9 Billion?  It's a bargain!  An well-equipped military is as much a necessity for national defence as a well-equipped police service is to municipal, regional, provincial and national public safety. 

New job for me!!!!!!  Please, please, please, please, new job for me!!!!!

I wonder how much we should focus on strengthening our military and how much on aiding those less privileged than ourselves. Anyone have the statistics on military spending and how much on foreign aid?  

My thoughts exactly joejack.  That comes to about 140 million each for brand new fighters!  Top of the line!  My thoughts were both on down-sizing the airforce, improving our equipment, and the amazing price tag!

I'm pretty sure the US paid close to a billion for each one of it's F 22s...

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

It's mind boggling what is spent on the military. The U.S. spends 1.3 trillion (with a "T") on the military. That's half the world's total. China is second at about 130 billion. I'm all for defending ourselves but I have to think that somewhere along the way to 13 digit budget something went wrong.

According to a 2008 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, it would only take $30 billion annually to end world hunger.



"In an impassioned speech at the opening of the Rome Summit called to de-fuse the current world food crisis, Dr Diouf noted that in 2006 the world spent US$1 200 billion on arms while food wasted in a single country could cost US$100 billion and excess consumption by the world's obese amounted to US$20 billion." (Source: UN FAO)

Quoted from: How to Understand The Cost to End World Hunger

To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius; poverty is the mother of violence and war is its father.

Thanks, LB.  Well put.

As to: "An well-equipped military is as much a necessity for national defence as a well-equipped police service is to municipal, regional, provincial and national public safety. "

Bullshit.  For all the poetic and much more politely worded reasons that LB has just mentioned.  Fighter jets in particular have little or no place in anything other than killing.  What do you police at Mach 2 with warheads?

obviously, joe jack2 doesn't know a whole lot about the military. There are several themes that run through this.

1. The US (and Canada) have major military industries because the people who own them are huge conttributors to their governments. They get paid back in contracts that are enormously favourable to them (no competition, like this one), and they get paid back by the use of, for example, naval vessels on {routine" foreign visits, actually to peddle th eir wares.

2. Canada has very little need for aif defence. What it does need is air surveillance craft for all coastlines, and for transport. We lack both.

3. The only kind of war we can use those fighters for is one in a foreign country - which means, in practice, a war in  which we are no hte american side. In other words, these aircraft are really of use only if our forces are a sideshow for the US forces.

4. We are desperately short of  ships to patrol our coasts and, especially, to support our claim the far north. You have to equip forces for the jobs they have to do. You don't just go out an buy the latest gadget  as if it were a new style of hat.

5. The reason the US military budget is so h igh is because Americans will not fight a war. In the case of Vietnam, even with a draft, anybody who had an influential daddy got help to stay home and avoid service. Nost of the Bush white house was made up of draft dodgers. Clinton, too.

     That's why the US now has the huge expense of hiring thugs from all over the world (civilican contractors) who now make up close to half of its combat forces. They also have to shift to robot weapons (like drones) for make up for the lack of fighting spirit in the American public. That's extremely expensive, and also more indiscriminate in the killing - which is why the US has not done a great job of winning hearts and minds.

As a result of robotization and more powerful weapons, the death toll of american solciers is relatively low since Vietnam. But the civilian casujalties have risen tto the highest proportion we have ever seen..

obviously, joe jack2 doesn't know a whole lot about the military. There are several themes that run through this.

1. The US (and Canada) have major military industries because the people who own them are huge conttributors to their governments. They get paid back in contracts that are enormously favourable to them (no competition, like this one), and they get paid back by the use of, for example, naval vessels on {routine" foreign visits, actually to peddle th eir wares.

2. Canada has very little need for aif defence. What it does need is air surveillance craft for all coastlines, and for transport. We lack both.

3. The only kind of war we can use those fighters for is one in a foreign country - which means, in practice, a war in  which we are no hte american side. In other words, these aircraft are really of use only if our forces are a sideshow for the US forces.

4. We are desperately short of  ships to patrol our coasts and, especially, to support our claim the far north. You have to equip forces for the jobs they have to do. You don't just go out an buy the latest gadget  as if it were a new style of hat.

5. The reason the US military budget is so h igh is because Americans will not fight a war. In the case of Vietnam, even with a draft, anybody who had an influential daddy got help to stay home and avoid service. Nost of the Bush white house was made up of draft dodgers. Clinton, too.

     That's why the US now has the huge expense of hiring thugs from all over the world (civilican contractors) who now make up close to half of its combat forces. They also have to shift to robot weapons (like drones) for make up for the lack of fighting spirit in the American public. That's extremely expensive, and also more indiscriminate in the killing - which is why the US has not done a great job of winning hearts and minds.

As a result of robotization and more powerful weapons, the death toll of american solciers is relatively low since Vietnam. But the civilian casujalties have risen tto the highest proportion we have ever seen..

So, you've bought into the UCC pseudo-pacifist, quasi-socialist/NDP rhetoric???!!!  Sometimes a deterrent is the best idea.  For example, if you were a burgler, would you pick on the place that had a pit bull in their back yard, and one in their front yard, and dozens of security cameras, alarms, etc?  Then again, what would terrorists fly aircraft into within Canada?  The Rogers Tower (formerly CN tower)?  The Air Canada Centre?  Parliament Buildings, Ottawa?  And, please watch your langauge, Rev. Matt. Do you use terms like 'bullshit' in your sermon?  Dear old aunt Martha in the front pew with her hearing aid on full blast would swallow her false teeth for sure.  You don't answer a bully by saying,"Now, you put down your sling shot and quit breaking my arm, and I'll give you some of my chocolate bar."  He'll break your arm, hit you with his sling shot, and steal your chocolate and demand more the next day, or else.  Now, everyone link arms, and sing while swaying, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."  etc.  Yeah, that'll work.

Well, spank my butt, wash my mouth out with soap, and stand me in the corner.  I stand by what I said, regardless of the manipulatory emotionalism (which, by the way, churches use far too often when promoting their agenda(e)).  We are NOT the United States and, the last time I checked, we are a sovereign nation who makes it decisions based on what we know, what we value as a nation (i.e., freedom, safety, good hockey, whoops) and what will be the best for our nation's security.  I stand against mind manipulation on both sides, and I won't be 'bullied' into changing my views which, in my humble opinion, are valid.  I had four uncles and two cousins who were in the military and others in other public safety professions, so my naivety isn't absolute.

If I may .......

I have great respect, admiration, and gratefulness for all those that take on protecting us.

This includes the military and the various police services.

They carry guns so I don't have to....

They put themselves in harms way so I can be free to live in safety.

Do we need a military? ....unfortunately I feel the answer is yes....

I am reminded of a quote .... "it is no good to pass a resolution of vegetarianism when the wolf is of a different presuasion"

Yes indeed there are huge social issues and injustices that contribute to the formation of wars and YES they should be addressed.

I am for a prudently armed and equipped military and police forces.

Here is another aspect not yet looked at....

As citizens ...what is our responsibility and duty towards those in the military?

Do we require enough of our politicians?      Do we participate in the debates on how these forces are used?      Do we require the kind of debate and action on social issues that would be right and proper?     I admit that I do not do enough so this is a tune up for me.

My nephew is back from Afghanistan ...... he will never be the same....... not physically injured ... but injured none the less.      What do I owe him and others like him in terms of how I carry out my responsiblities as a citizen of the country he chose to serve?

Debate for and against ...YES!!!! .... we need to ..... we need to participate ....we need to shoulder responsibility for our elected governments.

Maybe the votes to send our military into harms way should be taken in a cemetary with those that have lost loved ones to such service in attendance.    That just might provide enough of a sobering backdrop to set aside much of the politicing.

Sorry ... I do get worked up on such issues (a few tears here) .......

Can we not do both? ....prudent protection and prudent help??

I surely hope so.....

Hugs

Rita

While I, of course, support Canada being prepared to act in its own national defence, the fact remains that fighter planes aren't really what we need. We're not likely to be directly attacked by anyone. Our only territorial disputes are with Denmark (over Hans Island) which isn't likely to lead to a shooting war) and with Russia and potentially the United States over Arctic waters (also not likely to lead to a shooting war, but if it did - we'd lose regardless of the $9 billion in fighers.) Arctic sovereignty is in fact our only major issue in terms of national defence right now. What we need for that is surveillance aircraft rather than fighters, and a much enhanced naval capacity. In fact, I support the idea of the deep-water port in Nunavut as part of enhancing that capacity. Now, the government needs to realistically address our needs again and invest in the navy and not the air force.

I agree that our navy needs a retrofit more than our airforce, as it has a much better capacity to operate with purpose on home turf. My attention was caught but the savings in purchasing these aircraft is all.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

oooh, joe jack has relatives in the forces. Oh. That makes him an authority.

Well, what was the first war in which Canadians fought? What was a Ram tank, and what was it used for? What was a Hedgehog? How is an M16 different from an M14?

As for politics, the Canadian people decide on war? Well, they did, as they should have, in 1939. But the decision to enter combat in Afghanistan was not even discussed in the House until after they had been committed.

BTW, now that I have an expert on the defence of Canada, exactly what would these expensive fighters do to defend Canada?

Oh, it's 65 fighters. Do you know that that really means in military contracting? Hint -it does not mean we get 65. It means we get 46 or 47. Do you know why?

And if we only have 47, that means something like ten will be in maintenance at all times. So we really have only 37. There's quite a bit of Canada to cover. What is the range of these planes? How would you divide them in locations across Canada? What, exactly, would they do? We desperately need arctic surveillance; but that's better done and cheaper with ships, submarines, and ground forces.

Anyway, once you divide your 37 wiorking aircraft  (ferwer, as they age) into, say, five bases, exactly what would the half dozen planes at each base do to protect us? Against what? a terrorist sneaking in by sailboat?  Froeign submarines in the Arctic?

I've served in the Canadian Forces and, although I know the airforce folks are probably all over this, it's the wrong move for us, politically speaking. It's all about impressing the Americans and not about sovereignty at all...that's definitely Arctic based and these jets will not serve that purpose.

As Stephen Staples (of Ceasefire.ca) said on a Global TV segment (I'm paraphrasing), "We haven't used the CF-18 in Afghanistan so if we don't need fighters in this war, why are we buying these planes to fight some imaginary war in the future?"

All about swagger and money...not national defence or sovereignty.

How do you figure 65 actually equals 47 Graeme?

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Indeed and a full belly appears to be a good deterrent - look at Canada when was the last time we attacked anyone?

Feeding people has never been tried on a global scale.  Killing them has.  We know how well the latter works, perhaps we could try the other.  What do we have to lose - a couple of fighter jets among the nuclear arsenal.

LB

A hungry man can't see right or wrong. He just sees food.
     Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973)

Usually, the number of items purchased means the workiing items PLUS the spares. So, if the army were to buy fifty tanks, some 40 (it varies) would actually be tanks. The rest would come in t he form of spares.

And you always have to remember that not all of what you have can be in service all the time. There is continual maintenance. For example, you would need three submarines to keep an area under constant patrol. One on patrol, one of the way home or the way out to take it's place, and one in refit.

Much of the proper maintenance has to be forgotten - which is why vehicles and ships and aircraft age at a greatly accelerated rate during a war.

graeme

You imply that the "spares" are not actually tanks.  If not, then what are they?

parts - a very complete set since tanks get hard use. One set of tracks may not last long.  Engines. even armour replacements. gears. spares for the gun(s) --- and so it goes on.

Ahh.  So an order of 50 tanks would mean contain the materials of 50 full tanks, but only, say, 35 of them would actually be assembled.  Got it.

I would have thought that the spares would have been calculated in already and 65 would be the number of ACTUAL jets that would be purchased.  I guess I don't really care enough to find out.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

P.S.  Besides the Ram tank I know all those random facts :P

You may be right. But most military purchases than I know of give a total that is the sum of equipment plus spares.

The problem in the military is to purchase what you need to defend territorial rights as a first priority, and to put what you need for foreign wars separate. It becomes a problem because military leader often prefer the glamour of foreign wars (seriously), and like to have the latest gadgets just like the big kids.

Those jets are of no use to us to defend territorial claims. For that, you need patrol ships of relatively modest size, lots of them, submarines, surveillance aircraft, transport, far north capability....  But there's no glamour or bragging rights in that.

About 15 years ago, there was a campaign led by Conrad Black, Eaton and, I think Irving (shipyards, oil, etc. wealth) for the Canadian Navy to buy nuclear-powered submarines. We would have had to close down all the army and air force and most of the navy to afford it. Given problems of rotation and refit, etc., we would have needed at least six of them to make even a pretence of covering our territorial waters.

And if the one covering the Arctic did detect an intruder into our waters, it would almost certainly by an American submarine (the US does not recognize our claims.) So what would our sub do? Sink it?

As a retirment job, I have a Concordia student doing his MA thesis for me. It's on the Ram tank. It's an interesting story of what can go wrong in military buying.

I got the impression there are a large number of side agreements about parts and research for Canada. Also there are obligations under NATO and NORAD that make standardization more practical (note: Americans are normally very generous with spare parts at international bases - if they have it, you get it. No red tape).

For myself, I figure the Wart Hog plane would be more practical.

My military experience (8 years) tells me that the only good thing about Conservatives is that they are the most generous and realistic in their treatment of the military.

Realistic? They are certainly very generous to the defence industry. But I don't see how this purchase is either realixtic or generous for the military. If we spend 9 billion on jets we haveno use for,where is the generosity. And if we pump so much into the arm, it means cutting back on both naval and land forces - which we badly need for defence of territorial claims.

This isn't generous to the military. This is generous and the North American defence industry. And it isn't realistic.

It's also a weapon that cannot be used in any foreseeable defence of Canada, and is of no use in peacekeeping. Nor is Canada likely to fight an independent war anywhere in the world. The only possible use for these fighters is acting once again as a junior partner in another Amercan war in which most of the casualties will be civilians.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, graeme.  Sarcasm from a man of your advanced age.  You old guys should be nice to us younger people.  Who's your role model, Oscar Leroy (from Corner Gas)?

That wasn't sarcasm. I was bowing to such powerful evidence you were an expert about the military.

I had an aunt who was a secretary in the White House. Does that make me an expert on US foreign affairs?

So if the Hornets will be timexed by 2017, and it takes 6 years to get replacements, doesn't it just make sense to start the process now, or at least within a year?

Also, there is a lot of talk in here about whether or not we need fighter jets.  Without replacing the Hornet, what do we use to intercept and escort Russian military planes (usually Bear bombers) the 10 or so times a year that they "test" our airspace.  What happens when we no longer seem to care if they do?  Russia does not exactly have a history of pacifism.  If it takes 6 years to build and deliver fighter jets you simply cannot wait until you need them to place your order.

My .02

Ah, Russia paranoia.  Fun!

'cause we're always needing to intercept those damn Russian bombers.

And every single one of those planes being piloted by Sufi, they fly planes so well, while listening to This Mortal Coil, Loreena McKennitt, and Asylum Street Spankers, armed with Poutine Projectors and Back Bacon Bombs.

Canada will be INVINCIBLE.

What happened to the good old days of the cold war, fear of Russia, a desire to whup their butts in hockey, anti-war protests, the penetrating smell of marijuana in the residence hallways, and laughing at US efforts to 'fight communism' by sacrificing their young men on the altar of Vietnam, mom, the flag, and apple pie?  During University days, I met some really nice draft dodgers back then; some of whom became valued Canadian citizens.  (singing) Those were the days.

if you want to meet draft dodgers, check Washington over the past twenty years. Two draft dodger presidents, to dd Vice Presidents, a dd Secretary of Defence. Any menber of Congress who had a son eligible for the draft helped sonny to avoid it.

If the purpose of the fighters is to protect us against testing by Bear bombers, we could do it with a much cheaper fighter plane.

The fact that Russia does test our airspace an average of 10 times per year means it is not paranoia.  Not to mention that the Russians are only one example of why we do need fighters. 

So what do you suggest, Matt?  Simply not bother intercepting and hope for the best?

That's interesting, alta.  I'd like to read more.  From what source did you get your information?

Would the Americans be the other?

A couple of links to consider.

Dispute Over NW Passage Revived

U.S.-Canada Border Conflict Continues

My favourite excerpt from the link above, a tale about an errant ice floe running up against modern tribalism....

A few of the U.S. fishermen, upon discovering from their navigation devices that the Canadian shacks were in U.S. territory, escalated the tone of the taunts. Some of the Canadian fishermen finally tired of the verbal assaults, and allegedly retaliated with a volley of hockey sticks and pucks, used for daily hockey games that are played on the windswept ice.

As relations deteriorated further, each side placed a boom box on the border, blaring music toward the other side. While the U.S. fishermen played an old album by Ted Nugent, the Canadian boom box was heard playing The Guess Who's 'American Woman' over and over. One Michigan man remarked, "I used to really like the Guess Who....now I'm sick of hearing them."

LB

Americans are benevolently ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well informed about the United States.
        J. Bartlet Brebner

In a word, yes.  If you understood anything at all about Russia and Russians, you would know that posturing is a part of the national psyche.  Engaging that posturing only encourages more.  Ignoring it makes it go away.  

Anyone who thinks that this dinky little airforce would be of any significance in any kind of shooting war against a country who could shoot back is simply uninformed, at best, and completely moronic at worst.  These fighters have two purposes only - to allow our military to pretend they are big men with big cocks, and to shoot civilians in deserts in the imddle east.

You don't need a state of the art stealth fighter to shoot down a relatively lumbering bomber. For that matter, it would be easier and cheaper to shoot them down with heat seeking missiles.

Can anyone give us a list of occasions when Canadian fighters have shot down intruders in Canadian air space? We'll call it the nine billion dollar list.

The only country that routinely trespasses on Canadian claims is the US. It sent a tanker though the NW passage as a deliberate test of our claim. It did not ask  our permission. Should we have sent nine billion dollars worth of fighters to sink it?

The US also frequently goes through the same passage using nuclear subrmarines, also without asking permission. Maybe we could sink nine billion dollars worth of fighters to block their way.

Not to mention incursions into our airspace in a myriad of ways...

Ah, progress.

In themarknews (checik google), there's an excellent article on this topic. It's by a retired colonel now teaching at RMC. He says he idea of no bidding is sound because bidding stretches to time from studying needs to receiving delivery from a dozen years and more down to six years.

However, he also gives more than a hint that he thinks this unsound choice due to its short range (expecially for northern work), and its uselessness for guerrilla warfare.

The justification has it that there are those who take coercion to be the operative norm; bullies in the neighbourhood imagery. Therefore, those who, in principle, prefer persuasion to coercion take up coercive means; ostensibly to overcome coercive ideologies.

The escalation of this pattern portends dire consequences.

What would best serve the interests of Lockheed Martin stake holders?

What would best serve the interests of Canadian citizens? Global citizens?

I've been thinking it over. We too easily think people act out of stupidity or evil natures. The fact is - people usually have reasons for what they do.

The government and the military have agreed to the purchase of an aircraft that is of no use whatever for the defence of Canadian territory. Nor can it be used against guerillas. It can only be used in conventional war against conventional foes, and conventional foes that have a substantial air arm. We are very weak in weapons for defence of territorial integrity - such as vessels and reconnaissance aircraft in the far north where we are challenged by both Russia and the US. Now, we will become weaker with so much of the defence budget going tor those aircraft. So why did the government and the military choose this? This is not just a silly notion. They have a reason. I don't like it. But they have a reason.

Because they are preparing for a war with a major power. They are doing it in conjunction with the US, which is why our armed forces are standardizing along American lines as they once did along British lines. The plan is to contain Russia and China (thus, probably, the Afghanistan War).

So who will patrol the far north? The US (which does not recognize Canada's claim) will do much of it.) And US business will get a partnership in any resources - like oil - and free use of the Northwest Passage as it becomes viable for shipping.

In effect, we will become fully integrated with the US - which is what Canadian business leaders have made it clear they want.

Yes, your analysis is quite sound and many Canadians seem to want that too...why else not boot these folks out, once and for all?

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874261.html 

According to this article, a 2007 Russian intelligence report predicts an arctic conflict over resoureces.  Are the Russians just being paranoid about themselves?

I absolutely agree that we are in no position to win a war with either Russia or the US over the arctic.  But to simply roll over and not even bother trying to defend ourselves is beyond comprehension.  The arctic may be long way away from where you live, but it still inhabited by Canadians who deserve to be defended.  I wonder if attitudes would change if a foreign country wanted to claim your own home town.

Keep in mind, our pilots will be flying these planes for prabably 30 years.  To assume that what Russians are flying today, is what they will always flying is quite shortsighted.

What is the alternative to th F-35?  Here is what I can think of:

1)  Don't replace the Hornet and simply retire them.  I think this would be a terrible plan that would eventually force us into becoming state #51.

2)  Buy a cheaper fighter.  I don't know if there is one.  The JSF was developed as a cheaper alternative to the F-22.

3)  Buy up used Hornets as the US retires them, and contually scavenge them for parts.  Two problems here.  The F/A 18 is not 100% identical to the CF-18.  Some parts wont interchange.  Also, as this design gets older, who will want to fly it?  From an HR standpoint, you have to give your employees the best tools you can or you will lose them.

It's also worth mentioning that there was competition for this project.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

I'm really having trouble understanding the opposition to this plane.  Do you feel that we don't need fighters of any description?  Do you feel the CF-18 is still good enough?  Is the F-35 not good enough?  Is there another plane you would rather we bought?  Or is just because you hate Stephan Harper and he had to approve this?   If so, I'd like to remind you that we have been involved in the JSF project since 1997. 

I think we can all agree that we don't really need fighter jets to protect our airspace form Russians or AMericans.

Then the question becomes, well what do they use fighter jets for.

Overseas during military engagements, like Afghanistan and Bosnia ?

Patrolling the northen border of Canada.  Not to shoot down Russians but simply to be there.  In the same way that you don't let a neighbour decide to use your yard for his BBQ, we don't let other countries randomly use our north.  ?

Reconisance for internal disasters possibly?

Perhaps as part of our Nato/UN obligations?

Replacing the ones we have as they age.?

Patrolling the oceans around Canada?

Without any knowledge  of how they are used these seem like reasonable uses

Any serious war over the Arctic would be fought by rockets. F-35s lack both the speed and the range to deal with any such threat. Nor can it deal with submarines, which are the common method of intrusion.

They are no good for ocean patrol. They lack the range - not ot mention the equipment., not to mention to submarine detection ability, not to mention the anti-submarine weaponry,

Reconnaisaance for natural disasters? A Pipe Cub would be more useful.

ditto fo for external disasters? We have cheaper aircraft far better suited to that job.

Our NATO contributions? Ever wonder why we have a NATO and a UN? That's because NATO is the US cover to wage illegal wars.

Any intruders in the Arctic in the last fifty years and more have largely been Amercian. How nice of them to sell us planes so we can shoot down American aircraft and sink American ships, and stop Americans from drilling for oil.

They would heen useless in Bosnia. No, look to something more along the lines of Iran - if they're ready in time (which I doubt.) Look at air bases surrounding China, Russia, and key states in Latin America. Benezuela springs to mind.

As for the Arctic, we have already effectively surrendered it to the US, a s a "partner".