Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada’s Military Goes On A Spending Spree!  
User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

And it’s about time….

After the Second World War, Canada had one of the biggest militaries in the world. Today its equipment is pretty much a joke compared to other G8 and NATO countries.

I hate Canada’s new conservative government. But I must give them credit for thing that they have done up till now. The mandatory minimum for criminal offenses and the investment towards Canada’s military.

Today the Canadian government announced the contract for 3 armed supply ships which will also carry 2 helicopters and have numerous defensive weapon systems. These ships may also be built to serve as a amphibious assault ship. This week, Canada will announce the procurement of new heavy lift helicopters, medium and heavy transport planes.

Canada also recently added:

CH-148 Cyclone- (Sikorsky H92 Superhawk) Maritime, ship-born helicopter meant as a replacement for the Sea Kings. CAF orders 28, first being delivered 2008

CH-149 Cormorant (EH-101) SAR operations, CAF has 15 of them

Some more info:

” The government is expected to unveil a $1.1-billion plan for new army trucks. That promise will be made in Quebec, the CBC's French-language service reported last week.
That same report said an official announcement about helicopters will come on Wednesday in Edmonton. The government is expected put out to tender for 15 new helicopters at a cost of about $4.2 billion.
Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, the government is expected to announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.
The Conservatives are also promising to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.”


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1959
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...l/2006/06/26/defence-spending.html


KrisYYZ

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

Such a difference between a government that says it's going to do things and a government that actually does do things.

This 'spending spree' has been a long time coming and is long overdue.

 thumbsup  to the Conservative government.



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4683 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

Where's the pic of Canada's Naval Force when you need it?...


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Quoting Aerobalance (Reply 2):
Where's the pic of Canada's Naval Force when you need it?...

http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/canadian_navy.jpg

pelican


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

And Canada is going to need those amphibious assault ships to invade ...

Search and rescue, fine - upgrade and replace those ships/helis etc, but lets face it Canada is not a world power and you don't need the capability of invading anyone, other than PEI.

(Born & Bred in BC, living overseas)


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2432 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Nevermind.. I see you changed your flag :P

[Edited 2006-06-26 23:51:12]

User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4791 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Its hardly a spending spree, just undoing some of the decline of the past 40 years. Amphibious assault ships have a mean sounding name, but in Canada's case they are highly unlikely to be used going it alone in an invasion. They offer better security and availabilty compared to commercial ocean freight for the Canadian military's needs. Don't you remember a few years ago when the CF had to board a ship transporting their LAVs back from the Balkans, as the owners refused delivery asking for more money?

Canada has not always been a nation with a weak military, the decline started in the mid 1960s. After WWII, Canada was the third largest naval power. In the 1950s, Canada had hundreds upon hundreds of F-86s and CF-101s. Don't even get me started on the CF-105.

[Edited 2006-06-26 23:50:33]

User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter):
The Conservatives are also promising to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion

Good news for the C-17 line at LGB. I know they're looking for more orders fom the USAF to keep that line alive beyond the initial order. Hopefully other governments will take a look at the capabilities of that plane as well.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter):
Today its equipment is pretty much a joke compared to other G8 and NATO countries.

That may be popular perception but it's not necessarily true.


And someone may want to airbrush the U.S. Coast Guard markings off that tub with the 50.  Yeah sure



LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 6):
Don't even get me started on the CF-105.

Never should've cancelled it.



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineNeilYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter):
I hate Canada’s new conservative government. But I must give them credit for thing that they have done up till now. The mandatory minimum for criminal offenses and the investment towards Canada’s military.

How can you hate the government but like what they have done? Although I admire you for admiting that you're impressed with them so far.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 1):
Such a difference between a government that says it's going to do things and a government that actually does do things.

This 'spending spree' has been a long time coming and is long overdue.

thumbsup to the Conservative government.

I agree, it's about time we spent money on those that serve this country!


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 6):
Don't even get me started on the CF-105.

Oh please. If the program wasn't cancelled we would have still been stuck with those things. They would have been useful for a grand total of about 5 years.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineNeilYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
Oh please. If the program wasn't cancelled we would have still been stuck with those things. They would have been useful for a grand total of about 5 years.

They advanced technology, it was stupid to cancel them, there could have been planes that spun off of it. And at the time, did people know that they would have been useful for only 5 years?


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 12):
there could have been planes that spun off of it

Who are you kidding? This is Canada we're talking about.

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 12):
And at the time, did people know that they would have been useful for only 5 years?

But we sure do now. So let's act appropriately.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4791 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1746 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
They would have been useful for a grand total of about 5 years.

How short sighted can you possibly be? Do you really think that the engineerws at Avro Canada couldn't come up with a design suited to the changing air force's needs? I somehow doubt that the Avro Arrow would be retired in 5 years. Even seen the airplane depicted below?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Fletcher



Pretty useless as a fighter but still has found itself a job for almost 40 years now.

The cancellation of the Arrow forced the departure off a large part of Canada's best aeronautical engineering, never to see it return.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
Oh please. If the program wasn't cancelled we would have still been stuck with those things. They would have been useful for a grand total of about 5 years.

Don't forget the engine was canceled too, and the French had already has selected it to power their new Mirage fighters. When it was canceled the French had to develop the ATAR-9 engine.

How much do you think Canada would have benifited if they had powered all the Mirage's that have been built?

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 14):

Pretty useless as a fighter but still has found itself a job for almost 40 years now

And if I recall the CF-105 had an internal weapons bay the same size as a B-29. Don't tell me that wouldn't have made a great strike aircraft.

Seriously, it is nice that Canada is now starting to take care of there big problems. Anybody else remember about 5 years ago when that ship comming back from Bosnia refused to dock because the broker had taken off their the crews pay? Only 10% off all of Canada's armoured vheicles where on it at the time......I think they crashed a Sea King going after that boat too.

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 10):
I agree, it's about time we spent money on those that serve this country!

It would be better if they spent that money in country......Can imagine the aviation industry that Canada would have had if Diffenbaker hadn't castrated Avro Canada?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter):
I hate Canada’s new conservative government. But I must give them credit for thing that they have done up till now. The mandatory minimum for criminal offenses and the investment towards Canada’s military.

Why do you hate them if they're doing something positive? That makes zero sense to me. Could you enlighten us without taking it off topic (or start a thread about this in NonAv?).

Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter):
CH-148 Cyclone- (Sikorsky H92 Superhawk) Maritime, ship-born helicopter meant as a replacement for the Sea Kings. CAF orders 28, first being delivered 2008

That was probably in response to the increasing accident rate and decreasing servicability rate of the existing Sea King fleet.

Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter):
CH-149 Cormorant (EH-101) SAR operations, CAF has 15 of them

That program was a disaster in procurement. They cancelled an order for purely political reasons and paid the penalties (hundreds of millions) then re-ordered the aircraft, having to take some of the desired equipment off because they wasted the money allocated for that in penalties.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 1):
Such a difference between a government that says it's going to do things and a government that actually does do things.

No kidding. Since a government is going to take heat for doing as well as not doing I'd say it's better to get things done. It seems the previous government was ok with neglecting the military since they could not decide what to do that would not irritate some of their base.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 1):
This 'spending spree' has been a long time coming and is long overdue.

I'd say 'spending spree' indicates an irresponsible shopping excursion....they went and initiated direly needed procurement programs for equipment their military needs.

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 10):
How can you hate the government but like what they have done? Although I admire you for admiting that you're impressed with them so far.

Good point.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 16):
Why do you hate them if they're doing something positive? That makes zero sense to me. Could you enlighten us without taking it off topic (or start a thread about this in NonAv?).

I'm a Liberal, not to say I'm a member of the Canadian Liberal party but that is where I stand on the political spectrum. I strongly disagree with the social initiatives of the Conservative government. However I support Mr. Harper so far on the Crime and National defense policy. I'm not going to dismiss the positive actions of a government/party just because I'm against their general view of what Canada should be like.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 16):
That program was a disaster in procurement. They cancelled an order for purely political reasons and paid the penalties (hundreds of millions) then re-ordered the aircraft, having to take some of the desired equipment off because they wasted the money allocated for that in penalties.

agreed. They ordered 50 or 60 EH101 to replace the Sea Kings, the new government cancelled the order and waited until the Sea Kings started to fall out of the skies, literally!! They ordered 15 "off the shelf" versions for SAR, now they are thinking about repainting some og the CH-149s and using them for combat heavy lift duties, what a mess!

KrisYYZ


User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

While we are at it, lets get the Snowbirds new planes.  Wink


I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
Oh please. If the program wasn't cancelled we would have still been stuck with those things. They would have been useful for a grand total of about 5 years.

OK, lets see:

Mach 2+ all weather long range interceptor... (and i wont even add in the hot start and weapon systems)

next plane to meet those claims: MiG-25
next US plane to meet those claims: F-15
Time delay for F-15 is what... 20/25 years?

Now someone is going to try and sneak the F-106 in there, sorry but no, it doesnt compete in the range department...

The Arrow was at least 10 years ahead of its time. Faster and larger than anything the Americans or Europeans were working on (closest would be the F-111 or F-4, both of which were a few (8-10) years behind it). It was designed to be able to go from cold soak to takeoff in under 5 minutes and to carry active and passive homing air to air missiles.

Now as for Canada's new purchases...

The C-17s, bout flippin time!
The Ships, see C-17.
The Helicopters, see C-17.
the Trucks, see C-17... get the idea?

Now all we need is some AWACS (Hawkeye 2000 would fit nicely), Command and Control naval (something that can interface with AEGIS) and some submarines that can actually submerge! Oh yea, not to mention something to replace the CP-140/141 (P-3) fleet with... i guess the only thing to replace an Orion (Aurora) is an Orion (Aurora)... And some newer Hercs (J) which are supposedly coming as well... and then theres the Leopards that are badly in need of replacement... and the CF-18 fleet is getting long in the tooth...

Snowbirds Planes, i believe they are scheduled to get some of those new Hawks to replace the CT-133s...



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

The most similar fighters to the CF-105 were the MiG-25/31 and F-14. In comparison, both are true multi role fighters!  Yeah sure

Let's see, the Tomcat was plagued with problems, by the time they were solved it was time for the politicians to kill it. Only one export customer.

MiG-25? A true niche fighter. It might lose a turning fight to a B-52. Pretty bad combat record to boot.

In conclusion, Canada is not the kind of country that can afford to build fighters for the sake of prestige alone. With our budget, the CF-105 would have meant no F-5s and quite possibly no F-18s (a la Sea King... "Replacement? We don't need replacement! I'm bored, let's call an election...")


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1589 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 20):
In conclusion, Canada is not the kind of country that can afford to build fighters for the sake of prestige alone

No you need to be building simple effective easy to use aircraft. If Brasil can develop the AMX for gods sake, surely Canada can come up with something.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBA747YYZ From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1568 times:

About time! Thats all I can say.

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 21):
No you need to be building simple effective easy to use aircraft. If Brasil can develop the AMX for gods sake, surely Canada can come up with something.

An AMX isn't the Avro Arrow.  Wink ...and it was built JOINTLY with Italy. There you have 2 countries combining to create 1 jet, far, FAR, less sophisticated than the CF-105. Good for them, at least they have their priorities straight.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1514 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 23):
An AMX isn't the Avro Arrow. ...and it was built JOINTLY with Italy.

true but it doesn't back me off my point that Canada's military should fly Canadian airplanes and that the Canadian Aviation Industry should be building them and would have no problem if they where allowed to do so.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Post contains images LY744 : We've got some Dash 8s, Buffalos, Tutors and Challengers. Not to mention the 100 or so Griffons that were assembled here. LY744.
26 L-188 : I grant you that but look at that list. Dash-8's where not developed for military use, ditto for the challangers. Both fly the same role-taking the b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Houston Based Anadarko Goes On A Buying Spree posted Fri Jun 23 2006 17:14:58 by 102IAHexpress
What Goes On During The Meets? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 19:36:16 by Miamiair
What Really Goes On In Chatrooms posted Thu Aug 10 2006 08:18:30 by BO__einG
US Military Hearing On Iraq Rape Case Begins posted Sun Aug 6 2006 19:16:46 by Rammstein
Silvio Berlusconi Goes On Record posted Thu Apr 6 2006 16:55:01 by Dougloid
Your Spending Spree's posted Fri Feb 24 2006 22:19:01 by TupolevTu154
Going In The Pussy Hole: Who Goes On Top? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 02:21:57 by Matt D
Professor In Louisiana Goes On Rage In Class posted Fri Oct 15 2004 04:11:10 by Superfly
And The Hypocricy Goes On.. posted Fri Oct 8 2004 23:46:38 by CPH-R
Powell Defends War As WMD Debate Goes On posted Tue Feb 3 2004 20:37:42 by JeffM