[quote]yeah, we should keep sending our troops out there with equipment from the 1960’s, and hope that they are smart (lucky) enough to stay alive …
[/quote]
So what? The US military has planes and other military equipment in service dating back from the 1950’s. So do many other countries.
I doubt such vintage equipment is the backbone of their armed forces. Furthermore, some equipment, though old, is still effective.
In Canada, however, our old equipment isn’t just old equipment - it’s junk! And in some cases we simply don’t have the equipment.
Yeah, a 60 year old ship might be refit, but we’ve got helos falling out of the sky. They do need new gear.
[quote=“Dangermouse”][quote]yeah, we should keep sending our troops out there with equipment from the 1960’s, and hope that they are smart (lucky) enough to stay alive …
[/quote]
So what? The US military has planes and other military equipment in service dating back from the 1950’s. So do many other countries.[/quote]
that’s pretty much all they’ve got.
you’re not going to try to tell me that the US is fighting in iraq with a majorty of stuff from the 60’s … a recent TIME article mentioned that US soldiers were (rightfully) complaining about having stuff that’s 10-15 years old, because it was leading to a higher number of deaths.
Another interesting article on the lack of helicopters with the Canadian forces in Afghanistan. Even with the new spending, it will take up to a year to train the pilots etc. The Liberal Party of Canada’s color is red. Unfortunately, because of Liberal stinginess in regards to helicopter purchases under Chretien in the 90s, more red will be seen. Even the Dutch are armed better than the Canadians.
[quote=“CanWest News”]
WOLVERINE, AFGHANISTAN - Every suicide bomber and every improvised bomb that the Taliban has aimed at a Canadian resupply convoy underscores the point. Canada’s Achilles heel in Afghanistan has been its lack of a robust helicopter to move supplies and troops by air.
The U.S. Army has a dozen bus-sized twin-rotor Chinook choppers in Kandahar. Every day, the air crew of the Kansas-based 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment – the Spartans – moves more than 10 tonnes of cargo and hundreds of troops to and between austere U.S. forward operating bases such as FOB Wolverine, a dusty patch of nothing about an hour’s flight north of Kandahar.
The Spartans’ commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Walt Bradley, was unequivocal. His Chinooks save lives.
“By flying resupply for our troops, we are staying off the roads, avoiding ambushes and suicide bombers, not having breakdowns or hitting IEDs (improvised explosive devices),” said the 55-year-old reservist, in civilian life President George W. Bush’s appointee as the U.S. marshal for the District of Kansas. “By virtue of taking everyone out of harm’s way, we save lives. It removes danger from the equation.”
Canada has no rotor aircraft capable of flying in the extreme heat and mountains of Afghanistan after years of questionable helicopter decisions in Ottawa, such as when the Chretien government aborted the purchase of the EH-101, which cost half a billion dollars in penalties – the price of about 40 Chinooks.
As a result, frontline combat troops with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry fighting in the neighbouring province of Kandahar have been resupplied mostly by convoys that run a daily gauntlet of land mines, improvised explosives and suicide bombers.
That shortcoming may begin to be resolved with a government announcement, expected this week, of the purchase of more than a dozen Chinook CH-47 refurbished D or new F models. However, to get the choppers online will take time. Aside from jostling for priority places for aircraft in the Boeing assembly line, it will take pilots a few months and avionics specialists up to a year to be fully trained on the aircraft.
Getting water, food and ammunition overland to combat troops can be a grim business. Four Canadians have died while on convoy duty here this year.
Canada’s helicopter problems were brought into sharp focus again last week when two convoys struck roadside bombs left by the Taliban and another patrol was targeted by a suicide bomber.
The U.S. Army has more than 400 Chinooks, which are based on a Vietnam-era airframe. With demand for them high here and in Iraq, it also has more than 400 modernized or new Chinooks on order.
That Canada has no helicopters in Afghanistan is a fact that its main allies in southeastern Afghanistan – the Americans, British, Dutch and Australians, who all have Chinooks here – find odd. A senior coalition officer said last week he was astonished that a country of Canada’s wealth and size had not bought any military transport helicopters for its domestic needs, let alone for when its troops went to war. [/quote]
I remember a training film I saw as a recruit in basic training back in 1983. There was a part where a wounded soldier was put on a helicopter and flown off the battlefield. “By the way,” we were told, “this is an American film. Don’t think for one moment you’d be flown out on a helicopter. If you’re wounded, you’ll be left behind.”
For Christ’s sake, things were better back in WW2. At least then we had stretcher-bearers to carry you off the battlefield.
Unfortunately this is not ‘new’ news.
From a 2003 report:
[quote]September 2003 -
Canadian Forces make the cover of Jane’s Defence Weekly: Worst-managed Forces in the Western World? (Part 2)[/quote]
It was my personal experience in dealing with helicopter operators in Canada, who were using surplus US Military and former Canadian military helicopters for timber hauling and fire fighting that all technical manuals, which were used for MRO - Maintenance, Repaor and Overhaul on all aspects of the helcopters, were controlled by one woman in Ottawa. She was near impossible to contact, was extremely rude and was vocally anti-military in every way, shape and form.
As might be imagined a lot of a/c (aircraft) went into permanent grounded status due to this single persons attitude and antics.
This affected not just the military and their helo’s, it also affected the timber hauling and fire fighting a/c in Canada.
Any guesses as to her political party?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”] She was near impossible to contact, was extremely rude and was vocally anti-military in every way, shape and form.
Any guesses as to her political party?[/quote]
You get a lot of these types of girls in Ottawa. Eastern establishment princesses full of anti-Americanism and against the military and police forces of any country. Hell, 80 percent of Canadian Forumosans are the bloody same! Considering the far-left slant of Canada’s universities and of the CBC, I am not surprised you had bad experiences dealing with such a woman on the phone. Ottawa can be a pretty parochial place. In fact, the best thing about Ottawa is the road to Montreal.
However, it is scary that such a girl is in a position of power. I would guess Liberal red or NDP orange are her colors of choice. Maybe even the Green or Marijuana Party.
In my opinion, when it comes to these sort of government jobs, Canada is not a meritocracy. Mulroney was "spot on’ when he mentioned Ottawa, whores, and patronage appointments in the same sentence.
[quote=“Cyberguerrilla”]Well, looks like the US pretty much tells Canada what to do now that there’s a Conservative government in power.
cbc.ca/story/canada/national … 62006.html
[quote]Ottawa will announce $15 billion in new spending on the Canadian military next week, CBC News has learned.
The country’s aging Hercules fleet will be replaced. (Canadian Press) A report by SRC, the CBC’s French language service, says the spending spree will be “Christmas in June for the Canadian Forces.” [/quote]
I know it’s not the $3 Trillion that the US has spent, but $15 billion is a lot of money for us Canadians.
:help:[/quote]
I think others have said as much, but the spending increase is long overdue and badly needed. The increase, while not chump change, is not excessive. I support it and I think a majority of Canadians-- left, right and centrist-- agree it’s necessary. Like it or not Canada has a military and a role in overseas affairs. People in the armed forces deserve adequate equipment.
Ya thinkÉ. Maybe you should put up a poll
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
…full of anti-Americanism and against the military and police forces of any country. Hell, 80 percent of Canadian Forumosans are the bloody same!
[/quote]
Ya thinkÉ. Maybe you should put up a poll[/quote]
That should be Ya think (question mark). For some reason, my slash- question mark key has started producing an e` with an accent aigu. Anyone have experience with this É
Don’t speak for me, Chewycorns…Make the poll and see…maybe you’re right…
I had a conversation with a Canadian last night who was “shocked” that the terrorists would be targeting Canada. When I probed her, she responded that well, it is perfectly understandable why they would be after Americans but Canadians?! I mean after everything Canada has done for these people?! How could they attack Canada! It looks like this attitude is prominent among various European nations as well. I guess we will all have to wait until we have to face our own 911s before we realize that the threat posed by Islamofascism is not a rational one that can be “negotiated” with or “understood” and until then, we are not going to be as united as we need to be. I have every confidence, however, that as the US becomes more of a hard target that these terrorists will begin to look to softer targets such as Canada or Germany or Austria or Belgium to keep their attacks in the news. ONLY after they have occurred though will the people of some of these nations actually wake from their slumbers and that is the true tragedy.
and…
[quote]Navy asks boaters to be on lookout for wayward torpedo
Frank Luba, The Province
Published: Monday, June 26, 2006
If you find a fibreglass pole about three metres long and one-third of a metre in diameter with a large orange-yellow band around it, please call the navy.
It is a training torpedo, which a frigate lost while practising in January off Victoria.
"We fired a practice torpedo, which is an inert object, and it
didn’t come back to the surface," said Lt.-Cmdr. Gerry Pash of Maritime Forces Pacific Headquarters in Victoria.
"We’re going to go and look for it.
“It’s well marked. It says ‘property of . . .’ and all those things.”(more at link)
The Province[/quote]
I wish them good luck!
3.4 billion of FOUR planes? Damn, that’s a lot of money.
There’s been an argument over whether or not they’re needed, as they can be rented, but owning them outright sounds a whole lot smarter to me.
[quote=“CBC”]The federal government will announce Friday that it has reached a multibillion-dollar deal with Boeing Corp. to buy new military cargo planes, CBC News has learned.
[b]In June, the government set aside $3.4 billion for four C-17 Globemaster transport planes, which can carry tanks, soldiers and large equipment around the world without stopping.
While the airplanes would be built in the U.S., the federal deal hinges on Boeing pledging to spend an amount equal to the purchase price on projects in Canada[/b], which pitted Manitoba and Quebec against each other to get a large share of the benefits.[/quote]
That is precisely why we WON’T get a terrorist attack in Canada. They’ll just keep breeding, setting up training camps, building radical mosques for their radical imams to preach in. By the time they’ve converted all of our “good” muslims to their side, they won’t need to attack us, we’ll be outnumbered and they can just vote in their Sharia laws and make all our women wear the hijab. Why should they wake us up with a terrorist attack? We’re an easier target while we’re sleeping.
[quote=“Jaboney”]3.4 billion of FOUR planes? Damn, that’s a lot of money.
There’s been an argument over whether or not they’re needed, as they can be rented, but owning them outright sounds a whole lot smarter to me.
[quote=“CBC”]The federal government will announce Friday that it has reached a multibillion-dollar deal with Boeing Corp. to buy new military cargo planes, CBC News has learned.
In June, the government set aside $3.4 billion for four C-17 Globemaster transport planes, which can carry tanks, soldiers and large equipment around the world without stopping.
While the airplanes would be built in the U.S., the federal deal hinges on Boeing pledging to spend an amount equal to the purchase price on projects in Canada, which pitted Manitoba and Quebec against each other to get a large share of the benefits.[/quote][/quote]
DSCA release notice of sale:
Washington, September 14, 2006
dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/3 … _06-57.pdf
Boeing announcement of sale:
Boeing and Canada Sign Deal for Four C-17s
ST. LOUIS, Feb. 02, 2007
boeing.com/news/releases/200 … 2d_nr.html
“In addition to the 160 C-17s now in service with the U.S. Air Force, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force operates four C-17s, and the Royal Australian Air Force in late 2006 took delivery of its first of four C-17s. With today’s announcement, Canada will become the fourth nation to operate C-17s.”
Good summary here at Defense Industry Daily:
Canada Joining the Anglosphere C-17 Club
Canadian National Defence and the Canadian Forces announcement terms of contract requirement in last 3 paragraphs.
Industry opinion is Canada is playing catch-up too little and too late.
Here is an example of the superior logic that went into Canada’s decision:
sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-4.htm
Remeber the final decision.
