I was just trying to lay out different mission profiles, along with the best jets for the job. If Canada only wants to do peacekeeping, it doesn't really need fighters. In addition to that, trying to get a one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.
one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.
Isn't that precisely what the F-35 has been criticized for? :)
So if you accept the "mission profile" of defending NA and meeting NATO commitments while having a reasonable price tag, is the F-35 still the obvious winner in your opinion?
My personal paradigm is a bit different from the conventional ones. I think that if Canada wants to do air defense/Arctic interceptions, the F-15EX is a great plane, with long legs, very powerful radar, and great weapon load capabilities. Canada could then choose to specialize in a niche role for NATO purposes; close-air support would probably be the best one, given Canada's recent commitments. Canada could then purchase surplus A-10 Warthogs (I mean Thunderbolt IIs of course) and Super Tucanos for that mission.
You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints?
Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage.
"You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints?"
I think there are a number of straightforward answers, but you need to define what you want the Air Forces to do, instead of coming up with post-hoc rationalizations (disguised as requirements) for why you chose one aircraft or another.
"Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage."
Canada isn't the only country to politicize defense acquisitions, it's just one of the clearest. From the endless support for, and subsequent cancellation of the Avro Arrow to the Chinook contract cancellation in the 1990s, Canadian politicians have always played political games with defense acquisitions.
I mean, for a country that hasn't been truly forced into a war in basically a couple hundred years pretty much all defence acquisitions are "political games". That doesn't mean that this particular one was the particular game "anti-american".
You don't even seem to really disagree that it wasn't a sensible purchase for canada, if only because you don't seem to believe that Canada has a plan for its military that is sufficiently fleshed out to justify it.
If you want a cynical reason there are much simpler ones. The Liberals are a center left party that continues to be at least a little in love with austerity, and it was an easy high price tag to axe with basically no meaningful consequences in the short or medium term (because it's not like we were going to get them in that timeframe anyways).
Never mind that as half of a quasi-stable two-party power structure they pretty much always benefit from taking easy stances that are opposite their conservative pair.
"You don't even seem to really disagree that it wasn't a sensible purchase for canada, if only because you don't seem to believe that Canada has a plan for its military that is sufficiently fleshed out to justify it."
That is a pretty fair assessment of my position, though I do think there are reasons why the F-35 makes sense, depending on what the Canadian air forces are supposed to do. The F-35 is a very capable aircraft, it's just not clear if the capabilities are suited to Canada's missions.
Comments
What if the answer is NA defence and meeting NATO commitments? Why did you frame it as either/or?
(Peace keeping has nothing to do with a jet fighter acquisition. The only reason you brought it up was so you could add a jab - very classy.)
I was just trying to lay out different mission profiles, along with the best jets for the job. If Canada only wants to do peacekeeping, it doesn't really need fighters. In addition to that, trying to get a one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.
Isn't that precisely what the F-35 has been criticized for? :)
So if you accept the "mission profile" of defending NA and meeting NATO commitments while having a reasonable price tag, is the F-35 still the obvious winner in your opinion?
My personal paradigm is a bit different from the conventional ones. I think that if Canada wants to do air defense/Arctic interceptions, the F-15EX is a great plane, with long legs, very powerful radar, and great weapon load capabilities. Canada could then choose to specialize in a niche role for NATO purposes; close-air support would probably be the best one, given Canada's recent commitments. Canada could then purchase surplus A-10 Warthogs (I mean Thunderbolt IIs of course) and Super Tucanos for that mission.
Exactly.
You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints?
Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage.
I think there are a number of straightforward answers, but you need to define what you want the Air Forces to do, instead of coming up with post-hoc rationalizations (disguised as requirements) for why you chose one aircraft or another.
Canada isn't the only country to politicize defense acquisitions, it's just one of the clearest. From the endless support for, and subsequent cancellation of the Avro Arrow to the Chinook contract cancellation in the 1990s, Canadian politicians have always played political games with defense acquisitions.
I mean, for a country that hasn't been truly forced into a war in basically a couple hundred years pretty much all defence acquisitions are "political games". That doesn't mean that this particular one was the particular game "anti-american".
You don't even seem to really disagree that it wasn't a sensible purchase for canada, if only because you don't seem to believe that Canada has a plan for its military that is sufficiently fleshed out to justify it.
If you want a cynical reason there are much simpler ones. The Liberals are a center left party that continues to be at least a little in love with austerity, and it was an easy high price tag to axe with basically no meaningful consequences in the short or medium term (because it's not like we were going to get them in that timeframe anyways).
Never mind that as half of a quasi-stable two-party power structure they pretty much always benefit from taking easy stances that are opposite their conservative pair.
That is a pretty fair assessment of my position, though I do think there are reasons why the F-35 makes sense, depending on what the Canadian air forces are supposed to do. The F-35 is a very capable aircraft, it's just not clear if the capabilities are suited to Canada's missions.