Sign in to follow this  
GDR

The F-35

Recommended Posts

Kicking the can down the road so the Canadian military becomes irrelevant on the world stage..(if we are not there already)....but on the election trail, Trudeau will say he took decisive action to re-equip a military long ignored by the previous Harper government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st27 said:

Kicking the can down the road so the Canadian military becomes irrelevant on the world stage..(if we are not there already)....but on the election trail, Trudeau will say he took decisive action to re-equip a military long ignored by the previous Harper government.

According to http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-us.page the following is the expected role of the Canadian Forces.  I question the need for "Engaged in the world", it sounds like a "sound bite" from the Liberals.  If are not willing to provide the funds to equip our forces to be able to fill this role, then perhaps it is time to drop that bit and instead concentrate on the first 2 items and fund those roles. At the same time we need to take a look at The Canadian Coast Guard , clearly define their role and fund the necessary equipment / man power. In my opinion money spent on fighters would be better spent on our Coast Guard.

Special Operations Forces Command, supported by the civilian employees of DND.

At any given time, the Government of Canada can call upon the CAF to undertake missions for the protection of Canada and Canadians and to maintain international peace and stability.

Canada’s Defence Policy presents a new strategic vision for defence: Strong, Secure, Engaged. This is a vision in which Canada is:

  • Strong at home, with a military ready and able to defend its sovereignty, and to assist in times of natural disaster, support search and rescue, or respond to other emergencies;
  • Secure in North America, active in a renewed defence partnership in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and with the United States to monitor and defend continental airspace and ocean areas;
  • Engaged in the world, with the Canadian Armed Forces doing its part in Canada’s contributions to a more stable, peaceful world, including through peace support operations and peacekeeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I questionthe need for "Engaged in the world", it sounds like a "sound bite" from the Liberals.

Goes hand in hand with “Canada’s back”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, there is zero difference between our military's mandate and capabilities today vs those of five or more years ago. Let's face it, our military "strength" is but a peashooter when compared to that of most of our allies. Our country is both too large and too sparsely populated to afford much more. I'd much rather see us put more into the SAR program than spend ridiculous amounts of money on a boondoggle like the F35.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, there is zero difference between our military's mandate and capabilities today vs those of five or more years ago. Let's face it, our military "strength" is but a peashooter when compared to that of most of our allies. Our country is both too large and too sparsely populated to afford much more. I'd much rather see us put more into the SAR program than spend ridiculous amounts of money on a boondoggle like the F35.

Agree, the screaming about our responsibility to NATO is rhetoric of days gone by. Put the money into Heavy Transport which can supplement NATO, and SAR

 

Strong at home, with a military ready and able to defend its sovereignty

Another joke line. We are the second largest, (geographically) country in the world with 90% of the population living within 100 miles of the US border.  Who do you think is going to jump on their horses if Canada looks like it will be invaded ? 

If anyone can post any factual data where we are, or have been, extremely fortunate to have fighter aircraft in DND, (post WW2), please do so. 

Time for DND and the Canadian Government to have a honest reality check.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spend the money on getting Viking to build some new Buffalo aircraft for the SAR role.  Add some decent helicopters to that mix. 

Build some proper coast guard cutters and also equip the coast guard with helos.

Tack on a fleet of C-17 type aircraft and a few C5 size birds for heavy lift transport

Then keep a minimal fleet of fighters for escort roles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, boestar said:

Then keep a minimal fleet of fighters for escort roles.

Escort who?

They don't have enough gas for long range heavy transport and in most cases it is a SAMFU to organize leap frog escorts.

They would not be very effective for escorting CG Ships, again because  range and operational logistics.

IMO even a minimum of fighters in Canada makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where would we be today without all the fighter jocks taking up all the head space? 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J.O. said:

Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, there is zero difference between our military's mandate and capabilities today vs those of five or more years ago. Let's face it, our military "strength" is but a peashooter when compared to that of most of our allies. Our country is both too large and too sparsely populated to afford much more. I'd much rather see us put more into the SAR program than spend ridiculous amounts of money on a boondoggle like the F35.

Our total defence budget for 2018 was  $25.5 billion, 

And just south of us.

Image Credit: U.S. Navy

US Navy’s $13 Billion Supercarrier Just Got Even More Expensive

The U.S. Navy’s most expansive warship ever just got even pricier due to the need to fix a previously undisclosed failure at sea.

By Franz-Stefan Gady for The Diplomat
May 15, 2018

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the lead of vessel of the U.S. Navy’s latest class of carriers, and the most expensive warship in U.S. history, just breached a USD$12.9 billion spending lid set by Congress by USD$120 million bringing total acquisition cost to $13.027 billion, the Navy said in a recent statement.

The additional USD$120 million will be needed to fix the aircraft carrier’s faulty Advanced Weapons Elevator used to transport ammunition from the lower to the upper decks, as well as to repair the the Ford’s propulsion system bearing, which broke down during sea trials in January, the U.S. Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement quoted by Bloomberg News on May 11. (This was the second breakdown of the main thrust bearing of the ship’s propulsion system—the first incident occurred in April 2017.)

The ship’s weapons elevators need to be fixed “to preclude any effect on the safety of the ship and personnel,” the Naval Sea Systems command said in a press release. “Once the adjustment is executed, the cost for CVN 78 will stand at $13.027.” Before this increase, Congress had capped total acquisition cost for the USS Gerald R. Ford at USD$12.9 billion. (Originally, the cap was set at USD$10.5 billion in 2007.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the actual cost in material and labour if it were not a government contract.  likely less than 50% 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, boestar said:

I would love to see the actual cost in material and labour if it were not a government contract.  likely less than 50% 

The point is, the US spends 1/2 as much on one ship as we spend on our entire military so perhaps it is time to understand our limitations and equip our military to look after the interests of Canada and stop pretending that we are a "World Power".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 11:07 AM, Kip Powick said:

SAMFU

Never heard of this.  and Google comes up with "Definition of samfu - a light suit consisting of a plain high-necked jacket and loose trousers, worn by women from China."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this