Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
We've been more then fortunate in terms of shootdowns and taking fire, but that's because we've been mainly doing air to ground against groups like ISIS or in other areas, but we don't know when that is going to change. The Russians had command of the air in Afghanistan and look how quickly that changed.
In terms of things like home defense and arctic sovereignty we have to show an interest and a strategy in terms of the defense of those areas that we claim as ours.
ETA on delivery, right now we're talking probably 2026 now, but that's not in writing, Canada does need to explore other long term strategies and not a bandaid like the Super Hornet, we need a strategy that is longer then a decade because we basically fly the wheels off of our equipment and have a generational concept ie 30 years for fighters or 20 years for armored vehicles or 40 years for in theater weapons systems.
Canada needs to actually start fixing the rust out of the forces and not just delaying it.
We're dealing with peoples lives, we should be spending money on safe guarding them as well.
|
I really hate that line. Especially when you consider we haven't had a plane shot down since 1974. Just because the F-35 is the most wiz-bang aircraft out there; or will be, in another decade. Maybe. Doesn't mean it is the best choice for Canada. I know we can't predict the future, but if that thing is still a disaster in 10 years I'd imagine the military boosters will be glad we picked an alternative that was ready to go at a more affordable price.
Anyway, you are gonna come back with a tonne of arguments why it is the best and must have, so I'll save you the time. I've read them. I understand them. I'm just not convinced.