• Toto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Thanks for this. Was scrolling through the comments looking for a reply I could get behind.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It does sound really weird, however, the way I see it is both countries are under obligation for defense forces anyway, and already go into each other’s air space in order to do this. So, by Canada not buying the jets( Which I agree with that decision at this point because the US has heavily dropped the ball while increasing prices.) that doesn’t change the fact that they were counting on those jets for coverage, which means that they need to gain that coverage from somewhere in order to uphold current agreements.

      The ambassador was just stating that they will need to attempt to alter NORAD’s deal with them because if Canada isn’t going to supply the coverage, then if they were to keep the same coverage, the US would have to send more jets in which he is complaining about.

      Honestly, the title of this article is clickbait to the point where I don’t even think the article title itself is accurate to the article anymore. It’s borderline misinformation at this point

      • Ænima@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        They’re gonna get in trouble for false advertising when it turns out the pilot was a cardboard cutout and did not, in fact, come with the “car.”

    • sik0fewl@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not even close.

      They’re suggesting that Canada won’t be able to defend its own airspace so US will have to be able to operate more freely in Canadian than they already do. They are saying that the NORAD agreement would need to be updated to accommodate this.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          And neither Finland nor Sweden are at war with Russia. Bullshit scare tactic used by fucking putin yes, but it’s not itself an act of war. At least, it isn’t generally treated as such.

          • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            You seem to be applying a pretty strict definition to what is actually an arbitrary term. An act of war can be anything that any nation wants to call an act of war.

            So I guess we should probably just use some of the countries involved in the real life case we are talking about.

            Does anyone consider violation of airspace by a nations warplanes to be in-and-of-itself an act of war or at least a proactive action worthy of escalation and retaliation? Oh yeah, the United States does. And so does Russia.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not applying a strict standard, I’m using the two examples you gave to illustrate my point that it’s much more complex than they thought. Finland and Sweden aren’t at war so no, at least in those two cases its not a declaration of war.

              • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Just kinda decided to pretend we were talking about “declarations of war” now? I can see you are either not interested in having a grown up discussion or you’re genuinely unable to have one.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  That’s the whole subject being discussed. Here’s the OP comment we’re all replying to:

                  Where they ask if this is a declaration of war. Not sure how that’s pretending anything.

          • Greddan@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Just because our politicians won’t accept it. We are currently at war with Russia. Have been for years. At least that’s what the Russians tell their own population. Then we have the constant sabotages in and around our territory by “totally not Russian military” people. When was the last time anyone formally “declared” a war? It isn’t the 1800s anymore.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      NORAD already has shared skies provisions. US jets can fly into our airspace as needed to intercept foreign attackers. We can do the same with them.

      None of this constitutes a threat, despite Hoekstra’s weird, fumbling attempt to deliver it like one.

      He basically said “If you don’t give us your business, we’ll have no choice but to protect your airspace even harder!” Oh, wow, scary. No, please, don’t do that.

  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is just robbery, we weren’t able to make our schedule and modified the price. “$27.7 billion in cost – up from its initial $19 billion.”

    Yet expect them to just give us $7 billion dollars because we failed to meet the contract?

      • Archer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Now I want a short story where the Mob accidentally hires the most effective project manager ever

        • Thassodar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          There’s actually an anime where a corporate worker gets summoned into another world because they need him to use his efficiency to get their shit together.

          It’s called “Headhunted to Another World: From Salaryman to Big Four!”, and it’s pretty good.

    • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Stupid motherfuckers haven’t learned anything from the past year. They actually think they can just bully and harass everyone into submission. They’re losing more and more influence every day.

  • xyro@morbier.foo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Buy or weapons or else…” Maybe we should look for a more reliable supplier and close our airspace to their jet fighters.

    • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      There isn’t one, the only stealth fighters are in the US or Russia/China. If you don’t have stealth fighters at all you will lose very badly in an air war against someone that does. That’s just how it is, you have an overwhelming advantage if you can shoot your enemy but they can’t even see you at range.

  • Janx@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    You know, like you do to allies when the commander in chief isn’t a Russian asset.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    This will be a devastating air campaign for the US, many F35s will be lost to mechanical and software failures and it isn’t our fault it is totally Canada’s fault if that happens because if they had bought our jets we wouldn’t of had to break them by trying to use them as airplanes.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        The planes are adaptable, multirole fighters that can, in fact, fly in all sorts of conditions. The problem is the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours is really high. I was once quoted that it was an amortized $12k just to turn it on bring the engine to idle, and turn it off again.

        Given that reality, in peace time, many operators will pick and choose when and where they fly. In wartime, of course, the way economy will either expand to handle the maintenance, or (more likely, imo) designs will pivot to something more manufacturable and maintainable.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I thought it was built for standoff missile attacks, not patrolling potentially hostile territory?

        • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          The F35 was built for enriching shareholders, the US military does not even own copyright over the aircraft.

          In 2014, GAO reported that the F-35 program lacked an intellectual property strategy for repair and sustainment. The program didn’t release that strategy until July 2025, eleven years later. Because the military can’t access the technical data, parts, or diagnostic tools needed to repair their own aircraft, they’re forced to pay contractors to do it for them. The contractors set the prices, control the timeline, and profit from every breakdown.

          https://pirg.org/articles/the-f-35-is-proof-we-need-right-to-repair/

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            In a sad way, thats hilarious. Of course while we’re screwing everyone and everything in the world, we’d make sure to eff ourselves over as well.

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Give us money or we will attack you” is generally not something you say to an ally you want to keep. Trump is literally insane, trying to start WW3.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I will continue to post this every time someone insinuates that someone else should murder Trump/ICE Agents/ etc. Do it yourself or better yet, you can focus on protecting you and yours instead.

      In the US we have the Second Amendment. The fascists have been the ones screaming and yelling about the Second Amendment, but the truth is that all Americans have the right.

      Owning a gun isn’t enough. Driving to Cabela’s and picking up a vermin killing .22 is not enough. You should buy a proper rifle, a pistol, and a knife or baton. (Bonus points for a shotgun) Then you need to train with said rifle, pistol and knife/baton. Go to a range and shoot. Look for local self defense/hand to hand combat with a weapon classes and train.

      I am not advocating for violence…far from it. But I am advocating for knowledge because owning a weapon and not knowing how to use it is a recipe for disaster.

      PS: If you can afford it, buy suppressors or active hearing protection. Especially for your rifles. Suppression for the common citizen isn’t about stealth like in the movies, it is about protecting your hearing. Guns are LOUD. Much louder than you expect. At the bare minimum, make sure you have quality active hearing protection.

      • FirstCircle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Guns are LOUD. Much louder than you expect.

        Especially handguns. As a kid I’d shot lots of rifles including some beautiful .22s and the latter weren’t very loud. As an adult I picked up a .22 pistol and figured I’d go out in the woods and plink a little w/it. First shot … holy hell, WTF was that?? Yeah I got my hearing back but I’ve never pulled a trigger again w/o ear protection.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    What are they going to do in Canadian airspace? like… fly around? Can they do some tricks? Arent those jets mega expsnive to maintain and fly, and they are going to burn dollars by flying them around?

    Pretty weird behavior for an ally, but OK, whatever.

    Canada might think about halting lumber and oil shipments if they are too distracted by fighter jet noise to make work productivity goals. Those jets are loud and annoying. What then? Seems like trump will chicken out and walk back his childishness like he always does.

    Only winner here is Putin, same as always. What a coincidence.

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago
        1. Buying from America’s enemy sends a very different message. Just building your own missile looks like America’s vassal having pout; it’ll be used against NATO’s(read America’s) enemies anyway, essentially doing what Trump asked all NATO members and increasing their contribution to America’s sphere, for free. Cozying up to the other superpower signals that Canada is actually prepared to break it off if the US doesn’t cut yall a better deal.

        2. Does Canada have the kind of military aerospace background to speedrun a program like that? Genuinely don’t know.

        3. Do you think you can build it cheaper than the Chinese will sell it to you? Even if you had all the production documents, you can’t just replicate the half century of central planning that lead to cheap material, tooling, labor, engineering knowledge, etc that makes manufacturing in China so cheap.

        • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago
          1. Going from supplicant to one abusive superpower to another sends the wrong message. Carney’s Davos speech spelled it out for you.

          2. Yes. We have virtually all the skills, expertise and knowhow with a few notable exceptions. (Submarines, we could build them but at great cost and a learning curve.) We could build nukes in a year if we wanted to. The delivery system would take longer than the payload, but we could do that too.

          3. Chinese goods are cheap because market function and the profit motive was not of central concern, neither human rights, labour rights or environmental rights. Your claim of “cheap” is badly distorted. There were costs born by the Chinese peoples across each of these domains that don’t show up on an invoice, but the bill always comes due and is paid in full. Your definition of “cheap” is a perversion of full cost accounting to suit a narrative.

          • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            one abusive superpower to another

            So don’t put yourself into a situation where either can force abusive terms on you, not that China’s terms have been abusive, as evidenced by the development of countries who take chinese loans vs the eternal “developing” of countries which accept western “help”. I’m not even advocating entering China’s sphere, just having the threat available that the US can’t push any terms with no fear of consequences.

            Chinese goods are cheap because market function and the profit motive was not of central concern

            Correct, building the means of production was. Now they’ve done that, one unit of labor goes a lot further when you’re regularly setting up complex, automated assembly lines in days. If market function was the central concern, China would look like India or Africa; still exporting cheap resources and labor while your own people starve.

            human rights, labour rights or environmental rights

            Maybe 25 years ago when they had children working in machine presses and rivers that turned funny colors, it’s a different country now.

            We could build nukes in a year

            I don’t know if anyone’s ever set up plutonium extraction and refinement that quickly, even if you had design documents for the nuke itself.

          • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Do you think it could have been bribery? Lockheed and Boeing have a history of doing so, both legally and illegally. That time a porn-star 9/11’d a yakuza’s kitchen was revenge for this.

          • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago
            1. We still do. That was a nascent effort, not some built up military industrial complex and it stil exceeded all rivals at the time.

            2. Why? Being a supplicant to a bully.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Or just work with MBDA and Thales to set up a domestic production lines for Meteor and SAMP/T. And then collaborate with Europe more on aerospace and defense. And then make some deals with Korea and Poland for some of their hardware that they’re currently churning out. And then set up a joint production and rapid iteration project with Ukraine, since they’re essentially the best in the world at that shit these days. And then talk to France, Germany, Sweden, and/or Japan about getting some attack subs and perhaps SSGNs.

        There’s lots of possibilities once you free yourself from the economic yoke of the US. We did kinda wreck your defense aerospace industry (the Avro Arrow was the absolute tits, and it’s a damn shame we crushed the project). But now’s a great time to reinvest in that stuff.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Korea, Japan

          The US commands Korea’s military. Japan literally sacrificed their own economy to prop up the US in the 80s. You can’t achieve sovereignty from the US by making deals with other vassals, because the US can simply lean on them if they don’t like it.

          Europe

          I don’t see Europe becoming more independent at this point given 30 years of liberalism hollowing out their industry and welfare state while supporting US foreign policy unconditionally.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The US does not command Korea’s military. They’re a large contributor to SK defense posture, sure, but Korea is a major economic powerhouse in its own right (see: chip foundries), builds their own AEGIS-parity ships - and generally have some of the most advanced and productive shipyards in the world - and the largest standing army in the world at 3.6M active personnel. They have a thriving international military arms trade in terrestrial units and munitions (see: Poland). They are also beginning to roll out an indigenously produced 5th gen fighter, amongst many other interesting technological and military products and advancements.

            Getting absolutely stomped twice in rapid succession (by Imperial Japan - saved by the fall of Imperial Japan; by NK - saved by UN (though primarily US) intervention) tends to focus one’s priorities on defense.

            Also, strategically speaking, their huge chip foundries are an incentives for allies to pitch in, for the same reason Taiwan’s chip industry is a huge incentive for allies to pitch in - the entire rest of the economic world basically revolves around what they can make. And nobody wants their economy to crash, so there’d be a lot of assistance for SK if NK (or anyone else) decided to try to wreck them again.

            Japan is to some degree in the same boat - though I dare say if the US pulls back from allies in east Asia, I do think there’s a good chance they’d set aside some of the historical animosity out of sheer pragmatism and the potential for mutual defense (a fringe benefit of being involved in the US-centric arms pipeline for so long is implicit system compatibility - if not direct, then much easier to adapt and modify for compatibility).

            As to Europe: we’ll see how that goes. The EU seems to be partially waking up and taking things more seriously, but they’re also for the most part world fucking champions at bureaucracy-ing themselves to death. At the same time, the Brits and French have nukes, which, if they actually fully commit to continental defense (and if nukes proliferate more), is a bit of a trump (no relation) card.

            • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              The US does not command Korea’s military

              The US takes control at will during times of war, as determined by the US, and the exercises occur with the US in command. The difference between this and the US commanding SK forces all the time is not meaningful.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Isn’t that similar to the shit that got Turkey kicked out of the F35 program?

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, except Russia instead of China.

        To what extent it was the US sending other countries a message “Buy American or else” vs “We think you’ll let the radar systems send data on F-35s to Russia”, we don’t know, but if the second was a genuine concern, all the better for keeping F-35s away from your airspace.

        IDK if it was the second tho, since the US flies F-35s near the North Korean border every spring, and if Russia wanted radar data, they’d just give one to the DPRK.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Lol, F-35s are in maintenance most of the time, we can use our new made in Canada gripens to patrol the sky while the F-35s wait for parts on the unreliable piece of shit. They can only fly 50% of the time, lol.

    The future is electronics warfare packages, not stealth.

    • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The future is electronics warfare packages, not stealth.

      The fact that you’re talking about the F35 and you said this kinda suggests that you don’t actually know much about the F35.