New Canadian Prime Minister committed to withdrawing from F-35 program

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
2 January 2006
Messages
656
Reaction score
236
Triton said:
"Canadian Liberals Would Scrap F-35 Buy"
Bill Sweetman and Guy Norris | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Sep 21, 2015

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/canadian-liberals-would-scrap-f-35-buy

Weeks before the Oct. 19 Canadian federal election, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party has committed to scrapping plans to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters to replace the air force’s CF-18 Hornets.

Instead, the party would launch a competition for a less expensive substitute, and eliminate “first-strike stealth” from its requirements, as part of a strategy that emphasizes air defense and maritime capabilities. This is the first such specific commitment from a major Canadian political party.

Election numbers and political predictions suggest there is a strong chance the fighter deal will be opened to competition, whether or not the F-35 is excluded. “One way or another, the F-35 in Canada is dead,” a Liberal politician with experience in fighter programs says.

Canada is one of the five largest potential and current F-35 export customers. JSF program office director Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told the ComDef conference in Washington Sept. 9 that “you will not see a bomb-burst on my watch” — that is, program partners going their separate ways — so a Canadian competition would be a public blow to the effort. Conversely, it would be a major opportunity for rivals: “Everybody who isn’t Lockheed Martin is a bit thrilled today,” a Dassault representative says.

Recent polling shows all three major parties – the centrist Liberals, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s incumbent Conservative party and the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) – running neck and neck, each within one or two points of 30% of the vote. Observers see the most likely result as an attempt by one party to form a minority government, but this has to be able to muster enough votes to pass a government, with a Liberal-NDP alliance being more likely than an Liberal-Conservative pact.

Canada is a partner in the F-35 program and a signatory to the 2006 production, sustainment and follow-on development agreement, but has not ordered any aircraft. The Harper government attempted in 2010 to procure the F-35 on a sole-source basis, but despite an absolute majority has been unable to because of pro-competition procurement laws and political opposition.

A 2012 report by Canada’s auditor-general challenged the Department of National Defense’s justification for an exemption to the laws, and the Harper government transferred authority for the fighter program to a special secretariat within the nation’s public works department. The New Democrats have consistently called for a competition.

Well it appears the Liberals have won the Canadian Election so we'll see what they do about the CF-18 replacement, the interesting bit will be to see how quickly they take action as from the sounds of it Defence is low down their list of priorities.
 
Geoff - The Liberals are not the anti-defense party. That was the NDP, which fared badly. The Libs were clear that they believed that a competition would save money (lower prices, better offsets) and say they want to divert savings into shipbuilding.


By the way, for all the historical revisionists: Don't forget that both the Falklands and Bekaa Valley showed the effectiveness of the AIM-9L, while most SARH weapons were considered to have low Pk. I guess that being basically a one-trick pony, and relying entirely on one characteristic while carrying only two weapons with low Pk against your targets, doesn't amount to a winning strategy.
 
LowObservable said:
Geoff - The Liberals are not the anti-defense party. That was the NDP, which fared badly. The Libs were clear that they believed that a competition would save money (lower prices, better offsets) and say they want to divert savings into shipbuilding.

Given the new PM's background, the offset requirements are likely to require the winner to take a stake in Bombardier. If I'm Dennis Muilenburg, I'm on the phone to Montreal now with a wire order in hand.
 
So Mr Trudeau Junior has committed to pulling Canada out of the F-35 program. What happens next?


I believe Canada will switch to either Super Hornets or Gripen-E, don't see Rafale or Typhoon having a chance. Gripen-E aligns best with the stated priority on defensive capabilities.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
So Mr Trudeau Junior has committed to pulling Canada out of the F-35 program. What happens next?


I believe Canada will switch to either Super Hornets or Gripen-E, don't see Rafale or Typhoon having a chance. Gripen-E aligns best with the stated priority on defensive capabilities.
Super Hornets would be my best guess. -SP
 
Per Junior's own words, just picking a fighter is illegal.

They have to have an open competition where the spec determines the winner.

It will all com down to what the spec is and what weight cost plays in the bid.
 
His stated aim is to free up money for the Navy and prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive. Its not going to be F-35 unless Lockheed can come up with a stellar discount.
 
Depends on when the competition is scheduled for.

If it's near 2020 then the SH will be out of production and any Canadian buy will be expensive, especially when FMS is thrown in. This will also give the F-35 program more time to iron out wrinkles and get more hard data on the appropriation & life-cycle costs.
 
But the process will start long before 2020, for reasons that should be obvious.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Per Junior's own words, just picking a fighter is illegal.

They have to have an open competition where the spec determines the winner.

It will all com down to what the spec is and what weight cost plays in the bid.

It is not. The contract was sole sourced because the DND and CF identified the need for a low signature aircraft and there is no other low signature aircraft. If a fair competition was held according to the requirements established by the relevant agencies the F-35 would win. So the Liberals won't allow this.

The Liberals "solution" is to neuter the requirements until their preferred choice (the Super Hornet, there is no other realistic contender) can clear the hurdle. If the F-35 excels in anything this will simply be removed from consideration until lo and behold the Super Hornet is the "best value". They are already talking up continental air defense for the first time in living memory, which in what is surely an incredible coincidence, de-emphasizes strike capabilities and survivability. And they will probably throw something about needing two engines in there too. Not that the Gripen was ever in the running.

It's also basically irrelevant to anything the CF has done in the past generation, but that is not the point.

Nor will this newfound fear of Russian bombers (presumably, the Liberals haven't gotten around to explaining what bogeyplanes we suddenly need to be defended from either. Details.) be matched with investment in AWACs, aerial refueling, new missiles or any of the capabilities that Canada would need for a credible sovereign air defense capability. But again, that is not the point. The USAF is doing all the real work anyways.
 
I seriously suggest that you confine your comments to subjects that you understand, rather than fouling this forum with partisan rantings.
 
Going for the Gripen E after all of the talk about how the aircraft *needed* to have two engines? Hmm...

I'd wager that by 2020 the CF-18s will still be flying with no replacement in sight or even decided upon.
 
Considering that it was the Federal Liberals that originally signed Canada up for the F-35, I find this a bit like back-pedaling. Incidentally, they also signed Canada up for the CH-148 Cyclone, something else which hasn't appeared on the radar screen yet ----
 
kitnut617 said:
Considering that it was the Federal Liberals that originally signed Canada up for the F-35, I find this a bit like back-pedaling. Incidentally, they also signed Canada up for the CH-148 Cyclone, something else which hasn't appeared on the radar screen yet ----

No, they made a small investment in the program (on the understanding that it would help open the way for Canadian parts manufacturers to make a bid). It isn't clear that there was ever an intention to buy the aircraft, and there was never any commitment (not that back-pedaling is implausible).

The F-35 was never really geared towards Canadian needs, and no formal set of requirements was produced until after the Conservative Government made the decision to pick it as the replacement.
 
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
So Mr Trudeau Junior has committed to pulling Canada out of the F-35 program. What happens next?


I believe Canada will switch to either Super Hornets or Gripen-E, don't see Rafale or Typhoon having a chance. Gripen-E aligns best with the stated priority on defensive capabilities.

The Typhoon got again production problems, the germans got new Typhoon with manufacture fauws

The Canadian air force want twin engine jets so in case of engine emergency, the pilot can return to base with remaining engine.
that rule out the Grippen-E, either they buy new Super Hornets or Rafale
that prime minister Justin Trudeau is from french speaking part of Canada, this could be of influence on option Rafale...

While other demand that Canada R&D and build it OWN Jetfighter, even rebuild the Arrow !
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.
 
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.
A good "offense is always a good defense" - GO Super Hornets! - SP
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Yeah, because an interceptor can't be used to wipe out an enemies air force in preparation for a fleet of bombers.
 
Actually, yes. There were and are aircraft which are fine as interceptors, yet pretty pointless for offensive CAP.

MiG-31 and a long list of Soviet Cold War era interceptors are good examples.

For the 2020's and 2030's, the Canadians could still use fighters as interceptors that received a sensor and missile upgrade, but would stand no chance in Central European air combat. Essentially, one could still use F-4 Phantom II with such upgrades as interceptors over Canada, they would have hardly any disadvantage compared to the F-35 in the interceptor role.


Furthermore,
"I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense."
Look at what the Swiss did with the F-18; they turned a multi-role F/A-18 into a dedicated fighter by ditching the compatibility with bombs mostly. They use lighter pylons, barely strong enough for a MRAAM, for example.
A RWR can furthermore be limited in bandwidth for an interceptor, if not ditched altogether. Same with decoys.
Meanwhile, a fine interceptor should have a light 20 mm gun (something like M621) with tracers for warning shots in air policing. A true air superiority or strike fighter doesn't quite need a gun, or should have an actually potent one if any.
 
In regards to using an F-4; what happens when you intercept an aircraft that's willing to fight? How would an F-4 stand up against a Su-30? I would hazard a "not very well". At least an F-35 has the ability to work it's stealth and sensors; the guy that goes to knock on the window of the Sukhoi might be in trouble if his DAS and AMRAAMs or AIM-9Xs don't do the job, but everyone else sitting back and observing will hold a strong upper hand.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

That appears to be one of the roots of this issue.
The previous Canadian government wanted a fighter suited to an expeditionary role (survive opponents air defences, attack ground targets etc.).
It appears that the new Canadian government may (at least publically) want a single-role air defence fighter/ interceptor.
On the assumption that the latter won't have to deal with enemy fighters or air defences its requirements would appear to be considerably less demanding than an expeditionary fighter. An example in practise would be Austria's Eurofighters lacking significant pieces of kit like AMRAAMs and ECM systems.
However that's the rub; if Canada was really to go down this route they'd be left with a very inflexible fighter force that could be not well suited to an expeditionary role that may emerge/ become necessary.
It comes down to Canda's view of its role in world and the price it's willing to pay to realise it.

On the assumption that the new Canadian government really isn't looking to make that stark a choice and really just wants a cheaper alternative the Gripen F would make a lot of sense (the single engine didn't do for the F35). The other Euro canards are not that much cheaper than the F35 so may not actually realise that much cost savings.
The Super Hornet is a strange case as unless ordered very shortly may be out of production or low production rates may push up prices. Also clearly the lowest performance airframe of the alternatives but would offer commonality advantages transferring over from classic Hornets. Ultimately hard to justify unless Canada could obtain a very low cost deal and cost is effectively the only major criteria.
 
marauder2048 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.


You are being facetious. A force of Gripen-Es equipped with modern avionics and armed with AMRAAM and Meteors should be able to fulfil the air defence role for Canada perfectly adequately. It can even have bombs and missiles if you really want. It just won't be as good at bombing inside defended airspace. Realistically, they share borders with Russia and the USA, there's not much chance of a war with either being winnable for Canada and even if Putin really has lost it he's not likely to try invading Canada.
 
Here Former Canadian F-18 Pilot working in NATO
and his comment on what Canada Air-force needs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUf_hhxngK4


and here about Arrow fraction


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S74zf0YZX20
 
It's a little over the top to argue that a manufacturing problem disqualifies Typhoon, I think. And pace M2048, it was to a considerable degree optimized for air defense. A reference threat was a bomber raid covered by improved Flankers.


A 2020-model Typhoon with Meteor, AESA, IRST and fusion stands up to the F-22 as an air defender and is a good deal more versatile.
 
Dragon029 said:
In regards to using an F-4; what happens when you intercept an aircraft that's willing to fight? How would an F-4 stand up against a Su-30?

It depends on the extent of the F-4 upgrade. There were amazing versions, including Mach 2.4 super cruise at 78k ft (when clean)

index.php


, and you can integrate a big enough modern radar.

Even ordinary German F-4F with APG-65 and AIM-120 would have been a non-trivial obstacle to Su-3x intruders that cannot dance around a lot or use much afterburner because of fuel concerns. MRAAMs can easily be survived if you turn away from them in time (similar to WW2 torpedo salvoes), but they're much more of a headache if you absolutely need to press forward.



It's difficult to see how a flight of Su-34 (for example) could make the round trip to meaningful (inhabited) parts of Canada without a lot of aerial refuelling. The effort would be acceptable for a nuclear strike, but Russia can simply send SLBMs or ICBMs instead, so this scenario is irrelevant (this already led to the cutting of strategic air defence for CONUS long ago in the Cold War).
Another scenario would be a diversionary attack (forcing NATO to keep fighters far, far away from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region with a high signature strike akin of the Doolittle raid). In this case successful intercept or not wouldn't matter much; the diversionary effect would almost certainly happen anyway.*

I suppose the Canadians could keep their air defence ambitions limited to their core region Montreal-Quebec (leaving Vancouver's defence to Washington ANG) and focus on maintaining and developing multi-role modern air war competence. This could be done with 20-40 Gripens with various mission pods (radar recce, photo/IR recce, ground attack IIR, radar jammer). A navy with an actual focus on escorting convoys across the Atlantic (plus keeping Saint Lawrence River safe) and an army with a heavy division equivalent (with a proven one month deployment time to Warsaw) would be more than enough to pay back what marginally little security Canada receives from NATO.**

*: The British kept an inordinate quantity of fighters ready as interceptors in summer '42-summer '44 instead of using the resources offensively because of a few symbolic fighter-bomber attacks of SKG 10 with Fw 190Gs. This is how politicians and even air force HQs react to diversions.
**: I suppose since 1990 NATO does protect Canada rather against the U.S. than against all other countries of the world combined (in the long term).
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Or in Canada's case - choose a fighter to fly around intercepting jet liners and Tupolev 95s rather than a multipurpose fighter for use in the expeditionary wars of our allies. An aircraft like the F-35 is really only needed against advanced long range air-defences. Once our allies take those out (or in a permissive air environment without them to begin with) 4th generation designs are fine for supporting peace keeping and/or COIN.

The F-35 requires enough support from other platforms (despite the fact that it is one of the most well balanced multi-role designs ever made) that we'd end up needing to work with allies anyway. We just would be in the first wave (days 1-3). Most of a non-nuclear war happens after day 4 anyway.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=263089;topic=25854.15;last_msg=263136


marauder2048 said:
Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.

Very true. The only aircraft that really match Canadian ideals are the Mig-31 and the Sukhoi interceptors (Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, T-50). Everything else is a compromise. If we have to go with a single engine medium fighter we're already so far away from what we want we may as well by the LCA!
 
kaiserd said:
However that's the rub; if Canada was really to go down this route they'd be left with a very inflexible fighter force that could be not well suited to an expeditionary role that may emerge/ become necessary.
It comes down to Canda's view of its role in world and the price it's willing to pay to realise it.

Of course, if save enough money we might be able to pay for a UCAS of some sort sooner.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
marauder2048 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Orionblamblam said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.


Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.


You are being facetious. A force of Gripen-Es equipped with modern avionics and armed with AMRAAM and Meteors should be able to fulfil the air defence role for Canada perfectly adequately. It can even have bombs and missiles if you really want. It just won't be as good at bombing inside defended airspace. Realistically, they share borders with Russia and the USA, there's not much chance of a war with either being winnable for Canada and even if Putin really has lost it he's not likely to try invading Canada.

If only Canada only ever had to worry about air defense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/11/canadian-cf-18-jets-hit-islamic-state-target-in-syria.html

If they ever have to fulfill their NATO commitments overseas I hope they get front row seats right next to the F-35s when going after well defended targets. Not to be an ass but I don't ever want to see them sitting things out because it's too dangerous, and they were too cheap to buy survivable aircraft. If they get tasked with taking down an S-400 site, so be it. Risking the lives of your pilots for cheap political points is beyond loathsome IMO.
 
sferrin said:
If only Canada only ever had to worry about air defense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/11/canadian-cf-18-jets-hit-islamic-state-target-in-syria.html

If they ever have to fulfill their NATO commitments overseas I hope they get front row seats right next to the F-35s when going after well defended targets. Not to be an ass but I don't ever want to see them sitting things out because it's too dangerous, and they were too cheap to buy survivable aircraft. If they get tasked with taking down an S-400 site, so be it. Risking the lives of your pilots for cheap political points is beyond loathsome IMO.

Right - Isolationism may also be playing into this.

It is also worth noting that, while Canada might not want to lose pilots to engine failures in peace time, Canadian culture may be more tolerant of losing pilots in open warfare than other countries.



lastdingo said:
I suppose the Canadians could keep their air defence ambitions limited to their core region Montreal-Quebec (leaving Vancouver's defence to Washington ANG) and focus on maintaining and developing multi-role modern air war competence. This could be done with 20-40 Gripens with various mission pods (radar recce, photo/IR recce, ground attack IIR, radar jammer). A navy with an actual focus on escorting convoys across the Atlantic (plus keeping Saint Lawrence River safe) and an army with a heavy division equivalent (with a proven one month deployment time to Warsaw) would be more than enough to pay back what marginally little security Canada receives from NATO.**

*: The British kept an inordinate quantity of fighters ready as interceptors in summer '42-summer '44 instead of using the resources offensively because of a few symbolic fighter-bomber attacks of SKG 10 with Fw 190Gs. This is how politicians and even air force HQs react to diversions.
**: I suppose since 1990 NATO does protect Canada rather against the U.S. than against all other countries of the world combined (in the long term).

Canada is insecure about its ability to project Sovereignty over the Arctic Sea and the high north. This doesn't just apply to Russians - we perceive pressure from Europe and the United States. So we feel it is important to have a presence in all parts of Canadian coastal airspace. Hence the requirement for a long ranged interceptor (especially given that there will be few enough that we'll only have a couple of airbases and possibly a few forward airstrips). The ability for it to operate off of small airstrips in a high arctic environment requires strong all weather tolerances and a carrier capable design (e.g. an arrestor hook).

The twin engine requirement is for safety. Our search and rescue capability is much worse than the USN. To make matters worse, paying for the JSF meant cancelling all the long term maintenance budget for our search and rescue aircraft. The abhorrence of single engine designs is reinforced by Canada's abysmal safety record with the F-86 and the CF-104 'widowmaker', so tradition plays into it as well.

So give us two engines, long range, an arrestor hook (and maybe a good radar) and it'll meet the requirements. After that we don't really care (except some would save money).
 
Avimimus said:
It is also worth noting that, while Canada might not want to lose pilots to engine failures in peace time, Canadian culture may be more tolerant of losing pilots in open warfare than other countries.

Not sure what engine failure has to do with anything. Certainly the new suit hasn't cited that as his reason for cancelling the F-35 order.
 
sferrin said:
If only Canada only ever had to worry about air defense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/11/canadian-cf-18-jets-hit-islamic-state-target-in-syria.html

If they ever have to fulfill their NATO commitments overseas I hope they get front row seats right next to the F-35s when going after well defended targets. Not to be an ass but I don't ever want to see them sitting things out because it's too dangerous, and they were too cheap to buy survivable aircraft. If they get tasked with taking down an S-400 site, so be it. Risking the lives of your pilots for cheap political points is beyond loathsome IMO.


You posted that link as though Canada has a legal obligation to take part in those strikes. The new Canadian government appears to think otherwise. They're going to stop participating in Coalition air strikes in Iraq and Syria:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/syria-iraq-isis-fight/


As for NATO missions, it's not like there aren't going to be lots of non-stealthy or only semi-stealthy aircraft in other NATO air forces for the foreseeable future. There will be lots of F-16s, Typhoons, Rafales, etc. in other inventories and quite a few countries that are only going to have a few (if any) stealth platforms to use.
 
Your text is tiny. And I wasn't posting the link as if I thought they were legally obligated. I was posting it as an example of the fact that Canadian aircraft don't perform JUST air defense. Also, were NATO to be involved in a war Canada WOULD be obligated to fight.
 
Thanks, font fixed.


My point is that Canadian participation in these operations is a choice, and the whole point of Trudeau's position is that they will chose not to engage in them.


In terms of a NATO war, sure, they'd have to participate (in theory -- in practice, they can't actually be compelled to send forces). But not having the F-35 won't make them uniquely useless -- there will be lots of other non-F-35 air assets at play in such a conflict and there will be plenty of roles for them to play.
 
TomS said:
You posted that link as though Canada has a legal obligation to take part in those strikes. The new Canadian government appears to think otherwise.


NATO is a defensive treaty. We're obligated if a treaty partner is directly attacked. We aren't obligated to act is auxiliary forces or engage in overseas adventures unless it is clear that they are required for the immediate defense of a treaty member.
This is why we deployed to Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Arguably the Iraq campaign would have been easier on Canada and gained a higher opinion from the United States (at least in terms of public opinion). But, we weren't obligated and many Canadians felt that the invasion of Iraq abrogated international law. So the Liberals chose the hard route.

TomS said:
As for NATO missions, it's not like there aren't going to be lots of non-stealthy or only semi-stealthy aircraft in other NATO air forces for the foreseeable future. There will be lots of F-16s, Typhoons, Rafales, etc. in other inventories and quite a few countries that are only going to have a few (if any) stealth platforms to use.


Right. There are many ways to contribute. Despite being a small country we produced what was numerically the fourth largest navy by the end of WWII. However, it was mainly a merchant marine with an extensive fleet of destroyers, corvettes and escort carriers to protect it. Definitely an essential role to play. However, the battleships and fleet carriers were left to the United States and Great Britain.
 
Avimimus said:
Right. There are many ways to contribute. Despite being a small country we produced what was numerically the fourth largest navy by the end of WWII. However, it was mainly a merchant marine with an extensive fleet of destroyers, corvettes and escort carriers to protect it. Definitely an essential role to play. However, the battleships and fleet carriers were left to the United States and Great Britain.

True. It just seems a bit. . .well, there are a few words for it but I'm not going to say them, "not cool" to force other countries to go into danger's way while you (not you "you") sit nice and safe because you were too cheap to be bothered.
 
Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.
 
lastdingo said:
Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Well that's good to know. We don't need to buy any fighters after all. ::)
 
lastdingo said:
Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Really?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom