And the balloon is down ... https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-response-china-spy-balloon-1.6737412
|
|
|
Canada and the World
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,626
- Reaction score
- 25,360
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
It will be interesting to see, if we ever hear about it again, if it was a spy balloon or a weather balloon or if it escaped from a kids party!
There is apparently a second one still up; it was over Latin America.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Huzzah! It might be the first air-to-air 'kill' for an F-22. Some airframe is going to get a balloon decal under the cockpit.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/F74YZRSWWRPFZNYOTX7BUDUBX4.jpg)
Canada deploys military aircraft over Haiti to disrupt gangs
The Canadian government said on Sunday it deployed a military aircraft over Haiti to address what it called a "dire security situation" and to support efforts to disrupt the activities of Haitian gangs.
www.reuters.com
kEiThZ
Superstar
Canadian Army fast-tracking purchase of air defence, anti-tank missiles and counter-drone gear
In addition, the army will buy a counter-drone system to be used for Operation Reassurance, the Canadian Forces mission in eastern Europe, according to the Feb. 3 briefing obtained by this newspaper.
ottawacitizen.com
lenaitch
Senior Member
It's amazing what the government and its procurement system can accomplish when it gets out of its own way. So long as the purchases are founded on researched military requirements and not Boxing Day morning at Best Buy it will be good.Canadian Army fast-tracking purchase of air defence, anti-tank missiles and counter-drone gear
In addition, the army will buy a counter-drone system to be used for Operation Reassurance, the Canadian Forces mission in eastern Europe, according to the Feb. 3 briefing obtained by this newspaper.
kEiThZ
Superstar
A lot of Canadians just don't get this. Recency bias plays a role. We've enjoyed all the benefits of trade with the US without have to contribute significantly to the continental security umbrella and to the global security order. Many Canadians assume this will be equally true in the future, even as the US becomes a lot more assertive on tying trade to national security. A trend which has not receeded in the changeover from Trump to Biden. See AUKUS implications on sharing leading edge technology intellectual property as an example.
kEiThZ
Superstar
kEiThZ
Superstar
Canadian military says it has tracked, stopped China surveillance in Arctic waters
Defence Minister Anita Anand said Wednesday that the Canadian federal government is aware of buoys recovered from Arctic waters, and that this type of activity is not new.
lenaitch
Senior Member
The first question that popped into my mind was 'how did they get there'? Drift on the currents (like balloons)? Deployed by a Chinese commercial or 'scientific' vessel 'innocently' in the area? People need to remember that every Chinese citizen, entity and company is legally an agent of the state.Canadian military says it has tracked, stopped China surveillance in Arctic waters
Defence Minister Anita Anand said Wednesday that the Canadian federal government is aware of buoys recovered from Arctic waters, and that this type of activity is not new.www.ctvnews.ca
kEiThZ
Superstar
I wouldn't be as suspicious of some Chinese national working at a random company deploying buoys. More than likely deployed covertly by Chinese military or other state assets. Possibly from a distance and allowed to drift in.
But this has all been happening for a while. The government is just a bit more vocal and public about it. So the public actually starts to understand why we need to make more investments in defence.
But this has all been happening for a while. The government is just a bit more vocal and public about it. So the public actually starts to understand why we need to make more investments in defence.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Zero chance this happens without building a credible expeditionary force. And there's a massive gap between current plans and the price of membership into that club. It's also about a lot more than just military spending. We'd need to up intelligence and diplomatic spending. And we'd have to align with allies on issues like relations with China. This is difficult given that the left in this country changes at tighter alignment with the US and UK. And the right has commodity exporters as their base who want to grow exports to China.
Why? There's no threat of a land invasion in the Arctic. When it comes to surveillance of the Arctic we do a decent job between the navy, air force and Rangers. And as a quick response force we have CSOR. What more is needed?
I can see an argument for reforming our three light infantry battalions into a single high readiness air assault brigade, akin to the British Army 16th Air Assault BCT. But this requires a commitment to developing such a capability. That means things like attack helicopters.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Whether or not Canada needs main battle tanks is outside of my lane but whatever direction is taken needs to be part of an comprehensive doctrine.
Maintaining heavy armour could contribute to our NATO commitment but in order to be useful should probably be pre-positioned. We simple don't have the air or sea lift to get them there in any numbers in a timely matter should a need suddenly arise. Like most small members, we simply can't contribute an all-signin'/all dancin' fighting force and filling needs and gaps might be the way to go. What I don't support, as some suggest, is emphasizing lift and logistical support at the expense of combat arms. As far s I'm concerned that is the coward's way out. I'm sure the other members would take note that we provide a very efficient way of repatriating their fallen.
As far as the arctic, I think there is merit in being able to operate in austere terrain with little to no infrastructure. Some might argue that this shouldn't be the military, but most of the arctic is federal territory and no other agency strikes me as appropriate. This could also contribute to NATO's northern flank.
Maintaining heavy armour could contribute to our NATO commitment but in order to be useful should probably be pre-positioned. We simple don't have the air or sea lift to get them there in any numbers in a timely matter should a need suddenly arise. Like most small members, we simply can't contribute an all-signin'/all dancin' fighting force and filling needs and gaps might be the way to go. What I don't support, as some suggest, is emphasizing lift and logistical support at the expense of combat arms. As far s I'm concerned that is the coward's way out. I'm sure the other members would take note that we provide a very efficient way of repatriating their fallen.
As far as the arctic, I think there is merit in being able to operate in austere terrain with little to no infrastructure. Some might argue that this shouldn't be the military, but most of the arctic is federal territory and no other agency strikes me as appropriate. This could also contribute to NATO's northern flank.