this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
56 points (86.8% liked)

Canada

7106 readers
609 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Regions

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
56
Reflecting on Canada's F-35 decision: F-35 fighter jets can only fly 55% of the time (www.ft.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The fleet’s mission-capable rate — or the percentage of time a plane can perform one of its assigned missions — was 55 per cent as of March 2023, far below the Pentagon’s goal of 85 per cent to 90 per cent, the Government Accountability Office said on Thursday.

Part of the challenges stem from a heavy reliance on contractors for maintenance that limits the Pentagon’s ability to control depot maintenance decisions. Delays also arise from spare parts shortages, inadequate maintenance training, insufficient support equipment, and a lack of technical data needed to make repairs.

Because of the Pentagon's inane IP laws, maintenance on these planes is a bureaucratic nightmare: defense contractors are able to limit maintenance of these things to only those they contract because of IP restrictions and are not required to teach the military jack shit. Meanwhile, they're essentially a paperweight half the time because they're not getting proper maintenance.

How are we supposed to patrol the Arctic with a plane that needs an American private subcontractor to perform essential maintenance on it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I still maintain that in order to fullfill our commitment to NATO we should get into transport. A lot more demands for air cargo than there is for fighters...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think the whole Canadian military could use an overhaul. It'd be pretty sweet if the Canadian military specialized in disaster relief, and medical capabilities. Our military could be regularly deployed within our borders for forest fires, hurricanes, and the like. Plus: if we trained a fuck load of medical staff in the military, then they might filter into provincial healthcare systems post-retirement.

Its a little weird to have thousands of people just waiting around for a war to break out.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

While I agree, I do also think we need a capable offensive force. The world today seems pretty unstable, and having to rely on our neighbor for our entire security seems a little unwise. Since building out our forces will take decades, we should probably get started on that project now.

Edit: unwise, not inside

[–] ForgotAboutDre 3 points 11 months ago

Yes. The better the offensive capability the less likely it would be needed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why would we want an offensive force? We have enough land as it is and our primary focus should be on soft power (so people don't want to invade us) and defence (so people who try end up bleeding so much it doesn't matter). Canada is uniquely suited for defence in depth given that our key geographical rival (Russia) would have to invade from the North, literally the furthest they could possibly be from key population centers, and that on the off chance that China decides to invade us, they'd have to cross through the Rockies AND the Prairies just to make it even close to the Golden Horseshoe. In fact, I'd actually argue that our key rival in terms of defence should actually be the US: their instability makes it increasingly likely that we may get caught up in a sort of hostile occupation if war should break out and they have the capability to easily strike all main Canadian population centers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I am using the wrong word, "offensive" here, when I meant a defensive force. Basically, enough tanks, planes, or whatever we need for the defense you've mentioned. If we have enough already, great :)

In the situation our rival is the US, I really have trouble us building enough of a defense to do anything but buy time!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The war in Ukraine has shown that NATO doctrine is, frankly, not very good against something even close to a peer force.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can you expand on this? I thought Russia was doing quite poorly in Ukraine, and in big part thanks to NATO supplies being sent to Ukraine?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Have you been following Ukraine's counteroffensive at all? Despite NATO training and being showered by NATO equipment, Ukraine is incapable of making progress in offensive operations. It's been four months and they've just barely claimed a 10km x 10km area of low ground.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I haven't, but I did read the offensive was slow. I don't know enough about the topic to know whether it's NATO doctrine to blame or not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines have been complaining that NATO doctrine, which relies on complete local superiority, is basically sending them to die when used against a peer force.

NATO doctrine has evolved into one that is really good at fighting insurgents and completely inferior militaries (e.g. Iraq) but has never been good in a peer war. Even historically, this is evident by the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the War in Afghanistan.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Fascinating. NATO, or specifically the US, does seem quite obsessed with battlefield domination, which I guess it can afford thanks to its present infinite money and oil. Thanks for the insights!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

I completely agree, particularly given Canada's defensive environment. Canada has a whole fuck ton of terrain to play with in the event of an invasion, so why not develop the capability for working in that terrain?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Honestly not a bad idea. We still need current gen fighters though.