Forget the F-35 - should Canada re-develop the Avro Arrow

[PDH]

They should upgrade the Sopwith Camel, that is a war-tried platform that is Canadian tested.

[viper37]

We need nuclear powered icebreakers that can go in the artic in the winter to affirm the canadian sovereignity there.

We might need new planes but I say we need ships more. I seem to be alone in that camp, once again.

Maybe you don't remember the Sea Kings fiasco. Helicopters falling out of the skies, killing our soldiers, and requiring 40hrs of maintenance per hour of flight?  do you think it's gonna cost less than a new plane?  I know it won't, and I have history to back me up.

[grumbler]

We need nuclear powered icebreakers that can go in the artic in the winter to affirm the canadian sovereignity there.

We might need new planes but I say we need ships more. I seem to be alone in that camp, once again.

Maybe you don't remember the Sea Kings fiasco. Helicopters falling out of the skies, killing our soldiers, and requiring 40hrs of maintenance per hour of flight?  do you think it's gonna cost less than a new plane?  I know it won't, and I have history to back me up.

Just curious:  what thread did you think you were in when writing this response?  'Cause you sure aren't saying anything that seems relevant to this thread.

[Barrister]

But that's kind of my point.  What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system?  Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it.  Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.

I am not sure that your inability to imagine a situation in the next 30 years when a Canadian air force unit would face a modern (of that time) air defense is an argument.

I deliberated phrased it as a question.  I can't forsee Canada going up against a modern air defense system.  But perhaps I am mistaken, which is why I leave the floor open to others (with admittedly more experience in the area than I) to correct me.

It surely is prudent to design our armed forces around the kinds of threats our Armed Forces are likely to face, rather than remote possibilities.  It is for that reason we have de-emphasized tanks, because we are unlikely to face pitched tank battles.  But on the other hand armoured personnel carriers are emphasized, given the kind of threats faced in places like Afghanistan.

[grumbler]

I deliberated phrased it as a question.  I can't forsee Canada going up against a modern air defense system.  But perhaps I am mistaken, which is why I leave the floor open to others (with admittedly more experience in the area than I) to correct me. 

I doubt that anyone can tell you whether Canada will go up against a modern air defense (say, that of China or Iran) in the next 30 years.  That's why I deliberately phrased the comment to which you were responding as a question.

It surely is prudent to design our armed forces around the kinds of threats our Armed Forces are likely to face, rather than remote possibilities.  It is for that reason we have de-emphasized tanks, because we are unlikely to face pitched tank battles.  But on the other hand armoured personnel carriers are emphasized, given the kind of threats faced in places like Afghanistan.

It is surely prudent to balance possibilities versus consequences.  If a low-order-of-probability event has a very high chance of proving an existential threat, you probably want to design your armed forces to defeat it, even if it is not a likely event.

The likeliest event that the Canadian military will face is a year of peacetime operations.  That's not what you want to design your armed forces around, though.

[crazy canuck]

@ BB

Before 9/11 who would have thought the Canadian military would be engaged in multi-year front line fighting in Afganistan?  Who would have thought that Canadian fighters would be involved in sorties over Lybia?

The world of the cold war was a lot more simple ironically.  These days it seems prudent to prepare for the unexpected.

[Warspite]

But that's kind of my point.  What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system?  Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it.  Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.

Even in Libya, the coalition partners relied on US assets to do the initial destruction of Libyan air defences. I'll be blunt: the RAF itself has admitted it could not do the initial sorties that are required to allow subsequent interdiction missions back in 2011.

So you're not talking about a theoretical conflict with a first-rate power; you're going to benefit from the F-35's capabilities going up against the Libyas and Serbias of the world. This is not a far-fetched notion.

[Jacob]

Bottom line, BB, I think is that we need to be able to credibly back the Americans up in whatever (mis)adventures they get embroiled in. Maybe that's a World War with China, maybe it's policing actions in some country we never thought about, maybe it's a multi-lateral boots on the ground shooting war... who knows? But most likely we'll want to be able to pitch in effectively (or make a point by not contributing even though we could).

Personally, I think fancy planes is a good way to do that, since they fly so high and they look impressive.

While maybe you can argue that other kit is higher priority, I don't think "we won't be involved in a war against anyone who can really do anything in the next 30 years" is a good argument for any particular purchase.

Canadian military priorities are (IMO and in no particular order):

1) Ability to assert sovereignty.
2) Ability to contribute to multilateral actions through the UN.
3) Ability to back the US up.

[crazy canuck]

Bottom line, BB, I think is that we need to be able to credibly back the Americans up in whatever (mis)adventures they get embroiled in. Maybe that's a World War with China, maybe it's policing actions in some country we never thought about, maybe it's a multi-lateral boots on the ground shooting war... who knows? But most likely we'll want to be able to pitch in effectively (or make a point by not contributing even though we could).

Personally, I think fancy planes is a good way to do that, since they fly so high and they look impressive.

While maybe you can argue that other kit is higher priority, I don't think "we won't be involved in a war against anyone who can really do anything in the next 30 years" is a good argument for any particular purchase.

Canadian military priorities are (IMO and in no particular order):

1) Ability to assert sovereignty.
2) Ability to contribute to multilateral actions through the UN.
3) Ability to back the US up.

Except I would reverse 2 and 3.  The UN isnt going to be doing anything with Russia vetoing anything the Americans think is a good idea.

[dps]

I didn't even know that Avro still existed.

[Viking]

I didn't even know that Avro still existed.

The point is that it didn't. It was aborted in the first trimester by the CIA. 


Maybe, to save money, Canada should abandon the very idea of having warplanes like the RNZAF, c'mon it's not like the USAF isn't gonna have to defend you if you get attacked regardless.

[Neil]

If protecting our sovereignty is so important, wouldn't it make sense to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons?  After all, our two greatest threats are nuclear powers.

[Viking]

If protecting our sovereignty is so important, wouldn't it make sense to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons?  After all, our two greatest threats are nuclear powers.

what? Denmark is a nuclear power? Hansø er Dansk!

[Jacob]

I didn't even know that Avro still existed.

Yeah, most likely; but like I said - not in order of priority

[Neil]

If protecting our sovereignty is so important, wouldn't it make sense to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons?  After all, our two greatest threats are nuclear powers.

what? Denmark is a nuclear power? Hansø er Dansk!

The Danes aren't a risk to try and conquer all of Northern Canada.  Scandinavians are notorious cowards.

The Russians and Americans are another story.