Thanks for the thoughtful commentary! I misunderstood what MANPADs were, that makes sense. For some reason I thought that was an armored vehicle; shoulda at least googled it (how embarassing).
The submarine point makes total sense, I guess I hadn’t connected them with how serious of a threat they are to a carrier, and how reliant on carriers the US is (or more neutrally…how important carriers are to force projection generally). Not to mention anyone else has to get here by boat (or over the arctic, but I don’t think there’s going to be a way to do anything massive or fast that way in the foreseeable future).
I totally agree that the cost exchange is what ought to count (and life too, of course). It sounds like maybe air-defense is less about “defending” any particular asset (e.g. keeping Canadian tanks safe from enemy bombs - which might be a battle we simply cannot win) than making air-superiority very expensive? 'cause that’s what I envision, when we buy military hardware…like…the US (or Russia, or China) could just blast all our expensive toys to bits before we get to use them.
I had no idea the Gripens are meant to be functional without a full airbase, I thought they were just the “iPhone SE” fighter jet option lol. Good bang-for-the buck…maybe still a bit overpriced, but not nuts, and genuinely pretty good. But you’re saying they actually serve a different role strategically, that’s very interesting. I mean…supplying them with fuel and ammunition in an asymmetric conflict would still be almost impossible, right? I guess that just means you’d have to be very selective about how you deployed them…doesn’t make them useless.
I’m with you on NATO, it seems that Trump has put two bullets in it. I wouldn’t be shocked if it can be resuscitated over the coming decades. And yeah I agree we gotta help our allies, I just think that if we choose, doctrinally, to focus on whatever tools make sense for us, we can go help with that. I think that’s generally what we do and how it works, right?
I really appreciate your insights. I still think hospitals and libraries should come first, and that there’s more room for military spending to directly benefit more people (how many people are paying to do “boot camp” on their yoga mats in vancouver? The government could be giving everyone a leg up on physical fitness … or first aid or radio operation or whatever other skills that could be for defense but also be useful in the peaceful reality we’re all hoping for).
But I really appreciate you filing off my misimpression that we’re spending all this on stuff that’ll only be useful in a situation like when we helped the US invade Afghanistan. Because to a lay person like me…that’s just what tanks and planes and submarines sound like they’re for!
It sounds like maybe air-defense is less about “defending” any particular asset (e.g. keeping Canadian tanks safe from enemy bombs - which might be a battle we simply cannot win) than making air-superiority very expensive?
Expensive, risky and maybe not totally complete. For example, they might no longer have the option of flying a helicopter over an urban area on a clear day.
Completely stopping the Americans from flying at all seems impossible without a WWIII kind of response from allies, yes. IIRC they have both the largest and second largest air forces (because of the navy).
'cause that’s what I envision, when we buy military hardware…like…the US (or Russia, or China) could just blast all our expensive toys to bits before we get to use them.
Survivability is all down to how well the expensive things are hidden, which is itself partly down to moving them around a lot (like with a fast jet). In another era of warfare making them indestructible would have been an option, but not so much now.
At the other end of the cost curve, there’s at least minimal efforts to get our own drone capabilities going.
But you’re saying [Gripens] actually serve a different role strategically
Extremely different. Honestly that they both get called “fighters” is down to history. Like sure, they both turn fast, and have a similar-ish shape to accomplish that, but it means little from a strategic perspective. (At an individual-ish aka tactical level, that’s still good for dodging certain kinds of threats)
It’s made out of basic, off-the-shelf kinds of parts, and it literally does just need the pilot, a dirt runway and six mostly-untrained conscripts that can follow orders and carry heavy things in order to operate. The downside is that it has no stealth whatsoever. To be survivable, it would have to take off, do whatever of mission, land, and be towed away before the enemy can respond. Maybe that’s doable, maybe not. It’s untested.
We’ll see what the government decides. Getting the F-35’s we’ve already bought and nothing else would be one option, and then the money could go elsewhere.
I really appreciate your insights.
You’re welcome!
Since you’re interested, there’s CanadaBuys for an unskewed view of what tenders are out there, and you can filter for the DND. There’s also Perun on YouTube, which comes recommended for (global) military news and analysis in granular detail.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary! I misunderstood what MANPADs were, that makes sense. For some reason I thought that was an armored vehicle; shoulda at least googled it (how embarassing).
The submarine point makes total sense, I guess I hadn’t connected them with how serious of a threat they are to a carrier, and how reliant on carriers the US is (or more neutrally…how important carriers are to force projection generally). Not to mention anyone else has to get here by boat (or over the arctic, but I don’t think there’s going to be a way to do anything massive or fast that way in the foreseeable future).
I totally agree that the cost exchange is what ought to count (and life too, of course). It sounds like maybe air-defense is less about “defending” any particular asset (e.g. keeping Canadian tanks safe from enemy bombs - which might be a battle we simply cannot win) than making air-superiority very expensive? 'cause that’s what I envision, when we buy military hardware…like…the US (or Russia, or China) could just blast all our expensive toys to bits before we get to use them.
I had no idea the Gripens are meant to be functional without a full airbase, I thought they were just the “iPhone SE” fighter jet option lol. Good bang-for-the buck…maybe still a bit overpriced, but not nuts, and genuinely pretty good. But you’re saying they actually serve a different role strategically, that’s very interesting. I mean…supplying them with fuel and ammunition in an asymmetric conflict would still be almost impossible, right? I guess that just means you’d have to be very selective about how you deployed them…doesn’t make them useless.
I’m with you on NATO, it seems that Trump has put two bullets in it. I wouldn’t be shocked if it can be resuscitated over the coming decades. And yeah I agree we gotta help our allies, I just think that if we choose, doctrinally, to focus on whatever tools make sense for us, we can go help with that. I think that’s generally what we do and how it works, right?
I really appreciate your insights. I still think hospitals and libraries should come first, and that there’s more room for military spending to directly benefit more people (how many people are paying to do “boot camp” on their yoga mats in vancouver? The government could be giving everyone a leg up on physical fitness … or first aid or radio operation or whatever other skills that could be for defense but also be useful in the peaceful reality we’re all hoping for).
But I really appreciate you filing off my misimpression that we’re spending all this on stuff that’ll only be useful in a situation like when we helped the US invade Afghanistan. Because to a lay person like me…that’s just what tanks and planes and submarines sound like they’re for!
Expensive, risky and maybe not totally complete. For example, they might no longer have the option of flying a helicopter over an urban area on a clear day.
Completely stopping the Americans from flying at all seems impossible without a WWIII kind of response from allies, yes. IIRC they have both the largest and second largest air forces (because of the navy).
Survivability is all down to how well the expensive things are hidden, which is itself partly down to moving them around a lot (like with a fast jet). In another era of warfare making them indestructible would have been an option, but not so much now.
At the other end of the cost curve, there’s at least minimal efforts to get our own drone capabilities going.
Extremely different. Honestly that they both get called “fighters” is down to history. Like sure, they both turn fast, and have a similar-ish shape to accomplish that, but it means little from a strategic perspective. (At an individual-ish aka tactical level, that’s still good for dodging certain kinds of threats)
It’s made out of basic, off-the-shelf kinds of parts, and it literally does just need the pilot, a dirt runway and six mostly-untrained conscripts that can follow orders and carry heavy things in order to operate. The downside is that it has no stealth whatsoever. To be survivable, it would have to take off, do whatever of mission, land, and be towed away before the enemy can respond. Maybe that’s doable, maybe not. It’s untested.
We’ll see what the government decides. Getting the F-35’s we’ve already bought and nothing else would be one option, and then the money could go elsewhere.
You’re welcome!
Since you’re interested, there’s CanadaBuys for an unskewed view of what tenders are out there, and you can filter for the DND. There’s also Perun on YouTube, which comes recommended for (global) military news and analysis in granular detail.