• Canada: We wanna look cool, so we'll buy 65 F-35's for 9 Billion
    168 replies, posted
F-35s are pretty cool, I like how they have VTOL. Canada being invaded by North Korea would make a good Tom Clancy novel.
Except Tom Clancy's latest works are just garbage. Ever read the Bear and the Dragon?
That means each F-35 is... $138,461,538.46 Welp, better go mow some lawns.
Just think how easy mowing lawns is when you have 500 lb bombs!
As far as the Canada vs North Korea argument goes, no, numbers do not mean everything in combat. France and Germany (2 to 1) and Russia vs. Finland (4 to 1) were great examples. However, when it's 67 to 1, that is a very fucking substantial advantage, and at that kind of ratio, numbers mean everything. Yes, their technology isn't as good, no, their soldiers are not as well trained or disciplined, but for goodness' sake, it's 67 to 1. Of course, this is assuming NK has the potential to mobilize all its troops to Canada. This is purely hypothetical.
[QUOTE=Fenriswolf;23436095]This plane has Vertical Takeoff and Landing.[/QUOTE] No, it has STOVL. Short takeoff, vertical landing. And that is only the F-35B variant which sacrifices a great deal to achieve that STOVL. Canada is replacing the F-18, which means there is a good chance they are buying the F-35C. The C retains most of the capabilities of the highly agile A variant, but also has a hook for landing on aircraft carriers. Though it is also entirely possible that they are buying the A variant.
Honestly though I don`t see how people think we could afford a massive and well maintained army. People seem to think in land mass rather than actual population. Canada`s very spread out with the vast majority near the border. We have 34 million people spread out in that area. For comparison, ONE city in USA,NYC: 8.3 million people. Total population of USA is 309.7 million. Money has to come from somewhere.
[QUOTE=64fanatic;23442015]Honestly though I don`t see how people think we could afford a massive and well maintained army. People seem to think in land mass rather than actual population. Canada`s very spread out with the vast majority near the border. We have 34 million people spread out in that area. For comparison, ONE city in USA,NYC: 8.3 million people. Total population of USA is 309.7 million. Money has to come from somewhere.[/QUOTE] Our army isn't massive but it's well-funded for its size. And the training they receive is top-notch. If arctic sovereignty were to be threatened we could hold our own. (I only mention the arctic because it's the only place that the russians or others would be ballsy enough to try and claim)
[QUOTE=GunFox;23442000]No, it has STOVL. Short takeoff, vertical landing. And that is only the F-35B variant which sacrifices a great deal to achieve that STOVL. Canada is replacing the F-18, which means there is a good chance they are buying the F-35C. The C retains most of the capabilities of the highly agile A variant, but also has a hook for landing on aircraft carriers. Though it is also entirely possible that they are buying the A variant.[/QUOTE] A variant. The Canadian Forces has no need for a variant specifically built for carrier ops. [QUOTE=Furioso;23441775]As far as the Canada vs North Korea argument goes, no, numbers do not mean everything in combat. France and Germany (2 to 1) and Russia vs. Finland (4 to 1) were great examples. However, when it's 67 to 1, that is a very fucking substantial advantage, and at that kind of ratio, numbers mean everything. Yes, their technology isn't as good, no, their soldiers are not as well trained or disciplined, but for goodness' sake, it's 67 to 1. Of course, this is assuming NK has the potential to mobilize all its troops to Canada. This is purely hypothetical.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume that whoever proposed the NK vs Canada scenario is talking about teleporting all active non-reserve guys into Canada. Terrain can play a big role in influencing the real "balance" between uneven force ratios. Where will be the North Koreans be fighting? Are they familiar with the Canadian terrain? For example, if it's out in the Prairies then the North Koreans have no chance. Leopard 2 tanks and ATGMs will smash their armored units while their obsolete SAMs and rotting air force will fail to contest Canadian air superiority and NORAD. In the Rockies it could turn into a battle of attrition favoring the North Koreans unless our guys utilize maneuver warfare.
[QUOTE=Furioso;23441775]As far as the Canada vs North Korea argument goes, no, numbers do not mean everything in combat. France and Germany (2 to 1) and Russia vs. Finland (4 to 1) were great examples. However, when it's 67 to 1, that is a very fucking substantial advantage, and at that kind of ratio, numbers mean everything. Yes, their technology isn't as good, no, their soldiers are not as well trained or disciplined, but for goodness' sake, it's 67 to 1. Of course, this is assuming NK has the potential to mobilize all its troops to Canada. This is purely hypothetical.[/QUOTE] That mobilization part is actually a huge thing. Like MASSIVE. Fighting overseas is a HUGE endeavor. Very few nations have the ability to fight another nation across an ocean. The US spends an unbelievable sum to maintain our navy, and yet it is still a severe bottleneck. Neither Canada nor North Korea have a navy which would allow such an assault due to the distinct lack of any form of aircraft carrier. Any naval attack would likely be met with the opposing side dispatching attack aircraft from the mainland or attack submarines and effectively crippling the opposing side's navy in a very short time frame. Without the United States spearheading an assault, the Canadian military isn't terribly useful as an attack force. Which isn't an insult. They just don't spend the STUPID amounts of money to field a navy for that purpose. And I'll be damned if I'd ever want to go toe to toe in Canada vs the Canadian military. I'm damned glad we fight on the same side. [editline]05:50AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;23442301]A variant. The Canadian Forces has no need for a variant specifically built for carrier ops. [/QUOTE] Yeah I just looked it up and realized the Canadians don't have ships capable of launching any fixed wing aircraft. I was under the impression that they had at least one given that they were using F-18's.
[QUOTE=Tk1138;23439760]You're not even trying are you? Also, go Canada. [editline]02:12AM[/editline] We were good in WW1 and 2...[/QUOTE] And we're still kick ass even today. We have one of the best trained armies in the world. The size of an army means very little in this day and age it's the skill of the soldiers that decide who's victorious. People like Morcam have no idea what they're talking about when they criticize our armed forces.
[QUOTE=GunFox;23442321] Any naval attack would likely be met with the opposing side dispatching attack aircraft from the mainland or attack submarines and effectively crippling the opposing side's navy in a very short time frame. Without the United States spearheading an assault, the Canadian military isn't terribly useful as an attack force. Which isn't an insult. They just don't spend the STUPID amounts of money to field a navy for that purpose. And I'll be damned if I'd ever want to go toe to toe in Canada vs the Canadian military. I'm damned glad we fight on the same side. [editline]05:50AM[/editline] Yeah I just looked it up and realized the Canadians don't have ships capable of launching any fixed wing aircraft. I was under the impression that they had at least one given that they were using F-18's.[/QUOTE] Don't forget anti-ship missiles. Sure, one can have the abilities to shoot them down, but the naval task force command is SOL when they're launched in numbers to overwhelm his defenses. Are you talking about an attack on the tactical, operational or strategic scale? Canada will not conduct major conventional operations without the cooperation of the US or a NATO ally. Hell you can read some CF manuals and they state stuff like mutual support from the USAF and US Navy.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23442403]Don't forget anti-ship missiles. Sure, one can have the abilities to shoot them down, but the naval task force command is SOL when they're launched in numbers to overwhelm his defenses. Are you talking about an attack on the tactical, operational or strategic scale? Canada will not conduct major conventional operations without the cooperation of the US or a NATO ally. Hell you can read some CF manuals and they state stuff like mutual support from the USAF and US Navy.[/QUOTE] I was just talking purely a Canada vs NK in a balls out fight with no allied support. With the support each nation would actually get, Canada would smash NK into tiny pathetic pieces. There isn't even a doubt there. NK just doesn't have the hardware or the allied support to do anything.
[QUOTE=GunFox;23442444]I was just talking purely a Canada vs NK in a balls out fight with no allied support. With the support each nation would actually get, Canada would smash NK into tiny pathetic pieces. There isn't even a doubt there. NK just doesn't have the hardware or the allied support to do anything.[/QUOTE] Let's say hypothetically, N. Korea managed to seize one of the coasts (without resistance for some reason, so assume no loss of life on either side yet) and the naval aspect wasn't relevant anymore. Still assume no allied support. What's your new analysis of the outcome?
[QUOTE=zombojoe;23439423]That made lol. :v:[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/fdccax.jpg[/IMG] Also didn't Canada practically invent modern military tactics: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vimy_Ridge[/url]
[QUOTE=Earthen;23442837]Also didn't Canada practically invent modern military tactics: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vimy_Ridge[/url][/QUOTE] What do you consider "modern military tactics"?
[QUOTE=Earthen;23442837][img_thumb]http://i38.tinypic.com/fdccax.jpg[/img_thumb] [/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/f95dc7ss20100718055920.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23442593]Let's say hypothetically, N. Korea managed to seize one of the coasts (without resistance for some reason, so assume no loss of life on either side yet) and the naval aspect wasn't relevant anymore. Still assume no allied support. What's your new analysis of the outcome?[/QUOTE] I know you're talking to him but, my analysis would be a Canadian victory. I'm basing this on the grounds that we are better trained and equipped.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23442904]What do you consider "modern military tactics"?[/QUOTE] the end of mass attacks and a focus on squad based tactics, yeah thats over simplified
[QUOTE=Earthen;23442917]the end of mass attacks and a focus on squad based tactics, yeah thats over simplified[/QUOTE] The Germans invented stormtrooper tactics, the precursor to modern squad level infantry tactics. The British invented the Combined Arms doctrine, the the basis of modern operational warfare. [quote][img]http://i38.tinypic.com/fdccax.jpg[/img][/quote] The Russians invaded again a year later and won. (The British, in a slightly unrelated note, also declared war on Finland the second time.)
[QUOTE=Earthen;23442917]the end of mass attacks and a focus on squad based tactics, yeah thats over simplified[/QUOTE] Vimy was one of the few instances where small-unit tactics was applied, but the shift occurred from experience from WWI as a whole.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23443037]Vimy was one of the few instances where small-unit tactics was applied, but the shift occurred from experience from WWI as a whole.[/QUOTE] The last months of the First World War on the western front were comparatively mobile, especially during and after the Spring Offensive.
[QUOTE=Morcam;23439616]Thanks for posting a 2:1 ratio fight that the smaller side managed to win with superior technology. Of course, I'm not sure how a 2:1 ratio fight compares to a 67:1 fight, but I'm sure you'll definitely come out on top. As far as the actual F35's, though, they're actually a pretty good decision. Since Canada obviously isn't a very warlike nation, strike aircraft are always a good boost.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_Beach[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada[/url] And We pretty much liberated Holland. And we even fight America's war [img]http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20060223/wliveafghan0207/0227kandahar2.jpg[/img] [editline]12:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;23439890]During WW2 + WW1 the Canadian army was comparatively much stronger and larger than it was today. The same can be said for the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, etc. I don't mean to demean what Canadian soldiers have done in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that Canada, in the past 50 years, has shrunk its army considerably. [editline]02:20AM[/editline] Damn you're good.[/QUOTE] 6,646,281 males, age 16–60 Fit for Service 6,417,924 females, age 16–60 Fit for service
Pretty sure the UK government had an order for 150 of these. To go along with their new aircraft carriers. Think it's been scaled back a bit now, since they cost £70m each.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;23443513]6,646,281 males, age 16–60 Fit for Service 6,417,924 females, age 16–60 Fit for service[/QUOTE] Do we really almost have a 50/50 gender split in our military? That's neato.
[QUOTE=BBKF;23434344]Sweet, now we can distribute maple syrup, pancakes and pot at the SPEED OF SOUND![/QUOTE] [B]3 TIMES[/B] the speed of sound
Cut benefits for war veterans, buy new toys that will shuffle between hangars and air shows for a couple decades. Classy.
[QUOTE=Tk1138;23439973]True, and if anyone tried to invade us we'd probably have half the world backing us up. [editline]02:28AM[/editline] My dad keeps saying the Americans are to blame that we cancelled the Avro Arrow project not just the cost, apparently they were afraid of it, yeah right I don't believe that.[/QUOTE] Didn't the Canadian government at the time cut the founding for the project?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23444761]Do we really almost have a 50/50 gender split in our military? That's neato.[/QUOTE] Um, no Zeke, those numbers are Census calculations. That's the numbers they expect in the case of a draft. Our army does not have a total of over 12 million soldiers, not even including miltia and reserves, nowhere near that amount, I doubt we even hit 100,000 with all considered. However, there are a lot of women in our armed forces yes, but I don't believe it's anywhere near 50-50.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;23443513] 6,646,281 males, age 16–60 Fit for Service 6,417,924 females, age 16–60 Fit for service[/QUOTE] ...no that would make our forces the largest in the world, employing 4/10 of the population.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.