot. You do your job, then go home. If you do your job 11 times and you're still alive, that's the 11:1 kill ratio.
What is the range of an excet again? 200 miles? That isn't 'far beyond the range of possible retaliation'. Bombers are locked up by F-18s before they fire the first missile. Bomber base is smegged before the first survivor limps home. Fast attack planes might be able to get a pass in before being shot down, but bombers are toast.
Your plan is to have more bombers then a carrier group has SAMs, heat seekers and bullets. Not impossible, but even Russian crews will balk at that. Gotta try to take air superiority first. Then you're back to square one.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Frogs are a pretty useless 'restless minority'. The worst they will do is 'go on strike' wave a plastic light saber at them and they surrender.
Canadians are far too polite with the quebecees. Should just proceed with banning the use of french.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You must tell me how a cruise missile shoots down enemy aircraft in the air. Bombing them on the ground will not establish air superiority if we don't have fighters to shoot down the rest.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fighter jets can pull a few G's of acceleration. Missiles being shot at fighter jets can pull 30+ G's. Missiles are cheap and even if it takes a few tries to take out a jet, you're still way ahead.
Price-point issue, no?
If the Canadians are paying the 'true worth' of the F-35, and the USA had to pay the standard-military-development-SNAFUBAR overhead, surely the Canadians 'win', no?
And the route through Siberia (which is almost entirely devoid of anything that can support human life) alone is close to that. Then you have the Bering straight which is one of the most treacherous stretches of ocean in the world, then Alaska (with almost no roadways and the ones they do have are built on permafrost and not traversable by heavy equipment) and Northwest Canada (with the same problems as alaska) to traverse. All of which are just as treacherous as crossing the pole and at least on the pole you could use bulldozers to mound up snow to provide wind blocks and smooth ice highways along with plenty of opportunities for base camps along the way.
If someone had the choice of taking an army across the pole or via Siberia, the straight, Alaska and Northern Canada I believe they would choose the pole as it would be a far easier journey and far easier to establish unrestricted supply lines. Mechanized transport would make the ice and weather mostly a non issue whereas the other route would present all the same issues plus a dozen additional ones (such as swamps that could eat tanks for breakfast). The only reason to go the other route would be if the ice had receded enough to put open ocean between Canada and the pole.
That's already the case in summer and it's only going to get worse with Climate Change. Having to switch between water, ice, water, land for your supply lines for 1/3 of the year isn't really good for transporting large quantities of supplies (or you can run ships from port to port around what's left of the shrinking ice cap during those months). As you pointed out, the "permafrost" now thaws during the summer, and that is going to cause an issue for heavy transports in supply lines once they hit the mainland. I suppose the oil companies may build a service road if they wind up needing to build a pipeline North because they don't get permission to go in any of the other populated directions. If that existed then the Russians could use it.
For all the issues with Siberian permafrost, there is still a railway that goes across it (the Trans-Siberian), and you can move a lot of materiel on that. It was, after all, a major supply line for allied hardware being sent to Russia to help take on the Germans in WWII. There's no reason why that couldn't be used to send a lot of stuff in the other direction. The major issue is that it would be pretty easy to bomb with modern airplanes and cruise missiles, however I would think that would go double for any supply route and depots on the Arctic ice cap.
If Russia invaded Canada, then the NATO defence pact would come into effect, so they may as well go through Alaska and take control of the oil fields there while they're at it. But as someone else pointed out there isn't much road infrastructure across Alaska so it would be easier to just go around it and debark in Hyder.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The longevity of the B-52 is impressive.
> imagine what would happen if Ford decided to try really hard to make the F-150 outrace a corvette. It would end up being a far less capable truck and still wouldn't be able to catch the vette.
GM DID make a Chevy Silverado VHO and the GMC Syclone, which was in fact faster than a Vette. The Silverado VHO was a pretty good truck, which was a little slower than a Corvette. I don't know how the Syclone was for truck duty, but I do know that a work truck and a fast car both rely on having a powerful engine and stiff suspension.
They can't buy Russian because the Russians ain't selling to a five eyes member.
They'd have to tell the Canadians damn near everything about the planes they bought, as Canadians are not genetically stupid they'd figure out most of what the Russians weren't saying, the US would be listening in the whole damn time, which would mean nobody would ever buy a Russian plane again.
Umm, are you stupid or just relying on ad hominem arguments?
Seriously, if Russia "claimed" a few Arctic islands which happen to be Canadian, do you think NATO would nuke them?
You've been playing too much Twilight:2000.
I don't know about nuke, but there'd definitely be a couple carrier groups deployed to the Arctic, Obama making a trip to Ottawa to support the PM, lots of saber-rattling, etc.
And if that didn't work there would, indeed, be combat.
The entire US Alliance structure is based on the principle that the US would risk nuclear war to protect all the members of the alliance. therefore if Russia invaded Canada we'd have to risk a nuclear war. Since the Russians know that, and they don't want nuclear war, it probably won't happen.
Oh right. Because an aircraft carrier wont have any air defense, or any aircraft.
Oh wait, it does-- and we have some of the best of both. Seriously, attack an aircraft carrier, 1800 miles out into the ocean (from russia), with a bomber? How, exactly, is that gonna work when we launch our air superiority fighters?
Launching missiles generally seems like a phenomenally bad idea, as it might result in about 10 headed the other way. It also has the slight problem that it needs a launch platform; if its coming from the ocean, you once again have to deal with our carrier's escorts; if its coming from the land, we have 1800 miles to see it coming.
Im also not sure what world you live in where they have the capability to destroy one of our carriers.
The Russians spent the better part of the Cold War developing weapons and tactics to do exactly that. Google AS-4 Kitchen, Tu-22 Backfire, Oscar Class Submarine, SS-N-19 Shipwreck, Type 65 Torpedo, etc. Russia is probably the best equipped country in the world when it comes to taking on a USN CVBG. They've let a lot of their capability atrophy over the years, but then so has the USN (no more F-14, AIM-54C, fewer mid-air refueling assets, fewer ECM assets, less emphasis on AAW and ASW, etc.) so it's probably a wash. In the Arctic region, within range of Russian airbases? I wouldn't take the threat lightly, if I was commanding the CVBG.
Of course, pulling it off might be seen as a Pyrrhic victory, since it would enrage the American body politic to levels unseen since Pearl Harbor or 9/11. I can't think of a faster way to unite my squabbling countrymen than to sink a few USN warships on the high seas while killing a few thousand American sons and daughters. Can you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The F-35 is not the best choice for the RCAF! That would be 206 F-22s with added ground attack capability. The cost would only be about $450 million each making the total come to less than $100 billion. Canada should just get the RCAF what they really need and stop the constant bickering over which economy model to buy.
Any country that has nuclear reactors can be safely assumed to have a few strategic nuclear bombs stashed down a deep mine shaft. Plutonium has a 25000 year half life, so once you have them you have them.
Did you really not know that ordinary nuclear reactors don't produce useful quantities of plutonium? Breeders do, but they're less convenient to operate commercially. People are working on fixing that because breeders consume far less uranium and produce far less waste. This effort is somewhat controversial precisely because of proliferation fears; using breeders to produce electricity would probably even require important changes to the finer print of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As for your plethora of other mistakes, see here
I can't think of a counter-point to vertical takeoff and landing. Sure, it might make sense to have a few VTL planes, but to add that additional weight, complexity, and expense to the nation's primary jet is pretty silly.
F-35 has crap combat range and Canada has a large airspace to cover. That seems like a pretty good reason to me.
The F-35 has a significantly greater combat range than our current fighters, so we can pretty much dismiss that argument right away. But combat range is a shit indicator anyway if what you care about is covering our own airspace. What we need is intercept capability, not combat radius. We need to get there quickly, blow the invader away, and head home - possibly meeting an air-to-air refueller along the way. And the F-35 is MUCH better at that because of supercruise.
With the F-18 you either go subsonic in order to have greater range, or you fire up the afterburners to get there fast, but only over short distances or you'll run out of fuel way too soon. With the F-35 that equation becomes much more balanced because you can go supersonic with a much lower fuel cost. You also have the advantage of being able to fire from farther away, but that's a lesser consideration.
With conservative government wanting that pipline to the USA, the planes were meant to sway the deal. Just think, the original bill was for under 10 billion for the planes. Now it is closer to 35.
Harper likes to kiss ass with Obama. Canada does not need those planes. We need vehicles to protect our North and to keep Russia out from claiming our lands. (our ice).
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada