I think your third scenario is imagining scenarios that aren't really realistic, even if its premise is accepted.

It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there.

For Canada to have projection into Europe or Australia we would just need so much more than just some fancy jets. We'd need carriers that are worth a damn to bring them there, battleships to support the carriers, bombers to support the battleships, etc. A whole whack of infrastructure we don't really have anymore, if we ever did, and that after buying the f-35s we probably couldn't afford anyways.

If the only way Canada can support NATO is by propping up the US military-industrial-complex then we probably don't belong in NATO.

>"It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there."

Canada used to have fighters in Germany, to forestall or intercept Soviet aggression, and they were relatively well-equipped and well-trained units. I am not 'imagining scenarios', I am just laying out alternatives.

Is there any particular reason it's better for Canadian jets to be sitting in Germany than for Germany to just have more jets if they feel they need them for defence? This is a thing that makes sense for European countries to do with each other, or north american countries likewise, but it's just downright silly to buy billion+ dollar jets ostensibly for the defense of Canada and then stick them in Germany.

Like, other than symbolic ones where we try to pretend we're contributing in a way similar to the US with its little plots of american land in half the countries of the world even though we have neither the means nor the stomach to do so.

All of this depends on what you think Canadian Armed Forces are there for. Canada could have a number of aircraft available as a quick-reaction force, and forward-deployed in Germany for convenience (as well as to help out an ally). Alternatively, Canada might forward-deploy to Germany to set a 'tripwire' against Russian aggression, or maybe to improve cross-training with other European countries.

Canadian F-35s wouldn't need aircraft carriers to deploy to trouble spots in Europe. They have a decent ferry range with external tanks, and could just fly there with one or two refueling stops. Of course they would still need logistical support from NATO allies for any sort of sustained operations.

This feels like a very early post-WWII way of looking at conflict to me. If a conflict is in desperate need of help from countries across the ocean with no projection power themselves (ie. not the US), it's likely "a trip across the ocean with 2 refuelling stops" is going to be too little two late. If we want to contribute to ongoing conflicts then we need more than the ability to fly a jet out and maybe back.

The main thing that kind of capability is useful for is a first strike, I'm pretty sure. And I'd argue that's not the kind of thing Canada should be involving itself in.

You seem to have come up with a decision matrix (which is very different from my own), and that is much better than I can say for Canada's government!

What if the answer is NA defence and meeting NATO commitments? Why did you frame it as either/or?

(Peace keeping has nothing to do with a jet fighter acquisition. The only reason you brought it up was so you could add a jab - very classy.)

I was just trying to lay out different mission profiles, along with the best jets for the job. If Canada only wants to do peacekeeping, it doesn't really need fighters. In addition to that, trying to get a one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.

>one-size-fits-all aircraft usually ends up with an expensive 'camel'.

Isn't that precisely what the F-35 has been criticized for? :)

So if you accept the "mission profile" of defending NA and meeting NATO commitments while having a reasonable price tag, is the F-35 still the obvious winner in your opinion?

My personal paradigm is a bit different from the conventional ones. I think that if Canada wants to do air defense/Arctic interceptions, the F-15EX is a great plane, with long legs, very powerful radar, and great weapon load capabilities. Canada could then choose to specialize in a niche role for NATO purposes; close-air support would probably be the best one, given Canada's recent commitments. Canada could then purchase surplus A-10 Warthogs (I mean Thunderbolt IIs of course) and Super Tucanos for that mission.

Exactly.

You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints?

Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage.

>"You are now conceding there is no straightforward answer to this question — That maybe, just maybe, it's a very hard problem to solve given the criteria and constraints?"

I think there are a number of straightforward answers, but you need to define what you want the Air Forces to do, instead of coming up with post-hoc rationalizations (disguised as requirements) for why you chose one aircraft or another.

>"Perhaps your earlier observations would have been better served to acknowledge this fact, instead of chalking things up to "Anti-Americanism" and other garbage."

Canada isn't the only country to politicize defense acquisitions, it's just one of the clearest. From the endless support for, and subsequent cancellation of the Avro Arrow to the Chinook contract cancellation in the 1990s, Canadian politicians have always played political games with defense acquisitions.

I mean, for a country that hasn't been truly forced into a war in basically a couple hundred years pretty much all defence acquisitions are "political games". That doesn't mean that this particular one was the particular game "anti-american".

You don't even seem to really disagree that it wasn't a sensible purchase for canada, if only because you don't seem to believe that Canada has a plan for its military that is sufficiently fleshed out to justify it.

If you want a cynical reason there are much simpler ones. The Liberals are a center left party that continues to be at least a little in love with austerity, and it was an easy high price tag to axe with basically no meaningful consequences in the short or medium term (because it's not like we were going to get them in that timeframe anyways).

Never mind that as half of a quasi-stable two-party power structure they pretty much always benefit from taking easy stances that are opposite their conservative pair.

>"You don't even seem to really disagree that it wasn't a sensible purchase for canada, if only because you don't seem to believe that Canada has a plan for its military that is sufficiently fleshed out to justify it."

That is a pretty fair assessment of my position, though I do think there are reasons why the F-35 makes sense, depending on what the Canadian air forces are supposed to do. The F-35 is a very capable aircraft, it's just not clear if the capabilities are suited to Canada's missions.

>"If you think Canada needs to be able to support her NATO allies in an armed conflict overseas "

I have an idea. How about not starting armed conflict?

Speak softly and carry a big stick - sometimes you're not the one starting the armed conflict.

Since WWI NATO countries either together or separately had participated in truckloads of military conflicts. Now remind me please how many of those had started because some country directly attacked NATO member.

I am not against having big stick just in case. That is what nukes are for.