Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force  
User currently onlineghYHZ From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 261 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8699 times:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is to announce the renaming tomorrow to: Royal Canadian Air Force.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...canadian-forces-names.html?ref=rss

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8672 times:

Long overdue. Unification was terrible for all of the services involved as it practically destroyed the identities of the 3 branches.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8658 times:

This is a great day for Canada and her armed forces. The RCAF and RCN have a proud history. The unified CAF was fine but confusing to other nation's military forces. In Canada, as in the US and other nations, politicians like to experiment with their military forces for social programs. That is not why you have a military force. You have it to defend yourselves and the military's sole role is to kill people and break things.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8628 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
In Canada, as in the US and other nations, politicians like to experiment with their military forces for social programs. That is not why you have a military force. You have it to defend yourselves and the military's sole role is to kill people and break things.

Negative. The mission of any military force is to attempt to achieve goals set for them by the civilian politicians, be it fighting floods or another armed force.

I personally see no point in going back to RCAF and RCN. I think the ex-military types and/or wannabees frequenting this section are somewhat too hidebound vis a vis 'tradition'. Make new ones, it's the 21st century.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinespectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8598 times:

I wonder if they will also revert to the old Commonwealth-style rank structure for the RCAF?

User currently offlineCYQL From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 86 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8531 times:

As a former CF member, I would rather see the money spent on new equipment.

The Snowbirds need a replacement aircraft. The Tutor is a great aircraft, I spent six years working on them, but since we have replaced it with the Harvard II and Hawk, we should be using one of them for the Snowbirds.

I remember back in the mid eighties when they gave us our blue uniforms, most of us would of rather had a pay raise.


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
...the US and other nations, politicians like to experiment with their military forces for social programs. That is not why you have a military force.

Like integrating the "Negroes"?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Negative. The mission of any military force is to attempt to achieve goals set for them by the civilian politicians, be it fighting floods or another armed force.

  



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8472 times:

What do the Québécois think about this?

[Edited 2011-08-16 00:25:14]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8378 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 7):
What do the Québécois think about this?

Whatever they body politic in Quebec might think, it's quite clear Mr Harper doesn't care.

Quoting CYQL (Reply 5):

I remember back in the mid eighties when they gave us our blue uniforms, most of us would of rather had a pay raise.

Indeed. Which might have helped retain some of the very good maintenance techs needed to sustain various components of the fighting force, particularly in aviation.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8375 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Seems a bit too much like a "bait and switch" to me. Throw the royal back in so it looks like we care about the CF, but then let the equipment fall apart. How long has MARCOM been waiting for new AOR's or the Arctic Patrol Craft. How long has Air Command been waiting for new fighters, new training craft (Tutors) etc? Instead of putting Royal back in, why not push for the new gear, and if there is money left over put it towards OP CONNECTION so that the CF and the public have a chance to interact and learn from each other.

Correcting a 40 year wrong is all well and good, but most of the CF has moved on, and has a new identity as the Canadian Forces and it's component commands, and now all of that has been taken away, much like the wrong that is supposedly being corrected. Now the Navy and the Air Force need to go back 40 years and try to pick up from there, forgetting the new traditions and identity?

Just begs the question... Why? And more importantly Why Now? (The revealed corruption of Tony Clement in the G8 perhaps?)



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8372 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
connies4ever
Quoting Confuscius (Reply 6):
Confuscius

No, more like the 'meals on wheels' programs military ops have been involved in for the last 40 + years. Military Forces have excellent logistic organizations, and can excell in moving stuff to respond to disasters, but once in the area, the military is not very good at controling the actual distribution of the needed supplies. Civilian organizations are usually much better at this. Although that is not all the time. Just look at the FEMA response during Katrina for an example of where FEMA and military forces failed to distribute goods to those in need. The military did very well in SAR after that hurricane, but not so well on security of New Orleans, as looters ran over them carrying their new LCD or Plasma TVs and Nike sneakers.

But, even in Canada, Emergency Management is not run thy the Dept. of National Defense, it is run by Public Safety Canada, with defense taking a support role, as in the US.


User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The military did very well in SAR after that hurricane, but not so well on security of New Orleans, as looters ran over them carrying their new LCD or Plasma TVs and Nike sneakers.

Probably because their rules of engagement did not let them shoot or detain those looters. If they had been authorised to do so I would expect that they would be very effective at it. Remember, the Military is not the Police, and cannot (usually) arrest or detain people in domestic ops. (Disclaimer, I have no idea if they were given police powers in Katrina, but if anyone does know I would be interested in finding out)



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8327 times:

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 9):
Seems a bit too much like a "bait and switch" to me. Throw the royal back in so it looks like we care about the CF, but then let the equipment fall apart. How long has MARCOM been waiting for new AOR's or the Arctic Patrol Craft. How long has Air Command been waiting for new fighters, new training craft (Tutors) etc? Instead of putting Royal back in, why not push for the new gear, and if there is money left over put it towards OP CONNECTION so that the CF and the public have a chance to interact and learn from each other.

Tutors have not been used for training for some time, just the Snowbirds. It's contracted to BBD using a mix of Tucanos and Hawks at Portage and Moose Jaw.

Yes, the AORs and Arctic Patrol Craft have been slow, particularly the latter once the government realised how expensive they would be. Current on the AOR is I think a return to design definition, with somewhat reduced scope. The APC program God only knows where that will go, the new DDGs might come sooner.

Credit where credit is due, though. Air Command is now in a better place for transport with the C-17s and C-130Js. Has been some talk re a 5th C-17.

As far as the fighter issue is concerned, well, they say the F-35 is coming although they haven't actually signed a contract. My gut is saying the Aussies will buy more F-18E/Fs and reduce their planned 100 F-35s. Netherlands are looking hard at the F-35, maybe looking at Gripen or F-18E/F. I do not see the US Marines getting the F-35B at all. Perhaps the start of a big trend, so the CF future fighter force is still to some degree up in the air, if I may.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8301 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Yes Air Command seems to have a good and well earned rep for Transport, perhaps we should focus more on that role within NATO and the UN and worry less about fighter capablities. (Obviously we should have fighters to defend our nation, but perhaps we should not focus on expeditionary missions with the fighters as much? Just a random thought) Even so, does the F-35 actually fulfill a need or is there a better aircraft out there for whatever mission they are planning. The only thing I am hearing about the F-35 is that it is sort of a jack of all trades fighter, but nothing about how it would actually meet our needs. (One would have thought we learned that lesson with the MCDV's no?)*

Thanks for the info about the Trg. I did not know it was contracted out.

*I am sure willing to be educated about it though, if anyone knows any specifics that I have not picked up on yet.



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineWrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8295 times:

Quoting CYQL (Reply 5):
As a former CF member, I would rather see the money spent on new equipment.

     

Quoting CYQL (Reply 5):
I remember back in the mid eighties when they gave us our blue uniforms, most of us would of rather had a pay raise.

  

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 9):
Correcting a 40 year wrong is all well and good, but most of the CF has moved on, and has a new identity as the Canadian Forces and it's component commands, and now all of that has been taken away, much like the wrong that is supposedly being corrected. Now the Navy and the Air Force need to go back 40 years and try to pick up from there, forgetting the new traditions and identity?

It's not really changing anything, other than putting lipstick on a pig. They are not undoing unification, we are not going back to a 3 component forces EACH with their own Logistics chain. They are just reinstating the names that existed prior to 1968. Will it make any difference ? Who knows, I spent most of my time in the 'Airforce' working for the Army or Navy. Just like all the so called 'Purple Trades' who are assigned a uniform not necessarily of their choosing and then spend their entire careers in other environments. ie a Sailor posted to Army units his/her entire Career. As CYQL implied the money could be better spent elsewhere.

WrenchBender



Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 9):
Throw the royal back in so it looks like we care about the CF, but then let the equipment fall apart. How long has MARCOM been waiting for new AOR's or the Arctic Patrol Craft. How long has Air Command been waiting for new fighters, new training craft (Tutors) etc?

IMO the only saving grace for the Conservitive Government is that they have been fixing decades of neglect of our military by the Liberal party. They have been heavily recapitalizing the CAF since 2006. Our tanks are still here and we have newer units, we got our Chinooks back, we are getting new hercs, we have heavy lift now that is not rented, our Sea Kings are getting replaced, in a few years we will be getting one of the best fighter jets ever created. People are screaming that the government is spending the most it has since WWII... and you are complaining they are not doing enough? Heck, the entire US military is running around in essentially recoloured Canadian camo.

Give it some time... it takes a bit to re-equip an entire military.



I actually heard about the Royal being brought back on the radio... I was quite happy about it. People still refer to our air force and navy as the RCAF and RCN. Our unit emblims still have crowns on them. This IMO is just another example of neglect being fixed.

[Edited 2011-08-16 08:24:56]

User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8287 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Hi Oroka,

Yes things are looking up for Air Command and the LFC, but the boys in black are still waiting for some new ships. (I know these things take time, but while all of that spending was going on for the other two elements we saw our new ships get cancelled or sent back to the drawing board, with very little signs of moving forward) Also do you remember when they wanted to mothball half of the fleet? My only point was instead of wasting time and political capital changing the names of MARCOM and Air Command, why not use those resourses to do something practical for the CF.

Either way, it sure is an exciting time to be a Purple Trade. Lots of changes coming down the pipe. I'm interested to know what the rest of the announcement is supposed to contain today.



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8185 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
Our tanks are still here and we have newer units,

But do you seriously believe many/all of the Leopards deployed in Afghanistan will find a way home ? I tend to believe after much hard use, many/most will be 'disposed of in place'.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
we got our Chinooks back, we are getting new hercs, we have heavy lift now that is not rented

Very true and long overdue.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
our Sea Kings are getting replaced

Which will get picked up by private industry such as Canadian Helicopters, zero-timed, and then put to good use for many years to come. CHC have a growing fleet of Sea Kings.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
in a few years we will be getting one of the best fighter jets ever created

Something still a topic of much debate, but I don't really want to generate too much thread drift.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7960 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
our Sea Kings are getting replaced
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17):
Which will get picked up by private industry such as Canadian Helicopters, zero-timed, and then put to good use for many years to come. CHC have a growing fleet of Sea Kings.

That will never happen. The CH-123 was built under a military designation and does not have a civilian Type Certificate. The type that Canadian Helicopters operates is the S-61N which has Type Certificate # 1H15. When the CH-123s finally get retired they will either go to another military force or get cut up. No civilian use for them.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7953 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17):
But do you seriously believe many/all of the Leopards deployed in Afghanistan will find a way home ? I tend to believe after much hard use, many/most will be 'disposed of in place'.

Maybe true, but it was only a few short years ago that our tank force in its entirety was heading to the scrap yard. Better than rolling around in a G Wagon :/

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17):
Something still a topic of much debate, but I don't really want to generate too much thread drift.

Either way, whether we get the F-35 or something else, 65 of ANY new fighter will be expensive. Even if Canada goes with say the Super Hornet, once you add on all the extra systems, decades of maintenance, and all the crap they have been rolling into the F-35s price, just about any 4.5 gen fighter will be within spitting range price wise.

I do agree our Navy needs new ships, but they also just announced a $35B budget to recapitalize the entire Navy, 28 large ships and 100 smaller vessels over 30 years. Any way you cut it, that is still $1.166B a year towards new ships. That is not a insignificant sum to invest yearly. The RCN (see what I did there?!?!) is probably going to come out with a increased large ship fleet, including the AOPS for northern patrols.

Its coming.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 18):
That will never happen. The CH-123 was built under a military designation and does not have a civilian Type Certificate.

Perhaps, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-61 seems to indicate it's a common type. CH-124, b.t.w.
Mind you, it's Wikipedia. But since the S-61/Sea King is long out of production, you do have to wonder where they are sourcing their airframes.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7858 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
I do agree our Navy needs new ships, but they also just announced a $35B budget to recapitalize the entire Navy, 28 large ships and 100 smaller vessels over 30 years. Any way you cut it, that is still $1.166B a year towards new ships. That is not a insignificant sum to invest yearly. The RCN (see what I did there?!?!) is probably going to come out with a increased large ship fleet, including the AOPS for northern patrols.

I had not heard that yet. Interesting. I wonder if MARCOM (see what I did there?) will be able to staff the ships. Hopefully all three services will see their Training budgest increased as well. Things ARE looking up as you said.



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7805 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):
Perhaps, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-61 seems to indicate it's a common type. CH-124, b.t.w.
Mind you, it's Wikipedia. But since the S-61/Sea King is long out of production, you do have to wonder where they are sourcing their airframes.

Just noticed my typo on the CH-124....

Actually the two types are not common. The S-61 was developed from the SH-3. This doesn't mean you can imply an SH-3 or CH-124 are in any way the same as an S-61.

Case in point is the C-130 in relation to the civilian L-100. There are several system and some component changes from the C-130 to comply with civil regulations. They are different enough that you can not register a C-130 for commercial operations. It has to be an L-100. In Canada and the US at least.

The same would hold true to the SH-3, CH-124. A government agency will not grant it a CofA without a type certificate which it does not have. The only way one could operate an ex military CH-124 would be under the restricted category which is extremely restrictive in terms of commercial operations.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7763 times:

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 18):
That will never happen. The CH-123 was built under a military designation and does not have a civilian Type Certificate. The type that Canadian Helicopters operates is the S-61N which has Type Certificate # 1H15. When the CH-123s finally get retired they will either go to another military force or get cut up. No civilian use for them.
Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 22):
The same would hold true to the SH-3, CH-124. A government agency will not grant it a CofA without a type certificate which it does not have. The only way one could operate an ex military CH-124 would be under the restricted category which is extremely restrictive in terms of commercial operations.

While all the above may well be true, it seems others have a slightly different p.o.v.:

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-danish-sea-kings.htm

b.t.w., the CASR site has a lot of interesting info.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7650 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
While all the above may well be true, it seems others have a slightly different p.o.v.:

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-danish-sea-kings.htm

b.t.w., the CASR site has a lot of interesting info.

Not a different p.o.v. at all. You just have to understand the regulations. The Danes refer to their Sea Kings as S-61A-1. They are covered under Type Certificate # H2EA. This TC covers a few military versions of the Sea King(SH-3 and similar variants). Clearly stated in the TC is the wording Restricted Category. This limits its use under a Special Airworthiness Certificate. That's just a fact.

The US State Department purchase of 110 S-61Ts will have to be registered in the Restricted Category as Sikorsky doesn't have a Type Certificate for the S-61T. http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert..._certification/sp_awcert/restrict/

All that being said the CH-124 is not referenced in any Type Certificate and will only be allowed to operate in civilian life in the Restricted Category.

Anyway, this is getting too far off track from the OP topic. I am pleased to have the old RCAF designation back although it is only symbolic.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
25 Oroka : Well, it just came to light today that the Government wants to cut $1B from the defence budget. Fortunately this will not be done by a downgrade of ou
26 L-188 : I wasn't that long ago 1/3rd of your tank force was being held by a Ukranian cargo ship because they hadn't been paid by the marine broker that charg
27 Oroka : Why? Blow possibly billions of dollars on creating an airframe that will get maybe 14-15 units, THEN you have to actually buy the air planes, integra
28 connies4ever : The Canadian American Strategic Review site (www.casr.ca) has alluded to a BBD GX-based platofrm for partial Aurora replacement, with Global Hawks do
29 Post contains links voodoo : Here's the article viz. C Series. Interesting graphics if nothing else. http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly-cseries.htm
30 connies4ever : Still a number of Tutor frames in storage that can be brought out or cannibalized. Problem with the Tutor is that it was never intended to be used fo
31 JoeCanuck : One day I'll be rich enough to get one of those Tutors... I like the way RCAF sounds but I'm anti monarchy so I'm torn...It doesn't change anything. I
32 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Governments use military programs to advance commercial projects and vice versa. The CSeries is already well on its way commercially and only needs s
33 Oroka : I love the C-Series in RCAF grey markings and in maritime patrol set-up! Thanks for the link. I never understood the whole 'anti-monarchy' thing. The
34 JoeCanuck : Basically, our titular head of state...is borrowed from the British. We technically, and legally, have to get her permission to have elections. Sure
35 Oroka : That is quite a different thing. Our government can do what it pleases, the whole keeping the monarchy in the loop is nothing more than a tradition.
36 JoeCanuck : True....it's a free world and all that, it takes all kinds and it's ok to believe what you want. Long Live the Republic...
37 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Came across this by chance..... http://www.vancouversun.com/news/for...+documents+show/5785810/story.html Not knowing much beyond merci, oui et non, I
38 Powerslide : Slow news day it seems.
39 YTZ : Around my office most of the guys were quite happy about it. Not something anybody asked for. But a nice touch nevertheless. It's always been seen as
40 Powerslide : I liked it better when we were the Canadian Forces, all those nifty commercials were pretty impressive. It showed a transition into the 21st century
41 YTZ : They aren't changing the name of the CF as a whole. Nor are they changing the commercials. The only thing changing is air force wide stationary. Heck
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Jul 31 2006 02:13:06 by Mariscal35
Canadian Air Force Pilot Training posted Fri May 12 2006 19:36:34 by YVRtoYYZ
Ex-US Army UH-1H Helicopters In Lebanese Air Force posted Sat Mar 4 2006 03:08:56 by BA
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Oct 11 2004 22:06:29 by Mariscal35
Flying Planes In The Air Force posted Sun Oct 19 2003 18:09:24 by Continental
Alaska Members: A C-133 Back In The Air? posted Sun Dec 15 2002 01:17:48 by FlagshipAZ
CV-22 Back In The Air At Edwards posted Thu Sep 12 2002 05:04:37 by Airforce1995
Royal Air Force Boeing E-3D In PIE What Reg Is It? posted Sat Apr 1 2006 15:59:04 by Pauara
Air Force Two In HLN Over The Weekend posted Wed Jul 6 2011 07:52:53 by HLNspotter
F-15 Exports / German Air Force In The Cold War posted Sat Jun 11 2011 09:55:54 by racko

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format