Trudeau and company announced they are buying new fighter jets and we will take delivery around 2025. This to replace planes that we took delivery of in 1982.
Let me put that in perspective.
When we got the first jets John Mellencamp was topping the charts with his new hit song Jack & Diane, Justin Trudeau was 10 years old and his father Pierre was still Prime Minister.
i am surprised that the liberals will not buy Bombardier business jets and put two missiles on them.
So by the time we get new jets, Justin’s son will be prime minister.
The Trudeau Liberals are acquiring 88 Sopwith Camels.
or their little cousin, Sopwith Goats!!!
Canada promised to spend 2% of GDP on military within NATO and is currently spending 1.2% of GDP on military, a difference of +$16 Billion each year. With normal military spending, in a decade Canada could have a nuke powered carrier fully stocked with any of the current contenders for Canada’s military strike aircraft, on each coast. With nuke powered icebreakers in the Arctic Ocean, there’d be no Russia looking at the North Pole and thinking its theirs.
When Russia decides the North Pole is theirs, will Canada then understand how keeping their word to NATO and spending what they’d said they’d spend, and not being one of the “deadbeat dads of NATO” is somewhat important?
Sure Canada’s military fights above its weight. But how does it get to the fight?
Military hardware is expensive,how is a Liberal going to steal enough to get by on,if they actually spend on defence?
It is so much more lucrative to spend and steal on “Social Engineering” while depending on the USA to pay for our protection.
Like those pretend ships of the “Navy/Coastguard”, how many will actually be usable in the Arctic?
The only way we can afford to keep our Welfare State and a military is by freeloading off of the USA.
Hope our new country abandons the Welfare in favour of a real military.
Slow as molasses – in January – on an up hill drag – with a stiff headwind.
Who gives a sh!+ about Canada? It’s merely an euphemism for Ontario and it’s colonial possessions.
As long as Zoolander and his ilk are in power, I’d rather they didn’t spend money on a military he is as likely to use on Albertans as on any other deemed by him to be his enemy.
Truth be told, I’m not surprised both official parties of government have neglected the Canadian military.
The War of 1812 is beyond living memory, and even then Canada was still a British colony that could not have resisted US annexation unassisted, regardless of how many French and Indian mercenaries would have been foolhardy enough to fight the Americans.
When President Trump decides he has had enough of a Chinese puppet state on America’s northern border, the only realistic response Ottawa will be able to make to an invasion by a nuclear-armed United States is unconditional surrender, whether the Dauphin or the Dairy Queen is in charge of the armed forces.
Ottawa has discouraged US annexation of Canada thus far (saving a fortune in military equipment) by not blatantly and openly taking the side of America’s enemies, the way Justin has openly served Beijing. NAFTA was Brian Mulroney’s attempt to prolong French Canadian independence—not that Jean Chrétien’s Liberals ever appreciated that.
Can someone explain to me just exactly what we need fighter jets for? When was the last war with dogfights – Vietnam?
Far better to invest in small surface ships – thousands of them – like the Iranian Zodiacs, armed with anti-aircraft and other missiles. Even the best pilot is helpless against 25 simultaneously launched missiles. Fleets of these across both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts would keep us free from any invaders. Even the Russians are not stupid enough to try to attack across the poles.
It’s been proven repeatedly that many small, powerful units can win against a few large units, regardless of how powerful the big ones are. Once again, we are fighting the last war (and also trying to keep our top-heavy military, which seems to have one general for each private, happy).
“Can someone explain to me just exactly what we need fighter jets for?”
Air power wins wars. Unless you envy the position of the Taliban/ISIS where they were at the mercy of attacking Strike fighters/Bombers?
Yes, I used the term Strike Fighter. It’s what “fighters” do since Vietnam. They fight other aircraft and they also strike ground targets like heavy bombers do. Few nations can afford heavy bombers like Russia and China do, but you do want to be able to repel heavy bombers if need be. The alternative is to let enemy heavy bombers or Strike Fighters bomb your infrastructure and defence forces at will.
“Jets still have a place but will soon be outmoded by unmanned aircraft.”~Ryan
Unmanned aircraft can be neutralized by jamming as we have already seen as recently as last week when the U.S. Navy destroyed an Iranian drone, bringing it down with targeted jammers. Manned aircraft continue on their mission.
small surface ships – thousands of them – like the Iranian Zodiacs In nthe atlantic or arctic?
If you don’t have sovereignty over your air space, you don’t have sovereignty. NORAD interceptors still intercept Russian bombers on our northern border regularly. We also help NATO allies such as Iceland (that has no air force). We deploy to various place in the world to protect our new allies being intimidated by Russia. We deploy in the Middle East to fight ISIS. Etc. The F-18 is a multirole fighter, used as an interceptor and as a fighter-bomber.
I don’t think your thousand of zodiacs would do very well in the North Atlantic, or in the arctic ocean. What is the range an endurance of those boats by the way? Do you have a map of Canada handy? Wouldn’t be able to deploy them to protect sea lanes. Or board other ships. As for those missile you would put on them, currently aircraft just fly above altitude they can reach, bombing with impunity. How exactly would you detect, track and coordinate a 25 missile attack using rubber boats?
“It’s been proven repeatedly that many small, powerful units can win against a few large units, regardless of how powerful the big ones are.” Please provide a few examples. Tell us how many ships PT boats sank during WW2. Tel us how man US Destroyers Iranian rubber boats sank.
KevinB might just have a point, considering the size of the landmass vs the size of the budget, a comparable small number of tactical aircraft vs a larger number of surface to air units may be wise. Jets still have a place but will soon be outmoded by unmanned aircraft.
As for the pace of replacing the ones we have, though, at work we have people coming in all the time looking for parts for older models, and being surprised they can’t find any. People really do get stuck in the past. I find it useful to remind them that looking for parts, in 2019, for a 1982 model, is exactly the same as looking for something in 1982 for something from 1945, or, if talking 2025 when we might see these things, 1937. Pace of development has obviously slowed a bit, but every time the RCAF rolls down the runway they’re hopelessly outmoded, a bit like a Hurricane vs the original CF-18. Same goes for the damned Vietnam vintage helicopters. The fact any of these things are still flying at all is a testament to our men and women in uniform, with the help of some duct tape, bailing wire and a short prayer.
“a comparable small number of tactical aircraft vs a larger number of surface to air units may be wise”
TAC Air is easy meat for fighter capable aircraft, SAMs are easy meat for Wild Weasel attacks. …And after you’ve fired your SAMs how do you resupply the missiles if you can’t keep enemy Strike Fighters/TAC Air off of your trains, convoys, air drops?
Nations with TAC Air can operate TAC Air because their fighters and Wild Weasels have achieved Air Superiority or Air Supremacy.
You achieve Air Superiority or Air Supremacy with fighter capable aircraft.
Some of you seem to want to add your 2 cents about a subject you know very little about, Warfare. You need to study and understand terms such as Blitzkrieg and Combine Arms Warfare before giving your opinion on a subject you know next to nothing about.
Air Power Wins Wars. The most basic unit of Air Power is to have fighter capable aircraft.
How much did Chretians (not) helicopters cost us?
I don’t know whether the F-35 is the best or not, but there was a competitive process at the beginning of the project and the F-35 was selected.
I doubt that Canada has the capability to fight a war anywhere. Fighters are needed to assist in our treaty obligations with other countries, even then we are almost useless.
1982 was so long ago that Jack & Diane was a Johnny Cougar song.
More to the point of technology, in 1982 the IBM PC was brand new featuring an 8088 that ran at nearly (but not quite) several MHz. Fighter planes were using a lot of Z80s, which are at least still in production for replacement needs.
Don’t worry Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Trudeau knows it.
Predator drones use snowmobile engines made by Bombardier, just saying.
Consider for a moment the possibility that the CF-18 replaced a previous fighter that was on strength for over 40 years; what fighter would it have replaced?
The Spitfire!
The Spitfire came on strength with the RCAF in 1940
Puts things into perspective somewhat