Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
We are going to need new tanks as well as fighters if we want to be any semblance of a 21st Century Army. Don't think that Russia, the European Union, The U.S. are not very aware of any loss of committment on our part to protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic.
Whenever we do Defense on the cheap, like those clunkers of obsolete submarines we brought from Britain, we end up getting burned.. and Russia, or Denmark of the U.S. start ignoring any formalities or recognition in traversing and setting up bases in our north.
Whenever we do Defense on the cheap, like those clunkers of obsolete submarines we brought from Britain, we end up getting burned.. and Russia, or Denmark of the U.S. start ignoring any formalities or recognition in traversing and setting up bases in our north.
Really?
So will they be upgraded and flying with the F-35s?
Or sold off.......
65 does seem too few.......but we can't be operating with many more fighters tyhan 65 if some F-18s are in mothballs....
I've created a somewhat related thread here:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/94502-how-fund-military-more-democratic.html
Why not provide a certain amount of money to the military every year, and let the military spend the money as it sees fit, within reason of course, within the budget allocated to it?
By providing some competition between 2 competing military forces as described in the other thread, this would likely promote some competition between the two competing forces to gain the trust of the taxpayer.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/94502-how-fund-military-more-democratic.html
Why not provide a certain amount of money to the military every year, and let the military spend the money as it sees fit, within reason of course, within the budget allocated to it?
By providing some competition between 2 competing military forces as described in the other thread, this would likely promote some competition between the two competing forces to gain the trust of the taxpayer.
Remember back in the 1950's when the U.S. had competition between military services (army verses navy), duplicating projects etc. it was very expensive and eventually was one of the reasons that led to us falling behind the Soviet Union in rocket technology. It was only when they formed NASA that the space program advanced. Each military branch received their own budgets so they could pursue their own needs. The taxpayers seemed to go along with it, at least until today when the economy sort of fell apart. Countries who can afford it have to pace what ever is current technology and everyone must work within a controlled budget.
You cannot have two or more branches of the military competing for a single budget. All Remember back in the 1950's when the U.S. had competition between military services (army verses navy), duplicating projects etc. it was very expensive and eventually was one of the reasons that led to us falling behind the Soviet Union in rocket technology. It was only when they formed NASA that the space program advanced. Each military branch received their own budgets so they could pursue their own needs. The taxpayers seemed to go along with it, at least until today when the economy sort of fell apart. Countries who can afford it have to pace what ever is current technology and everyone must work within a controlled budget.
You cannot have two or more branches of the military competing for a single budget.
All branches are equally important, if not disolve the one you do not need.
Not quite the same based on what's described in the other thread. Essentially, each military force would have different roles, so it would have more to do with what role they think Canada should focus on: international intervention vs. domestic defense for example.
I heard there was a Gliberal demanding that the Cons rebuild it because it'd be $0.25 cheaper than buying a new plane.
How would they compete if they each do something different than the others, then. This makes no sense.
It would have to do with their roles. If one force is an international force, the other a national force, then if people think we can best defend ourselves by fighting on foreign soil, then they'll give their taxes to the international force. If they aren't convinced of that, then they'll give to the national one. There's enough overlap to ensure competition, yet since they still serve two distinct purposes, we're still not talking about just duplicate bureaucracy.
Just to sort of ease back to the topic. Those 65 F-35s are going to cost, with maintenance factored
in, about 17 billion dollars. That is roughly twenty five dollars a year, factored over twenty years for every man, woman, and child in Canada. The big problem is that it is still too few aircraft. Just to patrol our borders we need three times that many. Granted,
we don't need hundred and fifty million dollar aircraft for every job, but we do need some kind of aircraft to do it.
in, about 17 billion dollars. That is roughly twenty five dollars a year, factored over twenty years for every man, woman, and child in Canada. The big problem is that it is still too few aircraft. Just to patrol our borders we need three times that many. Granted,
we don't need hundred and fifty million dollar aircraft for every job, but we do need some kind of aircraft to do it.
I can assure you, Juan, we do not really need to patrol our southern border with those. DHS has fighters up 24/7 so unless we have something to fear from the States, we don't need to patrol the Canada/US border with expensive jets.
I think the Gliberals would love to get their goofy little mitts on these (besides 4 billion rolls of duct tape):
YouTube - Worlds Largest Aircraft Graveyard- Arizona
lmao