I think your third scenario is imagining scenarios that aren't really realistic, even if its premise is accepted.
It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there.
For Canada to have projection into Europe or Australia we would just need so much more than just some fancy jets. We'd need carriers that are worth a damn to bring them there, battleships to support the carriers, bombers to support the battleships, etc. A whole whack of infrastructure we don't really have anymore, if we ever did, and that after buying the f-35s we probably couldn't afford anyways.
If the only way Canada can support NATO is by propping up the US military-industrial-complex then we probably don't belong in NATO.
"It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there."
Canada used to have fighters in Germany, to forestall or intercept Soviet aggression, and they were relatively well-equipped and well-trained units. I am not 'imagining scenarios', I am just laying out alternatives.
Is there any particular reason it's better for Canadian jets to be sitting in Germany than for Germany to just have more jets if they feel they need them for defence? This is a thing that makes sense for European countries to do with each other, or north american countries likewise, but it's just downright silly to buy billion+ dollar jets ostensibly for the defense of Canada and then stick them in Germany.
Like, other than symbolic ones where we try to pretend we're contributing in a way similar to the US with its little plots of american land in half the countries of the world even though we have neither the means nor the stomach to do so.
All of this depends on what you think Canadian Armed Forces are there for. Canada could have a number of aircraft available as a quick-reaction force, and forward-deployed in Germany for convenience (as well as to help out an ally). Alternatively, Canada might forward-deploy to Germany to set a 'tripwire' against Russian aggression, or maybe to improve cross-training with other European countries.
Canadian F-35s wouldn't need aircraft carriers to deploy to trouble spots in Europe. They have a decent ferry range with external tanks, and could just fly there with one or two refueling stops. Of course they would still need logistical support from NATO allies for any sort of sustained operations.
This feels like a very early post-WWII way of looking at conflict to me. If a conflict is in desperate need of help from countries across the ocean with no projection power themselves (ie. not the US), it's likely "a trip across the ocean with 2 refuelling stops" is going to be too little two late. If we want to contribute to ongoing conflicts then we need more than the ability to fly a jet out and maybe back.
The main thing that kind of capability is useful for is a first strike, I'm pretty sure. And I'd argue that's not the kind of thing Canada should be involving itself in.
Comments
I think your third scenario is imagining scenarios that aren't really realistic, even if its premise is accepted.
It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there.
For Canada to have projection into Europe or Australia we would just need so much more than just some fancy jets. We'd need carriers that are worth a damn to bring them there, battleships to support the carriers, bombers to support the battleships, etc. A whole whack of infrastructure we don't really have anymore, if we ever did, and that after buying the f-35s we probably couldn't afford anyways.
If the only way Canada can support NATO is by propping up the US military-industrial-complex then we probably don't belong in NATO.
Canada used to have fighters in Germany, to forestall or intercept Soviet aggression, and they were relatively well-equipped and well-trained units. I am not 'imagining scenarios', I am just laying out alternatives.
Is there any particular reason it's better for Canadian jets to be sitting in Germany than for Germany to just have more jets if they feel they need them for defence? This is a thing that makes sense for European countries to do with each other, or north american countries likewise, but it's just downright silly to buy billion+ dollar jets ostensibly for the defense of Canada and then stick them in Germany.
Like, other than symbolic ones where we try to pretend we're contributing in a way similar to the US with its little plots of american land in half the countries of the world even though we have neither the means nor the stomach to do so.
All of this depends on what you think Canadian Armed Forces are there for. Canada could have a number of aircraft available as a quick-reaction force, and forward-deployed in Germany for convenience (as well as to help out an ally). Alternatively, Canada might forward-deploy to Germany to set a 'tripwire' against Russian aggression, or maybe to improve cross-training with other European countries.
Canadian F-35s wouldn't need aircraft carriers to deploy to trouble spots in Europe. They have a decent ferry range with external tanks, and could just fly there with one or two refueling stops. Of course they would still need logistical support from NATO allies for any sort of sustained operations.
This feels like a very early post-WWII way of looking at conflict to me. If a conflict is in desperate need of help from countries across the ocean with no projection power themselves (ie. not the US), it's likely "a trip across the ocean with 2 refuelling stops" is going to be too little two late. If we want to contribute to ongoing conflicts then we need more than the ability to fly a jet out and maybe back.
The main thing that kind of capability is useful for is a first strike, I'm pretty sure. And I'd argue that's not the kind of thing Canada should be involving itself in.
You seem to have come up with a decision matrix (which is very different from my own), and that is much better than I can say for Canada's government!