The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Ludoc]

How about if we just bought into the existing programmes and supplied crews for them so that it became a 5-Eyes patrol and not 5 national patrols.

We don't have to get into building and maintaining. The Yanks and the Brits have got that covered.

What happens when one country is fighting Iran/Iraq/Venezuela/Argentina? Do the other 5 eyes nations get a veto, keeping the subs out of the conflict? Or do the subs' crews get dragged into conflicts their government is otherwise not involved in?

If the former, why would the Americans ever agree to that arrangement? If the later, why would we?

 

[Kirkhill]

What happens when one country is fighting Iran/Iraq/Venezuela/Argentina? Do the other 5 eyes nations get a veto, keeping the subs out of the conflict? Or do the subs' crews get dragged into conflicts their government is otherwise not involved in?

If the former, why would the Americans ever agree to that arrangement? If the later, why would we?

And thus the reason Alliances don't work.

What if I don't want to help?

Co-Operative Societies are everybody's favourite solution when times are hard. But the co-operation only lasts until someone's self-interested needs are met. Then they stop co-operating.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And thus the reason Alliances don't work.

What if I don't want to help?

Co-Operative Societies are everybody's favourite solution when times are hard. But the co-operation only lasts until someone's self-interested needs are met. Then they stop co-operating.

It's not quite like that, Kirkhill. And you know it.

Alliances don't work? I'd say that NATO has worked pretty damn good at its stated objective, which was, from the start, to protect its European and North American members from the USSR, now Russia. But the fact that you are allies in a stated cause does not mean that you must be allies in all of them. While we were allies in NATO, few if any of the members fought in Vietnam, or Korea, or Panama, or Grenada, or Gulf war II. All of these fell outside the purview of the alliance's objective and each ally had to make its own individual call as to whether or not participate. That doesn't mean we were not allies anymore.

 

[GR66]

And?

Well, if we're just going to be a full-nation "American Foreign Legion" obediently deploying to defend their national interests as they dictate then we might as well burn our Canadian flags and become the 51st State.

I guess in that case JT was right and we would be "the first Post-National State".

Sorry, but no.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's not quite like that, Kirkhill. And you know it.

Alliances don't work? I'd say that NATO has worked pretty damn good at its stated objective, which was, from the start, to protect its European and North American members from the USSR, now Russia. But the fact that you are allies in a stated cause does not mean that you must be allies in all of them. While we were allies in NATO, few if any of the members fought in Vietnam, or Korea, or Panama, or Grenada, or Gulf war II. All of these fell outside the purview of the alliance's objective and each ally had to make its own individual call as to whether or not participate. That doesn't mean we were not allies anymore.

A couple of points.

There are more people at the table today than there were in 1949.

12 vs 32

And like the other co-operatives to which I alluded, times were hard. 9 of the 12 were still covered in rubble and destitute.

Secondly, I would argue that NATO's greatest challenge was the Berlin crisis of 1948 that prompted its creation. Russia stayed within its Yalta turf after that and NATO did nothing to assist behind the curtain.

The assembly now known as NATO is not the 1949 organization. People engaged out of self-interest and they act out of self-interest.

NATO has multiple policies on any given issue these days with varying levels of support. It has become another talking shop like the EU and the UN.

The 5 Eyes also used to be a credible organization with a common outlook but that no longer applies.

There aren't enough Anglos left in the Anglosphere to hold that vision.

Witness the reaction to my AUKUS proposal.

WRT that proposal.

My proposal treats the AUKUS venture as a co-operative venture. There is nothing to prevent any of those participants in the venture pursuing their own independent courses in parallel and permit the co-op to handle those courses on which they all agree.

And if those 5 nations cannot find any common ground on securing the high seas then I doubt any liberal nations can.

No, that is wrong. The Scandinavians and the Balts could probably pull it off.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, if we're just going to be a full-nation "American Foreign Legion" obediently deploying to defend their national interests as they dictate then we might as well burn our Canadian flags and become the 51st State.

I guess in that case JT was right and we would be "the first Post-National State".

Sorry, but no.

As I noted in my response to OGBD, there is nothing to prevent us joining co-operative ventures and pursuing independent actions concurrently.

You can do one out of the goodness of your heart while doing the other out of necessity.

Securing the commons of the high seas with a fleet of submarines operated in the common interest should be a no brainer.

Likewise contributing to NORAD with NORAD specific kit maintained at least cost should also be a no brainer.

Neither course of action prevents us from buying and using whatever kit we deem necessary to meet challenges as we perceive them.

Those co-operative actions should be voluntary and discretionary. Not core issues. We should be able to survive and act independently of both NORAD and NATO. Or for that matter the 5 Eyes.

 

[GR66]

As I noted in my response to OGBD, there is nothing to prevent us joining co-operative ventures and pursuing independent actions concurrently.

You can do one out of the goodness of your heart while doing the other out of necessity.

Securing the commons of the high seas with a fleet of submarines operated in the common interest should be a no brainer.

Likewise contributing to NORAD with NORAD specific kit maintained at least cost should also be a no brainer.

Neither course of action prevents us from buying and using whatever kit we deem necessary to meet challenges as we perceive them.

Those co-operative actions should be voluntary and discretionary. Not core issues. We should be able to survive and act independently of both NORAD and NATO. Or for that matter the 5 Eyes.

But co-operative ventures is not what you proposed. You advocated (twice) for integration of our militaries:

Thinking about the USS Charlotte and AUKUS.

Apparently the crew of the Charlotte is about 120 or so.
The Aussies had 3 onboard.

Five-Eyes by Population

US - 342,000,000
UK - 70,000,000
Cda - 42,000,000
Aus - 28,000,000
NZ - 5,000,000

If we required one Kiwi on board every boat we would need 6 Aussies, 8 Canucks, 14 Brits and 68 Yanks.

1 + 6 + 8 + 14 + 68 = 97

And we are pretty close to a boat load of shared 5 Eyes responsibility.

Who's commanding that jointly crewed AUKUS submarine? The US with their 68 crew members (and their globally dominant military and economy) or the Canadians with their 8 crew members or the Kiwi's with their solitary crew member? What happens when the national interests of the US collide with the national interest (even survivability) of one of the other nations? I guess they just have to go along for the ride?

See my reply to GR66.

I would offer the same solution for the F35s. Use Yankee facilities and buy them F35s for us to use defending them.

Here you're even more direct. We simply provide the US with mercenary fighter squadrons to do their bidding.

Absolutely like minded nations can group together in common cause. The Allies during the World Wars, NATO, the coalition that fought in Gulf War 1, Five Eyes, UN forces in Korea, etc. Yes, sometimes the members of these nations delegated substantial military command and authority to the dominant leader of the coalition, but they did not give up their sovereignty to them.

What you are proposing is not an alliance or coalition between partner nations, what you're proposing is more like the Delian League where minor states pledge alliegiance to their master and provide forces for their military. Big surprise the nominal "Delian League" quickly became the "Athenian Empire".

 

[Kirkhill]

But co-operative ventures is not what you proposed. You advocated (twice) for integration of our militaries:

Who's commanding that jointly crewed AUKUS submarine? The US with their 68 crew members (and their globally dominant military and economy) or the Canadians with their 8 crew members or the Kiwi's with their solitary crew member? What happens when the national interests of the US collide with the national interest (even survivability) of one of the other nations? I guess they just have to go along for the ride?

Here you're even more direct. We simply provide the US with mercenary fighter squadrons to do their bidding.

Absolutely like minded nations can group together in common cause. The Allies during the World Wars, NATO, the coalition that fought in Gulf War 1, Five Eyes, UN forces in Korea, etc. Yes, sometimes the members of these nations delegated substantial military command and authority to the dominant leader of the coalition, but they did not give up their sovereignty to them.

What you are proposing is not an alliance or coalition between partner nations, what you're proposing is more like the Delian League where minor states pledge alliegiance to their master and provide forces for their military. Big surprise the nominal "Delian League" quickly became the "Athenian Empire".

Both ventures could be enduring voluntary endeavours that provide a useful service that over lays our vital interests.

They are both highly integrated endeavours. As they must be.

They both could be strongly limited in their terms of engagement if that is the consensus.

There is nothing to stop us standing back and reviewing the resulying coverage and asking where are the gaps? Where are the things we need to do that these ventures don't do? Where are the things we want to do that aren't covered?

Most importantly, what do we do when this co-operative venture fails?

 

[GR66]

I don't see how what you are proposing gives us any advantage or increase in co-operation and interoperability that partnering in arrangements like NORAD give us. On the downside however your proposals for making our forces an integral part of the US military would clearly subjugate us as a nation to America's will. They control the subs we're sailing on. They own and host the fighter aircraft we fly. If we decide to "opt out" of an action (or feel the need to take independent action on something) we have no means to do so as we don't have a sovereign military.

Maybe with this thought experiment you're just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. In this case..."clean up in aisle one".

 

[RangerRay]

How about if we just bought into the existing programmes and supplied crews for them so that it became a 5-Eyes patrol and not 5 national patrols.

We don't have to get into building and maintaining. The Yanks and the Brits have got that covered.

Maybe if we’re all a part of the British Empire 2.0. Otherwise it’s a non-starter. Sounds very “post-national” to me.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe if we’re all a part of the British Empire 2.0. Otherwise it’s a non-starter. Sounds very “post-national” to me.

Read on ...

 

[RangerRay]

Read on ...

I did. It would still subject the foreign and military policies of 4 independent countries to one superpower. Not going to happen unless we all join together to form some kind of Oceania- like supranation. I would rather not go down that path.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't see how what you are proposing gives us any advantage or increase in co-operation and interoperability that partnering in arrangements like NORAD give us. On the downside however your proposals for making our forces an integral part of the US military would clearly subjugate us as a nation to America's will. They control the subs we're sailing on. They own and host the fighter aircraft we fly. If we decide to "opt out" of an action (or feel the need to take independent action on something) we have no means to do so as we don't have a sovereign military.

Maybe with this thought experiment you're just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. In this case..."clean up in aisle one".

If that is our only investment then you are right. If that is one of our investments then I am right.

We invest in co-operative ventures to seve the dual purpose of meeting needs of ours and making friends.
We invest in our self-interest as a priority.

So we don't spend as little as necessary to keep the Americans happy and rely on them to meet our critical needs.
We spend what we must to meet our needs with or without the Americans and then spend as little as necessary to keep them happy.
If funding a Maple Leaf Wing to fly their aircraft over our skies meets that goal then great. If they take those planes away from us I still want to be able to defend our skies. That requires us investing in ourselves to provide the necessary security under all circumstances.

We should be learning that we can't rely on others to keep us safe.
We should also be learning that it is better to make friends than enemies.
And you make friends by helping others out while not killing yourself in the process.

 

[GR66]

If that is our only investment then you are right. If that is one of our investments then I am right.

We invest in co-operative ventures to seve the dual purpose of meeting needs of ours and making friends.
We invest in our self-interest as a priority.

So we don't spend as little as necessary to keep the Americans happy and rely on them to meet our critical needs.
We spend what we must to meet our needs with or without the Americans and then spend as little as necessary to keep them happy.
If funding a Maple Leaf Wing to fly their aircraft over our skies meets that goal then great. If they take those planes away from us I still want to be able to defend our skies. That requires us investing in ourselves to provide the necessary security under all circumstances.

We should be learning that we can't rely on others to keep us safe.
We should also be learning that it is better to make friends than enemies.
And you make friends by helping others out while not killing yourself in the process.

I totally don't get your logic here.

So, we pay for a wing of F-35's for the Americans but we supply the pilots and fly them on behalf of the whims of the US. We also purchase our own fighters and supply the pilots to do with as we wish. As long as we are in lockstep with what the Americans are doing we have all of the fighters we purchased available to use.

If however, we want to do something that requires fighters but the US doesn't support that decision then we only have available that portion of the fighters that we purchases expressly for ourselves while the fighters that WE paid for for the US would NOT be available to us...and presumably the Canadian pilots that go with them.

Same with the submarines? We would presumably pay our share for the purchase of the jointly crewed submarines that we are helping to crew. Would we then have to purchase our own separate fully-Canadian crewed submarines on top of that if we want to ensure that we have submarines available to use if we need them for some purpose that is not something they US wants to use the jointly crewed submarines for?

Huh????

I'm not sure if you noticed but we already do have Canadian personnel serving on the submarines, ships, squadrons, brigades and HQ's of our allies in order to promote closer alliances, cooperation and interoperability. We do this without sacrificing our own sovereignty.

Why not just spend the money we need to have the defence capabilities we require. There is no reason that beyond our basic sovereign requirements that we cannot tailor our further investments in such a way that they fill the capability gaps of our alliances as a whole, if that's what you're trying to achieve, but suggesting things like buying both Canadian fighters and additional fighters for the US that are manned by Canadians but not controlled by Canada doesn't save any money or fill any capability gaps that just having those same fighters all owned and operated by Canada would.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not convinced that these long term projects are relevant to our defence needs in a changing environment.

If manning battleships to maintain good trade relations while the world moves to aircraft carriers then I will spend exactly as much as I need to on battleships and as much as I want to on aircraft carriers.

And if I can get away with not buying any battleships by paying a fee and supplying some crew then I will.

If battleships meet my needs then I will buy the battleships I need for my needs from my preferred suppliers. I will not worry about whether they are necessary to meet the needs of my trading partner.

And if you are not building your weapons yourself then you are at the mercy of your suppliers.

People accuse Trump of being transactional, ie if you want something you give something.
That is pure Adam Smith.

We have too many sunday school kids running things these days.

We expect that if we are benevolent they will be benevolent.

Butchers, bakers, brewers and Trump don't work that way. Nor does the EU or China.

Why would I invest in one product and put myself at the mercy of one supplier, and snub everyone else when I can diffuse the risk by adopting multiple solutions?

And I am not necessarily saying buying one aicraft or the other here, or one sub or the other.

What effect or effects do I want that aircraft, ship or sub to deliver? Are there other means of achieving the same effects that I can adopt in parallel?

Layering is all the rage these days. Resiliency and redundancy have replaced efficiency in the vocabulary.

Layering isn't new. I have been wearing multiple layers for a long time. I can swap layers, remove layers, add layers and still stay warm. I am not dependent on one garment.

If I create a system where I am not dependent on any one system then I can remove some of the others. I can even experiment with new layers. I can even afford to indulge a friend by loaning them a layer or experimenting with one of their layers.

Our problem is that right now we are standing in the cold without a stitch on and instead of just grabbing for the first available garment we are debating if we like the colour of two that are on offer and how long it will be before we have to buy another.

My suggestions are not standalone solutions. They are a couple of pathways that could be pursued concurrent with other solutions that may offer different, possibly better, outcomes.

I aim to defend Canada, maintain our freedom of action and stop the elephant next door from stomping on us by keeping her happy.

That requires multiple courses of action and each one costs money.

 

[lenaitch]

I aim to defend Canada, maintain our freedom of action and stop the elephant next door from stomping on us by keeping her happy.

I fail to see how you accomplish that by having all or even part of our military assets under US control. Do we not just end up buying and staffing assets for them to use as they see fit?

If long term planning and acquisition is not responsive enough for a fast changing world, speed up our planning and acquisition.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The UK didn't want Canada to have a navy, they wanted us to pay for a Battleship instead, Canada could provide volunteers to serve. A lot of Canadians and Canadian politicians were fine with that arrangement. But enough felt that we needed our own navy and the industrial benefits it would bring. I don't think there is much appetite to pay the US to defend us and have our pilots fly their jets.

 

[KevinB]

The UK didn't want Canada to have a navy, they wanted us to pay for a Battleship instead, Canada could provide volunteers to serve. A lot of Canadians and Canadian politicians were fine with that arrangement. But enough felt that we needed our own navy and the industrial benefits it would bring. I don't think there is much appetite to pay the US to defend us and have our pilots fly their jets.

I mean if your going to pay us to defend you,
We probably don’t want your pilots.

 

[Ostrozac]

And like the other co-operatives to which I alluded, times were hard. 9 of the 12 were still covered in rubble and destitute.

8 out of 12. The founding members of NATO not covered in leftover rubble from WWII were Canada, the USA, Iceland (where no fighting occurred) and Portugal (which remained neutral).