herbie herbie:
You just mentioned three items we have no need of. They're still the world's largest arsenal to choose from. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't look elsewhere.
I'm just reacting to things like if you need a Jeep, why not buy a damn $20,000 Jeep and modify it for another $10,000? Why build a factory to make a handful for $250,00 each? Why buy a G-wagon when half the kids on my block have more capable toys just for fun?
We don't have a base in Germany like in the Cold War. Do we even need tanks? Do we need more than frigates and patrol boats?
Come out with a comprehensive policy, let the public accept it and do it.
No, we need all three of the things I mentioned. I agree we don't need hundreds of tanks, but it does make sense to retain an armoured capability, which is why they bought the latest Leopard 2s a few years back, which are as good if not better than the Abrams (lots of discussion on the Internet which is better actually ).
And if we plan on using our fancy new Chinooks anywhere dangerous (like we did in Afghanistan), then we need gunships to protect them - and the half-baked Griffon choppers are not a suitable aircraft due to its range, weak weaponry and lack of armour.
We most certainly need destroyers, but our destroyer needs are very different from the Americans, who have specialized cruisers and destroyers to provide long range SAM protection and carriers for command and control of task groups. OTOH, we need a solid multi-mission ship capable of all those functions, as well some ASW ability.
I agree that 'Canadianizing' everything costs extra, but our needs are very different from most of our allies. The US, UK and France need large robust ships to fulfill their blue water missions, while most other countries in NATO opt for smaller vessels aimed largely at coastal patrol/protection. Canada with the world's longest coastline is in a different category than all of them.
Active Member 
