this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
418 points (99.8% liked)

Canada

9448 readers
1153 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 53 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Australia wants the submarine contract cancelled as well

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/video/federal-government-facing-renewed-push-to-scrap-aukus-nuclear-powered-submarine-deal/3cdggmk8o

I think we're all trying to get away from the US at the moment

[–] eatCasserole@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As we should. The US empire is collapsing, and even when they weren't collapsing, they don't really see any of us as "allies", we're either useful to them, or not. They've never done "loyalty".

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We should be thanking Trump. He's so undisciplined, uncouth, uneducated that he talks like an 8th grade dropout mafia wannabe. However, that is much more representative of average America than the usual Presidents. He says all the quiet parts out loud. The US has been the biggest bully in the world since the end of WWII and uses every allied nation to prop up and enrich their own. For the past decades they have been masking it through a veil of diplomacy. But not Trump. He tells it as it is. Problem for the USA is that he thinks that is good and that America is a great nation that all others worship. Maybe under his government, the rest of the world will be freed from the US.

[–] eatCasserole@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I like the story I heard about someone's Chinese evangelical uncle who thinks trump was chosen by God...as part of a larger plan to destroy the United States.

I'm not religious at all, but this God sound pretty cool 😋

[–] radiohead37@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

France couldn’t be happier.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

They'll add a 25% "Welcome back, assholes" fee to the new contract

[–] sndmn@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just when the majority of wealthy western countries have realized the need to vastly increase defence spending, the world's largest arms exporter has cock blocked themselves. Very Sad.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 week ago (5 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] radiohead37@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Thank you for clarifying. Now it makes sense.

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It's actually correct grammar. Numbers under 10 like six are spelled out, and numbers over 10 are written as numbers. English is dumb sometimes. Edit: at least for publishing.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

English is dumb most of the time, what is that b doing at the end of the word dumb?

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

I totally get that. It just annoyed me lol

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

I think it depends on the style guide used.

Some say to use words for single digit numbers and numerals for the rest (including 10).

But I like the consistency in you're suggestion.

[–] hydration9806@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Si6 in 1en.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Only 6? You'd think that would be an easy knee-jerk answer. I don't believe for a second many of the remaining 4 had a strong opinion on the necessity of stealth for survivability in a modern combat environment.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd guess 2-3 of the 4 are sunk cost fallacy, and rest are Trumpers

[–] Grabthar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Or they know the state of the current airframes, and know we've already waffled on this to the point that any further changes are going to cause a delay that would result in a loss in operational capability, potentially for years. As much as I'd like to see us drop the F-35 on general principal, there is no magical fighter jet dealership where we can go pick something else up in any reasonable timeframe. We could accept the first batch and try cancelling the rest, to be replaced at some future date with something else, but for a small airforce like the RCAF, that presents operational challenges as well. I'd say renegotiate the deal. Get more jobs and a skilled workforce out of it. Lockheed is already offering, given the global drop in demand for their products. But for future purchases, we're either going to have to make our own or buy European.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s possible some of them also remember the decades long process of entering the multinational program, spending billions, pulling out because it was to expensive, then spending billions more re-entering when the Canadian air force could not find any aircraft near as capable as the F35 and even those less capable aircraft coat significantly more than the F35.

The end result of this is that Canada has so far spent enough to upgrade nearly the entire military, but not actually gotten anything at all out of it.

Now personally I lean towards joining the Japanese 6th gen project (they’ve also been burned by the Americans) and just accepting that Canada won’t have a combat effective military for another 15 years or so, but I can understand why many Canadians might not want to accept a temporarily (or permanently if it commits to 5th gen) weaker and more expensive RCAF just to spite Putin’s bitch in D.C.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, if there's some payoff coming or starting over is actually just as expensive, sometimes a sunk cost is worth considering.

Why not the Gripen?

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

I believe the main reasons Gripen was rejected by the 2022 report was lack of any Stealth capability, rarer among allies, and higher cost. Practically, while the Gripen is a pretty good 4th gen aircraft, non-stealth aircraft really arn’t capible of combating any airforce with stealth aircraft, and so Canada would be pretty much limited to only fighting Russia or smaller regional powers, and no small part of Canada’s NATO focus is on deterrence in Asia, where Gripen can’t really do much.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] radiohead37@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

America first is America alone.

[–] BinzyBoi@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Fucking good. Trudeau made a campaign promise not to go through with purchasing those F-35 planes to begin with and went ahead with it anyway. The deal should have been off the table to begin with, especially with the shit build quality these things have for the insane price point they have.

All that money could be put towards lifting up our fellow Canadians in homelessness and addictions treatment, especially those who are indigenous.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

especially with the shit build quality these things have for the insane price point they have.

Eh, the cost isn't incomparable to other fighters, and they're way way more maintainable and rugged than older stealth aircraft. It's just that they're pretty tied to America.

[–] BinzyBoi@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is that the case? I've been hearing a lot about how unreliable the F-35s have been with it being hard to even get them off the ground half the time due to the maintenance needed on them.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’ve been hearing a lot about how unreliable the F-35s have been with it being hard to even get them off the ground half the time due to the maintenance needed on them.

The F-35 requires roughly the same amount of mmh / fh as the Gripen, exclusive of engine and air-frame. What's been hampering the readiness rate of the F-35, which is below that of the Gripen, is the lack of maintenance depots. This was always going to happen because Lockheed planned from the beginning to sell the planes first and build the maintenance depots later. The F-35 sold so well that it outstripped the capacity to build the maintenance depots which created a lack of on-hand parts and technicians. This is turning around and readiness rates are improving as Lockheed slowly gets caught creating maintenance yards.

The Gripen has lower sales (that's not a knock on it) which made it easier for Saab to keep up on the maintenance side. They also try to get maintenance depots setup simultaneous with deliveries. IMO they've done a better job of managing things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

F35 is a terrible plane. Requires Lockheed consultants to maintain, even for US military, which is expensive. No manuals are provided with plane. Requires permission to turn on the electronics for every flight. Has lower flight time/readiness than any other western aircraft. No actual Canadian mission requires a bombing focused air fighter. Only middle east type force amplification from static airbases (not aircraft carrier capable). Pure BS of defending Arctic from complete non threat in next 30 years is a mission for navy, missiles and drones that have longer lives and much cheaper, and better at bombing focused missions.

We need to get a refund for the crap we bought already, or sell them to a sucker like KSA, or US enemy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Tm12@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right to repair should be our main concern. If we can’t repair our own shit, we won’t get very far.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Second place in the competition for this purchase was the SAAB Gripen which involved building/assembling in Canada. A much better return on investment, and provides some domestic capability.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The US navy could destroy an airforce 10x our size and there is no way to change that in the short term, especially by giving the US money. We should not be investing in conventional warfare.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There's a strong argument for this. Especially if we don't get a new alliance going with European governments soon.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] match@pawb.social 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

yeah! those warp lanes are damaging the Hekaras Corridor! traffic needs to be kept below warp 5 or we risk a catastrophic subspace rift

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Start producing our own jets. A modern Avro arrow.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pleasegoaway@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

Trump said just the other day that the US should remove some features from the jets they sell to other countries, because we might be at war with them someday.

[–] ninthant@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Who are the other 4, I mean seriously?

They are openly bragging about how they will deliver crippled planes in case they decide to attack them later.

This should be 100% of Canadians. I can only hope a large chunk of the 38% are just completely ignorant about current events

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago

1 in one of me hate the different ways to write a number in this title

load more comments
view more: next ›