>Canada cannot currently meet its commitments to the North

they should go back to spitfires and lancasters tbн

>>67760989
Please just kill us already, I hate this country. Don't get me wrong, I hate your country too, which is why I said kill. Use us for nuclear testing or something just destroy us while we still have some little dignity.

>>67760885
They obviously dont plan to owe 100% of their yearly output.

This country is fucking pathetic. Every day I wish I were American, not to say that America isn't a total piece of shit (it is, and Trump isn't going to fix it), but at least the people aren't such lazy smug liberal cunts and have a shred of identity and self respect.

You make it sound like all of us were trying to fob off defense duties, and not just Trudeau in his quest to not kill his enemies.

Canada should invest in ice breakers, submarines.

I don't think you understand, NATO exists purely to serve US interests.
Countries don't commit to it because nobody actually believes in it.

I don't give a shit. Either way my tax dollars will get wasted on something retarded.

>>67761059
>>67761114
>>67761115
Do you want us to repeal the Canada Act senpaitachi?

>>67761115
Trudeau was a mistake desu

File: 1457580022386.jpg (81KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 300x250px

CAN WE GET RID OF THE FUCKING 60 YEARS OLD SEAKINGS INSTEAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>67761213
I don't know what that is but it'll back fire on you.

>>67761240
You don't like that pokemon?

>buying super hornet instead of lightning ii
Isn't that like buying an xbox360 instead of a ps4? Why would you do that

File: 1404577346606.jpg (332KB, 1600x1422px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1600x1422px

>>67761213
It's too late for us

>>67760885
>Complains latest and greatest jets in design and production at the bequest of a group of important allies are too expensive
>Proceeds to blow money on a useless token purchase to maintain a facade of having a barely functioning air force

Normally I'm not for excessive defence spending but this is quite retarded.

Disband NATO
Disband NAFTA
Disband U.N.

▲▲
▲

He's got to go.

How did Canada go from being best ally in WW2 to this?

>>67760885
Why do Americans keep pushing an unfinished and poorly tested F-35 on other countries?

Even your own defence reports say the plane has been rushed through testing.

We are not going to spend billions and billions on planes that we will have to spend billions and billions more in upgrades just because they weren't properly finished when we bought them.

We buy Hornets as a holdover until after the F-35 is properly tested. Then upgrade to F-35s in the 2020s. It saves money in the long run.

Do you understand?

File: christmas present.webm (908KB, 405x720px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 405x720px

>>67761492
>unfinished and poorly tested
>this meme again

File: baby-girl-WEB.jpg (403KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1280x960px

>>67761586
P U R E

>>67761424
The French.

>>67761424
The Liberal Party post-WW2 has been nothing but pure evil

>>67761424
The eternal Quebecois

I really fucking hate Canadian posters on here.

Look at all these bitching cunts whine about being Canadian. It's pathetic.

End yourselves.

>>67761747
Things are not going well for us. We can't keep going on pretending that everything is fine.

>>67761114
Americans have an indomitable spirit, as bad as things get they at least persevere and seek to innovate/make change in their lives.

Canadians can't even be bothered to the point we'd rather just become Americans so we can feel less constrained.

>>67761766
God, shut the fuck up already. Every single one of you shits that sing that tune are the same type who constantly trash this country day in and day out. There's not a single country on /int/ that does this.

Not Sweden, not Germany, not even Mexico or Brazil.

Have a shred of self-respect, you limp wristed faggot.

>>67761816
Remember to vote Liberal™ next election! Your vote matters!

We should just start our own drone program, famalams. Why spend a fuckton on manned jets when they are the way of the past? The USA has already done the bulk of the work by inventing the Predator.

>>67761747
Fuck outta here oilnigger

>>67761816
isn;t this the best example of why this countyr is shit though?
people like those ITT have zero will to do anything to change it and just give up immediately if something isn't easy.

really sad honestly that we've come to this.

>>67761872
The RELIABLE technology for unmanned fighters just isn't here yet.

For example automated pass machines and rebound boards are nice, but it's no replacement for a teammate feeding passes to you.

>>67761900
Its sad how we somehow have the biggest accumulation of pussies with no self-respect posting under the leaf.

This thread is a good example. Bunch of dickless runts looking for any reason to hate themselves. Like fuck sakes, more than 3/4ths of NATO don't owe up to their fair share of defense spending.

Wish I could crack some skulls ITT tbqh famalam

>>67761984
I don't hate Canadians I hate our government and the faggots who put up with their bullshit.

>>67761984
I don't know wtf is going on right now, there are 3 or 4 Canada threads right now filled with self hating canadians. I'm upset

>>67761984
>Like fuck sakes, more than 3/4ths of NATO don't owe up to their fair share of defense spending.

Yeah but those are europeans, it's almost expected of them. IIRC Canada had the third biggest navy in the world after WWII and one of the biggest air forces. Sad how it is now.

>>67762012
>I'm upset

I feel for you anon. I have to deal with this in my state

>>67762000
then get involved
join the PC party and vote for a candidate.

>>67762091
>Canada had the third biggest navy in the world after WWII
because every other country was in ruins
and most of our navy was supply ships.

File: yes3.jpg (25KB, 534x267px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 534x267px

>>67761747
Welcome to my world

>>67760885
meh, just follow our lead, Americans have consistently blocked our efforts to try and modernoze our armed forces through bocking our buying cost effective capable assets from other countries and forcing us instead to get their overpriced junk through "aid" programs really only meant to dole out pork to their military-industrial complex.

The idea is we never become a threat to them and are forced to rely on them for our own defense, which because of our own geographic position they'd rather handle themselves than trust to us.

The end result is we get free defense under no treaty obligations just for not allying with Russia or China.

>mfw when Trump figures out at some point he may go down in history as the president who pushed Mexico to allow America's geopolitic rivals to build bases on it's territory.
Personally I'm all for freedom of movement with Iran and best Korea.

File: 2185721.jpg (560KB, 1024x695px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1024x695px

>Canadiasn whining about CF-18s
Ja... ja... ja...
Kill me

File: image.jpg (33KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x300px

>>67762134
>>mfw when Trump figures out at some point he may go down in history as the president who pushed Mexico to allow America's geopolitic rivals to build bases on it's territory.

You would then have the NSA and CIA so far up your ass you won't know what to do. If I were in power I'd destabilize (even more than it is) your country if you so much as wished NK or Iran a buenos noches

>>67761747
No need to be rude tbhfam

>>67762243
What would you need real jets for? The Canalmanians? Migrant Guetemalans? Second French invasion?

>>67762280
Tbh they should get some A-10s for CAS to btfo the cartels

>>67762280
All of the above
Those F-5 are actually over tasked at the moment, we do need something new and Air Force is actually protesting for new gear

File: banecat.jpg (101KB, 640x360px)

101KB, 640x360px

>>67762246
>CIA
We are crashing this plane with no survivors

File: image.jpg (116KB, 748x875px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 748x875px

>>67762421
You don't get to bring amigos

File: Mexicat2.jpg (171KB, 847x1104px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 847x1104px

>>67762527
You merely adopted the dark gringo

>bothering with your military when america has to protect you anyway

you should have gone the nz route of having a defence policy that's basically "if shit happens, we need australia or the us to step in otherwise we're fucked"

>>67761213
repeal the 1776 treaty too tbqh

>>67762643
That's like living in in the north of Australia using a paddle boat instead of motorboat

>>67762643
Not all countries have no self-respect

>>67762280
what do you expect trump to do when mexico refuses the bill

>>67762643
nato needs to be gone

>>67762718
steal all their agave

File: toosmall.png (3MB, 3780x2672px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3780x2672px

>>67760885
>18 super hornets
Wow that's so many omg.

File: 1479141500564.jpg (39KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x480px

>>67762802
>all those airplanes
>you still need permission to enter our airspace

lol

File: Friendship Ended With USA.jpg (71KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x600px

>>67760885
>Ameriga wants to be global hegemon.
>Bitches when they have to protect their hegemony.

>>67762971
That's how countries with respect to each other are expected to behave.

>>67763035
The world ain't ready for us to go FULL HEGEMON

File: neveractuallyleftthecountry.png (228KB, 953x784px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 953x784px

>>67762802
>all those planes
>and still we let ourselves in without your permision

>>67760885
It's fully Trudeaus political bullshit. The defence minister knows whatsup. If it wasn't for Sajjan we wouldn't be buying any jets at all.

>>67763057
That sort of was the cold war.

>>67763250
He should wrap his turban around weedman's neck

>>67763284
The world should have another.

>>67760885
Canada really has no need for a military at all, other than a basic coast guard. They're America's hat.

>>67763373
rude.

>>67763373
They've got shifty Russians bordering them, of course they have a need for a military.

Stop pretending to be stupid.

>>67763373
We should be capable of pulling some weight, period.

You're right about the Navy, as someone said here >>67761167 we should be buying icebreakers and submarines to deter Russia from fucking with the Arctic.

Which Harper planned to do but you know.

File: China is my best friend.jpg (125KB, 785x477px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 785x477px

>>67762791
kek, he'll get his hands full of spines

>>67763035
le fedora tip

>>67760885
>Why do countries keep trying to fob off their defense duties instead of spending the money to protect their people?

Protect from what? The only theats out there are some human bomb muslims and they won't fly on their magic carpets. Oh, yeah, and North Korea, but they only hate Japan and the USA

This is actually one of the best options for us. I've been saying this for years now.

Anyone who thinks that we should buy F-35s, which are overpriced, untested, and likely inappropriate in the Arctic, should take a 9mm hollowpoint suppository. But I don't expect the OP to understand anything about this, so I don't fault him for that.

As for the Canadian posters here, why are my countrymen ITT so misguided? Do you like flushing money down the toilet? Who are you going to use these F-35s against? Think critically for a moment: where will we be fighting in the next 10-20 years? What will be our mission? We will 99% be participating in a multinational coalition in some sandcountry. We don't need F-35s for that.

And if you think we're going to war with Russia, you've been reading too much propaganda. Even so, a few dozen F-35s (which are not useful in the Arctic, where an attack on Canadian soil would likely take place) wouldn't stand a chance against Russia.

If anything, what we need to do is focus on building up our navy.

>>67763421
Do you realise Alaska is part of the USA?

>>67763559
>tfw just purchased 12 new submarines

>>67760885
Having the US spend its money and send its own soldiers to die on your behalf is an awfully attractive proposition. They even volunteer to keep their troops at such posts, if you can believe it.

>>67763585
>tfw america tells them where to go

>>67763559
it's actually the worst option

either completely replace old Hornets with Super Hornets, Eurofighters, Cessna 172 or whatever. Buying 18 Super Hornets and then just being like idk we'll think about the rest of our 75 fighters later is going to cost more in the long run. Because now you might just buy 60 F-35s which is going to be way more expensive than just buying 100 in the first place.

>>67763640
They'll mostly be used as a coast guard to repel the Indonesians and Chinese from fucking around in our neck of the woods. Of course we'll also be participating in some war games around the South China Sea, got to keep up appearances and all.

>>67763566
Do you realize their is something called the Artic Circle?

>>67763707
Sounds like a good time though

>>67763713
>he thinks a land invasion is feasible from the North

chuckling

>>67763767
Russia mucks about underwater and tries to claim arctic territory that is not theirs. That is why we need a strong presence in the North.

>>67763767
It doesn't have to be about land invasion. If you can't enforce your territorial sovereignty when you're next to Russia you risk a slow annexation.

>>67763798
>>67763816
Fair deuce

>>67760885
>buying overpriced f35 junk
hahahahahahahahahaha

>>67763816

And when the north polar icecap melts expect to see this a lot more.

>>67762698

name 1

>>67763559
>overpriced, untested, and likely inappropriate in the Arctic
hahaha MEMES

File: Trump - Wake me.png (175KB, 363x328px)

175KB, 363x328px

>>67762322
Chances are they won't get anything under a Trump presidency, nevermind we won't have the money the US won't authorize anything, it's going to be at least another 4-8 years until we get replacements

>>67764017
Build wall and we'll give you jets

>>67764017
Feels bad
But Im a supporter of getting european jets, those saab ones look good, no need for air superiority jets just shit to patrol our cunt

File: reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.jpg (457KB, 1920x1200px)

457KB, 1920x1200px

>tfw no fighters
>tfw no tonks
>tfw only 2 frigates

>>67760885
>stockpiling weapons during peacetime
are you retarded? it's not even the cold war anymore

>>67764189
Hey at least you get mad hektik LMT rifles now.

File: Yak 130.jpg (455KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1200x800px

>>67764065
No

>>67764107
The Saabs are overpriced, obsolete and about as subject to American embargo as anything made in the US

Under normal circumstances whatever the US air force would have chosen as replacement for the T-38 talon would have been our ideal choice, even if it was a LIFT it would be a trans-sonic with a glass cockpit which is our for practical purposes real requirements. Interceptors don't really need good dogfighting atributes anymore, just beyong line of sight armament and that whatever we would get in that regard would be up to the US anyway, all we really need is something capable for intercepting comercial jets and credible enough deterrence in a local conflict (central America/Caribbean) which ironically enough we get already with the TC-6 Texans on just sheer numbers. Personally I think pictured would've been perfect and on a price tag for brand new we might have actually been able to afford a couple of dozen, but the US would've never let us get those even if fucking weaponized trainers are no fucking threat to them. It certainly would beat the waste of money used f-16s, the top brass favorite, would become.

Except with drumpf now in the white house we won't get clearance for anything, meaning the only way get aything is things go really bad with the Americans AND there's actually a pressing operational need (fucking ISIS blows one of our offshore rigs or something) in which case we might get something Russian or Chinese, probably used.

If the F-5s go out of service in the meantime we get a friendly American govrnment chances are our politicians will wrongly conclude we didn't really need a fighter after all and the project might get delayed either until we actually do develop something local (which there's a good chance it means never) or some cheap drone that can credibly do the job comes on the market, either way we are looking at a beyond 2030 window.

>Trump telling US allies who spent less than 2% of their GDP on defence to lift their game or fuck off
>Australia already spends 2% and is expected to rise through more US sales in the near future

>Trump wants a $500 billion expansion of the military to totally not fight China
>Australia offered our facilities to build ships, planes and armoured vehicles for the US to help achieve this goal.

tfw your cunt will continue to be a strong ally with Trumpmerica

File: 1402031228198.jpg (57KB, 473x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 473x480px

>>67760885
huh that's interesting we had this exact debate (other than the NATO stuff) a few years ago. Deciding whether to buy super hornets to fill a gap in capability while we waited for new planes. We ended up buying 24 of them for AU$2billion in 2013.

http://www.baka.com.au/national/defence-set-to-buy-super-hornets-over-cuttingedge-fighter-20130127-2df02.html

http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Aircraft/Super_Hornet/?RAAF-4dRvdvKuGAokY31UEml0P+KGoMiO8n/o

Someone should drop a nuke on canada

>>67764872
SEDENA has said that they want they´re own jet by 2030, this year the presented the first little trainer proptotype and the 2 test pilots, I guess they need to start small
And I also love the Yak, but as a replacement to the T-33 that everybody seems to have forgotten by now, F-5s still need a supersonic replacement

>>67764872
>drumpf
Hope you like 8 years of Trump

>>67764954
We suck american militarymakers' dicks at the expense of the rest of the world. We've bought lots of their sub-par military shit over the years just to keep them happy, at the expense of having a proper vetting process.

>>67760885
If it's not Boeing, I"m not going.

>>67764990
Too late you filthy brith, now we've got 18 Super Hornets. We're basically unstoppable.

>>67765059
Which is fine because we've also bought some good stuff too. And as long as we have the 2% GDP on defence, we won't really need to use them all that much besides bombing sandniggers who use home made mortars.

>>67765027
>triggered

>>67765018
I hope the trainer works out and purchasing the Grobs was a smart first step towards growing our pilot pool but it's hard to see how they're going to get a supersonic fighter on their budget and in that timeframe. Really a lot of unlikely things have to line up for that to even work into a working prototype stage, but I do aplaud them for trying.

As for the f-5s is too unrealistic to expect any type of replacement at all in the meantime, it really isn't an easy sell for congress. Real needs aside they would have only considered it as a matter of prestige during good times, with current austerity it simply isn't going to happen. We still don't know how bad the blow from DRUMPF is going to be and when we'll be able to gain some stability. I'd rather they had a LIFT than no interceptor at all.

What are they supposed to protect their people from? China's not doing anything to anyone outside of Asia. And according to Trump and his followers, Russia is a peaceful nation led by kind heroes just trying to get by in this world, they don't want any trouble. So what's the point of spending all this money? You might as well just set the money on fire

>>67765455
Canada still remember the Ukraine though. We stand by our Northern brothers against Russian aggression.
We also want the arctic.

File: gaWaii.png (7KB, 507x372px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 507x372px

>this thread

>>67761059
Dignity disappeared with the 'not withstanding' clause in the constitution. Actually it went when Canada took 100 years after the British said they don't want you anymore for it to become a country. Shit the GG can still override the government if the monarch asks them to.

>>67761870
If you are in BC yes but in the rest of that wasteland up north you have totally fucked the English language as bad as they do down here.

>>67763082
Republic of Mexico deployed an entire division of troops to New Mexico and Arizona once because we asked. Read your own history we have never been to war with the republic of Mexico.

>>67760885
>being unironicaly mad that they didn't buy that piece of shit F35
Good on you Canada

This is the future you chose. Hopefully you get weedman out on the next elections.

File: tmp_23240-1479770215195-779007810.gif (2MB, 320x240px)

2MB, 320x240px

>>67760885
>take defence budget
>use it to give $2 million houses to refugees, and $100k each
I don't know what kind of devil beast rules the Canadian politics but why bring in these thousands of people who don't want to integrate and even worse give them their life for free? nobody here can afford a house and these people get this shit for free and they can even choose which one they want.

Canada was a mistake.

>>67764189
How will NZ support the allies in WWIII without any hardware of their own

Our military is so incompetently managed it's fucking embarrassing. Such a shame because we have so much potential but are held back by bureaucratic horseshit like this

>>67760885
>F-35
>defense duties
I kekd, tovarish.

Because America-sama will protect us :)

>>67766864
Isn't Canadian special forces among the best in the world? It's not all lost, leafbro

You know with the NATO shit Trump's been heckling what's going to happen to Iceland? I mean they literally have no military.

File: image.jpg (197KB, 983x1013px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 983x1013px

>>67767052

>>67767286
Nothing. They're nice guys.

>>67766104
>that piece of shit F35
Compared to what?
The Chinese "literally a knock off F-35" J-20?
Or the Russian "probably couldnt defend itself against an F/A-18E/F" PAK FA.

>>67767286
Iceland is too cute to be kicked out

>>67761747
>I really fucking hate Canadian posters on here.
You're not the only one x)

File: canadians on int.jpg (1MB, 2500x6930px)

1MB, 2500x6930px

>>67768136
indeed

File: wut.jpg (6KB, 215x235px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 215x235px

>>67760885
Why not just buy 500 old F-16s and arm them from head to toes.
Uber high tech stealth hyper fighter is just masturbation when there's five combat proven dogfighters on your tail with sidewinders ready.

>>67769103
Do you know how expensive that would be? Airframes unfortunate have a service life.

>>67769103
We're gonna build a great air force, and we're gonna get the Americans to pay for it

>A bunch of hippies accidentally improved Canada's military capability by convincing weedman to dump vaporware

>>67769103
Why not just buy 5000 Spitfires and arm them from the head to toes?

File: f-35 global participation.jpg (364KB, 3499x3029px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 3499x3029px

So I'lll have to finally delete this? It's a good chart, I don't want to say goodbye

>>67761213
Ew no.

File: f35 ii bae.jpg (132KB, 1024x791px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x791px

>>67760885
>>The former Conservative government originally intended to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s

Buy the F-35b. You know it makes sense, and it's always fun hovering about the place.

>Oy vey canacucks! You need to start taking seriously your constitutional rights to serve and protect the People from bad guys and shit, and thst means purchasing from one of our Alabama-based, hick-employing, fed-subsidized, defense cartel companies this most fine piece of flying machinery for the modic price of >over9k billion shekels/unit to protect your wymen and children and your national sovereignity and deter aggression from your neighbours. Or, well, in this case from your only neighbour, which happens to be us. Murica. Any part you don't understand?

>>67773140
Did you not read the thread? Canada borders Russia and there's been isolated incidents between the two over the arctic circle.

File: arcticmap4-new[1].gif (137KB, 1101x1328px)

137KB, 1101x1328px

>>67773140
>from your only neighbour, which happens to be us. Murica

Not really. Canada is very close and opposite to Russia. Lots of that ice melts during the summer.

>>67760885
money, who and how gets it, defines everything.

>>67773140
when is spen going to buy some nice f-35s

>not buying a plane that doesn't work (yet)
sounds sensible to me, why is everyone butthurt about this

>>67764872

What about the Gripen NGs that will be assembled in Brazil? Part of the reason for that deal to involve so much manufacturing in Brazil was to facilitate Latin American exports, after all.

Honestly in my opinion the best option for Mexico is the Korean T-50.

File: 000_Par7977499.jpg (56KB, 768x447px)

56KB, 768x447px

>>67764872
RAFALE
A
F
A
L
E

>at the end if WW2 Canada had the third largest navy in the world
>now we probably don't even scratch close to 100

File: _86970152_s400_vehicles_624in.png (23KB, 624x460px)

23KB, 624x460px

>>67760885
F-35 are fucking useless

there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, apart from bribery, to purchase them for defensive purposes

>>67778391
Would you sell?
Your helicopters have been useful

Because we're overspending so that leads them to underspend. Because we're overdoing it so everyone is underdoing it. (Russia excepted because they're in the same trap we are.)

Maybe they just want to stay away from an endless money pit called F-35.

>>67778601
I don't see why not, France has no quarrels with Mexico

Our government is to busy worrying about not addressing transgender people as xe or xers to care about defense. Go read about bill c16 and see if a country that passes shit like that is really useful in a war. We are a post national state too so we wouldn't be fighting for Canada but for our future refugees and immigrants.

>>67778531
>what is sead?

>>67778928
It's something that is useful but not straight up magic

>>67778531

Why not for defensive purposes? if the purpose of a credible defence is to have a military that can resist an enemy, then having an air force that can take off without being knocked out of the sky from a SAM system or BVR missile from over a hundred km away is part of that.

>>67778601
you have a wall to pay for paco

I wouldn't go buying anything wetback

File: 14095858_1043148082429051_3082168786494780861_n.jpg (45KB, 678x959px)

45KB, 678x959px

>>67779191
Its late for that
When will you send the rest of the fleet?

>>67778531
Stealth still reduces effective detection range, which is really useful if you're only working against aircraft that are penetrating your airspace.

File: GDDN.jpg (231KB, 2000x885px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 2000x885px

>SAAB and Embraer opened a development center at Embraer's factory this week.

Nice ;D

>>67761259
It is an act passed both by the British Parliament and the Canadian Parliament at the exact same time which said that the Canadians don't need approval of Westminster to make certain amendments to the constitution

Basically it gave Canada independence

>>67779149
a military that can resist an enemy is a robust military focused on proven technology
selecting an expensive but unproven wunderwaffe as your main workhorse seems risky
considering that purpose is defense plus bombing middle east, a thing like gripen wuld have done much better - cheap but modern, can be built in much larger numbers, production can be fully localized and scaled in the event of war - that would have been effective and smart

a few high-end stealth plance mixed into that might be good, but not necessary

>>67778601

>buying french helicopters

Why?

>>67779969
For speedy retreats

>>67780165

Doesn't Airbus already does that?

>implying Canada isn't a spy agency

They only pretend to be a barren tundra.

>>67779789

Canada doesn't need to plan around bombing the Middle East it needs to focus on maintaining a credible defensive air force, which can also contribute to NATO operations meaningful should that be required.

This wouldn't be an issue if the Canadian defence budget wasn't <1% GDP. Australia (another recent Super hornet customer) and most other F-35 countries are going for a mixed fleet. Canada's problem is it doesn't want to spend enough money to do this, and has lots of other replacements it can't keep delaying forever (like frigates).

The F-35 isn't a "wunderwaffe" it's supposed to be a "workhorse", like the F-16 is today. The F-35s development costs are the USA's problem, not Canada's anyway. The unit costs at full rate production are competitive.

>>67761167
I really like this approach.

>>67780440
>Australia (another recent Super hornet customer) and most other F-35 countries are going for a mixed fleet.
Sorry, this part is wrong.

Australia isn't going for a mixed fleet. The F-35A will replace all of their Hornets and Super Hornets. Many of the foreign F-35 buyers will be depending solely on the F-35.

The UK is one of the few exceptions

>>67780440
>The F-35 isn't a "wunderwaffe" it's supposed to be a "workhorse", like the F-16 is today. The F-35s development costs are the USA's problem, not Canada's anyway. The unit costs at full rate production are competitive.
well then f-35 should be acuired once they're past the "supposed" stage and are in fact at full production, including the price. Evidently, right now that isn't the case

>>67779969
They do the job

>>67779969
Why not

>>67780958
>>67781019

After the accident on Norway they had to ground literally every EC-225 operator worldwide.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2013-03-02/operators-feel-impact-ec225-grounding

And EC-725 have to be checked out after 10 hours of flight everytime.

>>67780533

Perhaps most is incorrect, but as far as I can tell; USA, UK, Italy, Israel, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, and if we include the inevitable long overlap for Australia (since they're still buying more), that is a lot of operating gen 4 & 5 alongside each other.

>>67780892

It is well into LRIP, and the unit cost has already come down considerably while production numbers are increasing. For a country aspiring to procure a single aircraft fleet, and keep it in service for as long as possible, the F-35 is the one to choose. Buying an interim aircraft to replace it in a decade or two makes little sense at this stage.

>>67781346
This stuff happens to literally every manufacturer

Canada should come home. Gib natural resources and you can share a military that actually pays its fair share.

But seriously, gib resources

>>67781346
Shit happens
EC-225 is beeing replaced by some AgustaWestland and the EC-725 has a decent combat record with us

>>67781350
reasons not to buy f-35 are simple and clear.

1. LRIP or not, f-35 is more expensive than updated previous gen, else canada wouldn't be buyin hornets
2. It's immature technology, not tested, not realiable, and too breakthrough, it's definitely not smart to opt for replacing your whole fleet with a weapon that's still experiencing major troubles every few months and will be in the process of fine-tuning for years yet
3. canada can't produce the jet domestically, can't bargain for full lueprints data with a major operator like the US, it could for Gripen or probably even Eurofighter
4. In 20 years, f-35 will be mature technology. if it's widespread and produced in large numbers as it's planned to, it will be cheap, much cheaper. that's the best time to buy unless ou're a country like the US with a mixed and large fleet

>>67781472
>>67781659


Yes, but the fact that it has to be checked for every 10 hours of flight is fucking bullshit.

BlackHawks doesn't need all of that.

>>67781350
Fair enough, that sounds about right. Maybe I'm thinking too long term anyway.

>>67781685
IMO it's too simplistic to see it in terms of buying or not buying the F-35.

Whether its worth it depends on the country, their military doctrine, their air combat mix, their industrial participation in the project and so on.

And even after considering all that, sometimes countries don't have much of a choice, such as the example of Norway who leaked cables revealed were practically forced into it (instead of the Gripen) by aggressive US diplomacy

>>67782099
We have a large fleet of those too, its not a problem, we have a record of using messy helicopters, Mi-26 were the first to defeat our ground crews in work overload and prices

>>67781685

1. Previous gen won't have as long a service life before going obsolete. The F-35 is planned to stay in service until ~2070.
2. The USA is spending billions to mature the technologies being used, at this point, it will happen. There will be problems, but Canada is in a position where these are not critical.
3. Canada won't be ordering enough of any plane to open up a domestic factory, Saab is already partnering with Brazil, so doubtful there will be more. On the other hand, Canada is already a level three partner of the F-35 program with Canadian firms being involved in contracts for the aircraft to the tune of billions.
4. 20 years? Full rate production is targeted for 2019 http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/05/f-35-production-set-quadruple-massive-factory-retools/128120/

>>67764872
Just call, Mexico! We can have some talk about su-30 for you

>>67767608
>probably
Wow look at this victim of lockheed Martin marketing.

File: 12880_1450152187.jpg (433KB, 1200x819px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1200x819px

>>67782493
Im afraid our cunt isnt showing interest in russian aircraft anymore ):

File: exercito-brasileiro black hawk.jpg (129KB, 700x450px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 700x450px

>>67782314

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wey4AbLrZ1A

People here just don't like them because of that. Everybody says >muh Black Hawks.

File: 16260136232_eeee912e24_b.jpg (142KB, 960x637px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x637px

>>67782785
>muh back hawks
Yes, air force and navy love these guys, even federal police and Jalisco state police use them

>>67760885
So, you lads got cucked by lefties as well huh?

>>67782358
>>67782302
in no way is it smart to transition to a brand-new aircraft for a country that operates like 50 fighters total. f-35 is expected to serve for 50+ years if i'm not mistaken. buy it whan it's been fighting in conflict for a few years at least - it will be cheap and proven. now, it isn't either. and in 2019 it also won't be. mid-service life seems good. 90es was the smart time to buy f-16s. 2025-35 would be a nice time to buy f-35 if it's a similar success

>>67783119

I read that Royal Navy is getting fucked lately, won't have anti-ship missiles and lack of personell.

File: 10056276.jpg (42KB, 550x357px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 550x357px

>>67782924

Cops uses H125 here.

>>67781685

About 80% of your post is utter nonsense.

>>67783325

The Royal Navy will have missiles with anti-ship capability during the time that both Harpoon and Sea Suka are retired. That entirely story is misreported and I'm frankly shocked at some of the very legit defence/military websites that parrot it.

On the personal issue, that's been like that for a fair while now, there's somewhat a shortage of engineers.

The Royal Navy is currently in a very awkward moment where there's a pre-buildup to a major stepup in capability with the new aircraft carriers, F-35, frigates and missiles.

>>67783844
dunno how you can split it into 80% and 20%, it's mostly a single statement - best to buy proven and cheap, than unproven and expensive. i wonder what part of that don't you agree with

>>67783844

I thought weird at first, like literally no anti-ships for Royal Navy, that's fucked.

A defense blog here said that they had to call French official to help in a few stuff.

>>67783986
>best to buy proven and cheap, than unproven and expensive

It really isn't. You cannot gain a technological advantage and the concepts on how to best employ it without taking revolutionary steps. Incremental steps can only get you so far.

Exactly what part of the F-35 is unproven?

>>67783998

Yeah, I don't know what that blog is on about, but I'm glad you like our ships.

>>67784339
canada can't gain technological advantage over the US or any of its allies with f-35 and with super hornets it has it over any potential adversary for a fraction of the price. with hornets, canada can without question defend itself against any threat it could defend against with f-35

there might be a breakthgouh in technology, but there's no breakethrough in canada's capablity, considering it has an ally that will field dozens of f-35s for each plance Canada has

f-35 is unproven in the same way f-16 was before it entered battle and got fine-tuned and incrementally upgraded, with main operator country having extensive experience in using and maintaining it in battlefield conditions

File: P120 Amazonas.jpg (228KB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 3456x2304px

>>67784339

>but I'm glad you like our ships.

:3

File: ef-typhoon.jpg (35KB, 591x204px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 591x204px

>>67764872

This removes the f-35 lightcuck from the skies and stumps the trump.

Acquire it, Mexico. :3

>>67784600
>canada can't gain technological advantage over the US or any of its allies with f-35 and with super hornets it has it over any potential adversary for a fraction of the price

What? Why would Canada be trying to gain a technological advantage over its allies?

>with hornets, canada can without question defend itself against any threat it could defend against with f-35

Not to the same level of effectiveness.

>there might be a breakthgouh in technology, but there's no breakethrough in canada's capablity, considering it has an ally that will field dozens of f-35s for each plance Canada has

It certainly would be. An F-35 is worth four F-18s.

>F-35 is unproven in the same way f-16 was before it entered battle and got fine-tuned and incrementally upgraded, with main operator country having extensive experience in using and maintaining it in battlefield conditions

The F-16 would not have happened if the US remained on the previous platforms. The F-35 is a modern F-16. The development of the F-35 is based off the experience previous stealth aircraft, the technology is well understood.

>>67785695
One can only wish

>>67784929

Hey, we've even offered you our new Type 26s, the more the merrier and all that.

>>67783209

By the time Canada receives all its F/A-18E, it will already be the mid 2020s and time to swap over. The targeted unit cost for the F-35 is $80-85 million by 2019, not so much more than the F/A-18E that it makes sense to procure an interim solution you only keep in service for 10 years. For reference, they have been flying their CF-18s for over 30 years now.

>>67763998
America has never designed their planes specifically for their most common engagements.
Why wouldn't they design their jets to operate in the North.

It's not like they've spent 6 decades in the fucking desert or something.

>>67786329
> What? Why would Canada be trying to gain a technological advantage over its allies?
meh, an irrelevant point, mostly i was surprised you didn't think canada has a superiority over adversaries as it is
> Not to the same level of effectiveness.
of course
> It certainly would be. An F-35 is worth four F-18s.
what's this metric where you measure airplanes in other airplanes? i could compare costs or other easurable things against one another, but I don't know how many a-10s a b2 is worth, for example
> The F-16 would not have happened if the US remained on the previous platforms
we're not talking about the US. it's exactly because US is getting f-35 and is going to try to refine them anyway, that it's certain that they'll be a better buy after the US has done that

>>67767059
They are very well trained, our government just likes jewing us out of equipment.

>>67786924
well they could start procuring f-35s in 2025, first replacing the 40yo planes, basically the way the US is doing now. their interim jets are just that - they're not replacing the whole park with them, but just enough to safely transition into next gen in about that time. those hornets might leave service after 20 years in 2035, but more lkely they'll be something like trainers/reserve after that. seems reasonable

File: type-26-global-combat-ship-dsei-011.jpg (1MB, 3146x2016px)

1MB, 3146x2016px

>>67784929
pls place an order for our new frigates.

>>67787314

The only advantage of that plan is that it insures you against the possibility of a major physical defect being found in the F-35 which requires a significant expensive overhaul. You are still buying aircraft to prematurely retire them, and you still have the expense of operating a mixed air force for much longer, with all the duplication of costs that entails.

>>67787386

m8, we can't afford more than eight of the fecking things ourselves. I'm just hoping that we build more than five Type-31, otherwise what was the point of the whole two tiers apart from cheap-skatery.

>>67787100
>what's this metric where you measure airplanes in other airplanes? i could compare costs or other easurable things against one another, but I don't know how many a-10s a b2 is worth, for example

In capability.

https://youtu.be/SEHIaerJbEk?t=2m34s

Go to 2m34.

>we're not talking about the US. it's exactly because US is getting f-35 and is going to try to refine them anyway, that it's certain that they'll be a better buy after the US has done that

You aren't following the point. Reread it.

>>67787314

You keep repeating that the F-18s are cheaper, but they won't be given their life time costs.

Just look at the other F-35 nations when they run their evaluations, they rule that the F-18 will cost more to support, train and run during their life times. The unit cost per fighter is only a part of a much wider total cost.

>>67760885
Because they have the US to do everything for them. Ignoring the shitstorm in Africa and some parts of Asia, our times couldn't be more peaceful, Canada doesn't need to project power or waste too much money to defend itself

>>67787650
>I'm just hoping that we build more than five Type-31

I haven't heard of this Type 31 of which you speak.

>>67788061

In 2015 the government decided we would get only 8 Type-26. The rest of the frigate fleet will be made up of a smaller cheaper vessel (the design of which has yet to be finalised). The number of these cheaper frigates will be at minimum 5 (to give 13 frigates total, same as current Type-23 fleet), but the whole point of this should be to increase the total number of vessels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate

>>67788186
>In 2015 the government decided we would get only 8 Type-26

I wept at the SDSR. The best thing that can happen is that we start batching both the Type 26 and Type 31 to rebuild the fleet.

File: 1421606576655.jpg (29KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x640px

>>67788186
I see.

>>67787568
i don't think initial plan included canada switching to f-35s in under 10 years, so that's unchanged.

so, yes, it insurance against f-35 being faulty,you buy them cheaper, in fact you can make transition faster, you retire cf-1s after 40 years instead of 30, don't have to hastily retrain pilots and can do it faster in 2020es once US has a lot of f-35 operational

and there's really no downside to that solution

>>67787659
> capability
in what metric? pilot ejaculations per gallon of fuel?
> some guy said stuff that doesn't make sence
yeah if i tell you that a red apple equals 4 green apples in performance, it would mean just as much

> You aren't following the point. Reread it.
I am, and we're not talking about the US operating a new plane, but a much smaller country having little practical need to operate new planes fresh off the shelf. f-35 isn't just stealth, it's the most complicated plane ever built

> You keep repeating that the F-18s are cheaper, but they won't be given their life time costs. Just look at the other F-35 nations
i've seen the number of those nations and their procurement numbers decrease, procurement being questioned. i've not seen new nations lining up for it. i remember reading in like 2006 sbout how a squadron of f35As will be fully operational by about 2012

>>67760885
Why does Canada need fighter jets? With whom would they fight an air war?

>>67789043
>in what metric? pilot ejaculations per gallon of fuel?

Yes, be flippant that will definitely prove your point.

>some guy said stuff that doesn't make sence
>yeah if i tell you that a red apple equals 4 green apples in performance, it would mean just as much

He's not just "some guy". That's Peter Roberts, the director of Military Sciences at RUSI, one of the top military/defence thinktank's in the world.

https://rusi.org/people/roberts-0

>I am, and we're not talking about the US operating a new plane, but a much smaller country having little practical need to operate new planes fresh off the shelf. f-35 isn't just stealth, it's the most complicated plane ever built

No, we're talking about aircraft development. Yes, it has new technologies, it has been designed for easy of maintenance with systems like 'Autonomic Logistics Information System' (ALIS).

>i've seen the number of those nations and their procurement numbers decrease, procurement being questioned. i've not seen new nations lining up for it. i remember reading in like 2006 sbout how a squadron of f35As will be fully operational by about 2012

Again, that doesn't answer the point. Budgets get cut yes, but that doesn't change the F-35 being the better option in the long run.

>>67789193
Denmark/Greenland

>>67787386
>>67786757

I think they can build 5 more here if they wanted, at least is what i read in some blogs here.

The problem with our Navy is they dream too much with >muh carrier and >muh nuclear sub, when their frigates and corvettes are being decomissioned/going to maintenance every 3 years. Plus they receive the least amount of money of all three forces.

>>67790506

We've had to and still currently going through a big gap in capability so that we can rebuild our navy around the new carriers. A very painful process as many lose face and pride at having cut to save.

It will be worth it once we are there.

File: canada cold war.png (72KB, 612x801px)

72KB, 612x801px

>>67761059
but we need you as hockey rival

File: Tamandaré.jpg (164KB, 1337x877px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1337x877px

>>67791035

I meant the BAE's OPVs that they sold to us, they gave us perimission to build 5 more here. But they probably won't do because they'll throw money on the Tamandaré Class.

Which i fucking hope they don't go full retard once again and throw the money on a useless carrier.

>>67791376

Well, that Tamandaré looks nice and capable.

It's got CAMM's and all.

>>67763442
>Mexico making friendly with China
This is a lot like purposefully making yourself into someone's prison bitch because your ``friends" are trying to stab you in the butthole all the time

>>67792047

Gotta wait till news now. This week they deactivated a corvette, i think it will go to a routine maintenance, idk.

A few diesel subs are going to be launched next year together with a 500ton OPV Macau Class.

Still, not enough for our size.

>>67792047
>>67792309

>Macaé Class

fix