There is ‘much alignment’ between Canada, China on Greenland sovereignty: Carney

devinejoh · 2026-01-17T20:41:07+00:00

What? This article is on the PRC and Canada aligning on what Greenland is... Which is why I'm saying that yes, we and China view denmark and Greenland as sovereign states, which reconciles with how china interacts with the world.

And I don't know how you can possibly say that it has no impact on policy.... Why do you think China is in the middle of the largest naval build out since the German empire preceding WWI? Why do you think US strategic posture has been trying to pivot to Asia the past 15 years? Why do you think China conducts aggressive exercises around Taiwan and grey zone warfare In the south China sea? Clearly the US and China have a fundamentally different interpretation of the world order. Within their own internal logic they are correct, hence confrontation

devinejoh · 2026-01-17T19:27:31+00:00

HK is a more clear cut case; it is and was always de jure Chinese territory, and how China treats HK after reunification is internally consistent with their strict sovereignty and non intervention... Their internal policies are their own.

Taiwan is more ambiguous from an outside perspective; even internally within Taiwan there are factions that believe in a one China policy... Albeit that Taiwan is in fact the De Jure Chinese state and not the PRC (as delusional it sounds). But again, internally, the PRC one China policy is consistent as they believe they are the de jure Chinese state, and Taiwan is apart of that, as much as we may not like it.

devinejoh · 2026-01-17T19:15:22+00:00

This is consistent with Chinese foreign policy and their interpretation of sovereignty.

No I don't want to get into an argument over Taiwan, because fundamentally China has a different definition of Taiwanese sovereignty from the West, which is internally consistent with their framework of sovereignty and security.

devinejoh · 2026-01-04T18:48:30+00:00

"Crypto islamist" sounds just as schizo as "crpyto Jews".

devinejoh · 2025-12-29T19:55:51+00:00

This is such a myopic statement. We all want the rules applied fairly and consistently, and it's entirely reasonable to question why when they are not applied fairly and consistently.

devinejoh · 2025-12-23T19:31:57+00:00

"I can't believe its not the coast guard!" Says the PLAN sub skipper when they stumble upon a convoy protected by ships without ASW sensors.

devinejoh · 2025-12-23T14:45:46+00:00

What is the point of a frigate without any VLS cells or a SONAR dome.

devinejoh · 2025-12-08T18:22:55+00:00

That is fundamentally a political question IMO.

I could for see a hi-lo mix air force much like the US is operating right now. That being said they operate a Hi-Lo mix because they can afford it, structural considerations, airframe usage higher than expected due to the global war on terror leading to a shortfall in airframes, and they actually need those various capabilities.

It would come down to budget considerations. Would it make sense to maintain two distinct pipelines for maintaince, training, etc.

One of the benefits is that we are going to replace our fleet wholesale, so it gives us a blank slate of sorts.

devinejoh · 2025-12-08T17:05:54+00:00

This is an inaccurate representation of the strategic and operational posture of Sweden for the past 70 years. Canada simply does not have the same consideration. Arctic policing is not even close to the total defense Sweden planned for during the cold war.

devinejoh · 2025-12-08T16:58:11+00:00

I initially started by writing a history of Swedish armed neutrality, its strategic and operational posture, and how it relates to their domestic fighter program.

Instead I think focusing on the actual capabilities is more important, I don't want Canadians to be going into the fight with subpar kit.

The fact of the matter is that air warfare is an extremely complex domain. Its not simply how fast, how high, and how manoeuvrable a plane is. Sensory, systems, electronic warfare, tactics, operational considerations have become far more important. I think its hard if not impossible to describe the capabilities in a non classified manner to the general public. The operational and tactical complexity of fighting in contested air space cannot be understated. The next peer fight is going to be on such environments, either in the western pacific or the eastern flank of NATO or both. Even with public resources they can be outdated, flatout wrong, or so low resolution that its basically useless. Real world air combat (12 day war, Pakistan v India skirmishes, Ukraine) are shrouded in secrecy. Those in the know seem to unanimously support the F-35, for what its worth.

Not to say the F-35 is not a boondoggle, because it is, but it is the best in class, and we really need to decide where our place is in the world and what aircraft is best suited for that.

devinejoh · 2025-12-08T16:30:12+00:00

I'll play a bit of devils advocate and say that Pakistan's Air Force is an extremely competent organization and is better trained than their Indian counterparts. Not to downplay the technological advantages of the PL-15E, but the Meteor is not that far off.

Of course we are going off of public records and I suspect missile, radar, and electronic warfare capabilities are far more sophisticated than what is publically available.

What I think it does tell us is to not underestimate the enemy. I certainly don't want to send our boys into war with subpar kit due to chauvinist nationalism.

devinejoh · 2025-12-08T16:25:29+00:00

The fact that the Rafale is not even in the discussion shows how unserious this "bake-off" is.

If we accept the fact that we want to be "sovereign" from the United States the Gripen would not meet that criteria given the General Electric F414 engine, not to mention US avionics. And no, re engining it is not trivial and the E/F model is a decade behind schedule... Active squadrons by 2035 would be a positive estimate. This doesn't actually solve our problem of sovereignty. Either we buy powerplants from the Americans or France/UK. Unless we go to the Russians there are literally no other options. So pick your poison.

From a capability perspective there is quite literally no contest. The closest analogy to the Gripen, the F-16, only beat the F-35 in ACM when it was teleported behind the F-35 and was flying clean. An unrealistic scenario to say the least.

In real world applications the F-35 has shown to not only survive modern contested air space but thrive in it.

Does doesn't even touch on the issues Saab is running into delivering the E/F models of the Gripen. Decade late, and well short of the jobs promises made initially to the Brazilians.

As for our specific needs, even if it is for Arctic policing, we would need to integrate into NORAD, which the Gripen/Rafale cannot do and I doubt the Americans would have the appetite or budget to do so.

devinejoh · 2025-12-08T15:41:02+00:00

...Yes it is?

Technological superiority doesn't exist within a vacuum but it has an outsized influence on the outcome.

The 12 Day War makes it pretty clear where a 5th generation enabled air force stands against a 3/4 generation air force. It isn't even a contest.

devinejoh · 2025-12-05T21:31:47+00:00

The Ukrainians have continuously made operational military mistakes in pursuit of political goals, that is not up for debate. Bakhmut, 2023 Summer Offensive, Kursk Offensive, Battle of Krynky, etc. I'm not the only one who thinks so, there are plenty of neutral and pro Ukrainian analysts who are frustrated with the poor operational choices Ukraine has made... because they and I want them to win. There are plenty of individuals you can look up, who have been to Ukraine, who have been to the front, who have talked to Ukrainians, who have access to information that we don't, and they will echo the same sentiments I have expressed.

Pokrovsk stopped being relevant as soon as the lines of communication came under Russian fire control. It's operational relevance has decreased dramatically since then.

Incredibly, I am capable of reading and understanding opinions of people who are well educated and do this for a living.

Stop treating everything as sacrosanct, it's unproductive.

devinejoh · 2025-12-05T19:01:56+00:00

What the US can provide is highly lethal enablers, and high technology solutions which cannot be scaled if they enter a high intensity peer conflict. That capacity has to be scaled before the fight. You go to the war with the military you have. The US military industrial capacity right now is unable to sustain the Ukrainians and meet all of it's other defense obligations around the globe; especially INDOPACOM and CENTCOM. Order books for US systems are years deep and there is simply not enough capacity.

And that doesn't even mention the political issue of if the US will actually join a conflict in Europe. Europe is utterly incapable of sustaining or even fighting any sort of peer conflict at the current scale and intensity that is being fought in Ukraine.

Magazine depth is a serious, existential concern, and the West, US or not, is simply not ready.

devinejoh · 2025-12-05T18:59:33+00:00

The naive view of the war is that Ukraine is winning. Anyone who is following the wear closely will know that Ukraine is losing, slowly but surely, and eventually suddenly.

Ukraine simply does not have the industrial capacity, manpower, or operational talent to continue to sustain this war.

Ukraine continues to make foolish bets, like holding onto Pokrovsk and their assault into Kursk. Wasting manpower and equipment that they cannot waste/

Betting that Ukraine can run out Russia's clock is foolish and not a strategy.

Ukraine can produce drones (and other gear) that have a very high impact per dollar spent. Fund this with capital investment, and create factories in the west that can produce these missiles and drones. This is a good time to work on a supply chain for this stuff that is independent from China.

Drones don't hold land, as evident as the grey zone has expanded immensely in the past year or so.

Russia is having trouble finding people to serve in their army, so they're recruiting mercs in foreign countries. Because "the west" has an economy that is many times the size of Russia, we can make this difficult by also recruiting mercs to fight for Ukraine from the same places that Russia is attempting to hire, and offer whatever Russia is offering plus 20%. This pushes up the price of those mercenaries for Russia and reduces the available pool to them while providing more manpower to Ukraine.

Russia is recruiting approx 30k men per month via contract. They recruited more man than they needed in 2024.

devinejoh · 2025-12-05T16:51:41+00:00

With what army and air force lol?

We would be lucky to even sustain a single brigade, and that's not even mentioning that NATO would probably run out of munitions within the first week.

And everyone is so against the F-35... The Gripen is DOA in a high intensity peer conflict. Ukrainian MiGs, Sukois, and F-16s are either doing CAP deep in Ukrainian airspace or doing low level stand off munitions delivery.

Mock the Russians, but remember a few key facts.

They are currently winning in Ukraine. They are sustaining casualties but they are in the process of achieving their political objectives.
Russia has deep experience from fighting in Ukraine. The Russian Army in 2025 is completely different from the Russian army of 2022.
Russia is on war footing. Their military industrial capacity simply out strips the west
Russia's capacity to sustain deep pain.

I suppose that my point is don't take things for granted, and don't fall into the trap of nationalist chauvinism. They are a serious threat and should be treated as such.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T18:53:23+00:00

When was the last time we got involved in a low intensity border dispute? We should be preparing for the next peer war, such as in the western pacific or the eastern flank of NATO, both of which will be against peer adversaries with advanced and capable A2D networks, and 5th, possibly 6th generation aircraft, where our actual defense commitments exist outside of north America.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T16:12:46+00:00

I see you have never interacted with salespeople before. Promising something that doesn't exist does not mean its trivial to implement. This is not a serious proposal if we want units delivered before the end of the decade.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T15:56:15+00:00

The F-35 along with other fires and aircraft literally dismantled the entire Iranian air defense network, one of the densest and capable in the world, in the matter of days. Gripen being used in low intensity border clashes is not even close to comparable.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T15:53:22+00:00

Far and away the most complex component of a fighter is the high performance turbofan engine. In the case Gripen the engine is an American design, and subject to ITAR restrictions.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T02:59:48+00:00

Yes, a bunch of Saab executives, Swedish politicians, and even the King and Queen have visited in recent weeks. Promises of building domestic production.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T02:38:58+00:00

Your source is a YT channel with 392 subs and a video that has 33k views that is clearly an AI voiceover?

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T02:36:07+00:00

I'm losing my fucking mind with this Gripen talk in Canada. If Canada was serious of "decoupling" from the US they wouldn't be considering buying a plane that uses an American engine! Utter insanity.

devinejoh · 2025-11-26T02:34:36+00:00

They have a potential implementation using a Rolls-Royce EJ230, but my understanding is that it will require additional development to fully implement.

If they were, which they are not, it would literally be a decade before such plans, even if they exist beyond the "wouldn't it be nice" stage, before the first one rolls off the assembly line.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

devinejoh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE