ghYHZ
Topic Author
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:26 pm

Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:21 pm

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
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:10 pm

Long overdue. Unification was terrible for all of the services involved as it practically destroyed the identities of the 3 branches.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:28 pm

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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:18 am

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.
 
spectre242
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 10:46 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:19 am

I wonder if they will also revert to the old Commonwealth-style rank structure for the RCAF?
 
CYQL
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:01 am

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.
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:05 am

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?
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:24 am

What do the Québécois think about this?

[Edited 2011-08-16 00:25:14]
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:54 pm

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.
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:01 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:04 pm

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.
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:07 pm

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
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:38 pm

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.
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:07 pm

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
 
WrenchBender
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:20 pm

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.......
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:22 pm

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]
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:31 pm

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
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:02 pm

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.
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:03 pm

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
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:38 pm

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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:52 pm

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.
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:18 pm

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
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:29 pm

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
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:57 am

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.
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:28 pm

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
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:28 pm

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 our military force, or equipment, but by cutting excess staff from higher up in the chain. Seems in the last 7 years our civilian element of the CAF has increased 3x as fast as the rest of our services.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:37 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17):
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 :/

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 charged the ship to haul them back from Bosnia.

Quoting CYQL (Reply 5):
The Snowbirds need a replacement aircraft. The Tutor is a great aircraft,

Agreed, they are quite long in the tooth, but they need to be developed in Canada. I am tired of Canada sourcing it's aircraft from overseas. What ever happened to the industry that made the Tutor, Canuk, Arrow, Argus and the Yukon.

Canada definately needs to get back to the buisness of building her own aircraft, maybe not starting off with an F-35 alternative but the CP-140 is in need of replacement. Forget doing a bizjet conversion, come up with a dedicated airframe using componet parts already in production
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:36 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 26):
Canada definately needs to get back to the buisness of building her own aircraft, maybe not starting off with an F-35 alternative but the CP-140 is in need of replacement. Forget doing a bizjet conversion, come up with a dedicated airframe using componet parts already in production

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, integrate the electronics suite, test test test. It would be more responsible to just buy something someone else is offering than blowing massive amounts of money just so you can slap a 'Made in Canada' sticker on it. Canadian industry grows by contracts awarded as industrial offset, bonus of buying a foreign product.

At the very least, take a C-Series jet, mash a CP-140 Block III sensors and mission computer in it.


There are very few 'affordable' capital military projects any more, even the US wanted help of the F-35. Advanced military systems are getting harder and harder to create, getting ever more complex with each generation. Imagine what will be needed to replace the F-22 and F-35 in 20-30 years, and the associated costs.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:40 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 26):
Agreed, they are quite long in the tooth, but they need to be developed in Canada. I am tired of Canada sourcing it's aircraft from overseas. What ever happened to the industry that made the Tutor, Canuk, Arrow, Argus and the Yukon.

Canada definately needs to get back to the buisness of building her own aircraft, maybe not starting off with an F-35 alternative but the CP-140 is in need of replacement. Forget doing a bizjet conversion, come up with a dedicated airframe using componet parts already in production
Quoting Oroka (Reply 27):
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, integrate the electronics suite, test test test. It would be more responsible to just buy something someone else is offering than blowing massive amounts of money just so you can slap a 'Made in Canada' sticker on it. Canadian industry grows by contracts awarded as industrial offset, bonus of buying a foreign product.

At the very least, take a C-Series jet, mash a CP-140 Block III sensors and mission computer in it.

The Canadian American Strategic Review site (www.casr.ca) has alluded to a BBD GX-based platofrm for partial Aurora replacement, with Global Hawks doing the rest. In fact, soon to be retired RAF Sentinels (GX based) may become available.

I agree developing our own industrial base for producing small numbers of mil a/c is not economically sound. Look at what the UK spent on Nimrod, and ultimetely to get nothing.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:21 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):

The Canadian American Strategic Review site (www.casr.ca) has alluded to a BBD GX-based platofrm for partial Aurora replacement, with Global Hawks doing the rest. In fact, soon to be retired RAF Sentinels (GX based) may become available.

Here's the article viz. C Series.
Interesting graphics if nothing else.
http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly-cseries.htm
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:53 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 26):
Quoting CYQL (Reply 5):
The Snowbirds need a replacement aircraft. The Tutor is a great aircraft,

Agreed, they are quite long in the tooth, but they need to be developed in Canada. I am tired of Canada sourcing it's aircraft from overseas. What ever happened to the industry that made the Tutor, Canuk, Arrow, Argus and the Yukon.

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 for aerobatics. If a replacement is to be had, likely Harvard IIs cheaper option, near jet performance) but not Hawks, which is what the Forces want.

Quoting voodoo (Reply 29):
Here's the article viz. C Series.
Interesting graphics if nothing else.
http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly-cseries.htm

One question that would need to be addressed if the CSeries is to be a serious contender is how long until it's certified for ETOPS equivalent flights. Seems to me an ASW platform kind of need that, and the GTF still has a number of question marks in front of it. ThePoseidon, although a lot more expensive, would not have that issue.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:45 am

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. If the folks wearing the uniforms like it, that's good enough for me.
What the...?
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:57 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 27):
At the very least, take a C-Series jet, mash a CP-140 Block III sensors and mission computer in it.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
I agree developing our own industrial base for producing small numbers of mil a/c is not economically sound. Look at what the UK spent on Nimrod, and ultimetely to get nothing.

Governments use military programs to advance commercial projects and vice versa. The CSeries is already well on its way commercially and only needs some more nudging to break into the military derivatives field. Government support at this juncture is critical and could be very beneficial to Canadian industry. P&WC is also there to complete the Made in Canada label. Of course, there're always the risks of over dependence and political interference.


Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31):
One day I'll be rich enough to get one of those Tutors...

For nothing much more than a typical sportscar, how about this amphibian?  .
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=41751
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:42 pm

Quoting voodoo (Reply 29):
Here's the article viz. C Series.
Interesting graphics if nothing else.
http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly...s.htm

I love the C-Series in RCAF grey markings and in maritime patrol set-up! Thanks for the link.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31):
I like the way RCAF sounds but I'm anti monarchy so I'm torn...It doesn't change anything.

I never understood the whole 'anti-monarchy' thing. The monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead in Canada, a throwback to the creation of our country as a British colony. It is our heritage, nothing more. It keeps the old people happy... 100 years from now no one will care.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
Still a number of Tutor frames in storage that can be brought out or cannibalized.

I dont see the Snowbirds getting ANYTHING. Our Harvard IIs are leased and will go back to the leasor when we are done with them. Maybe if the older Hawks get retired...

They will not get new jets. I could see them getting CF-18s, and the team being lowered to 5 performers. There would be tons of spares in the boneyards with the USN retiring their legacy hornets. We have the experience and logistical base to support the jet... why buy gear.

If it wasnt for a massive pile of retired Tutors, the Snowbirds would be flying (used) G Wagons right now.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:20 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 33):

I never understood the whole 'anti-monarchy' thing. The monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead in Canada, a throwback to the creation of our country as a British colony. It is our heritage, nothing more. It keeps the old people happy... 100 years from now no one will care.

Basically, our titular head of state...is borrowed from the British. We technically, and legally, have to get her permission to have elections. Sure it's a formality but how would you like going to your dad every time you want to borrow the car?

I think Canada has been wearing the big boy pants long enough to have our own head of state in practice AND in fact. If she does nothing, then why have her at all?

I don't think it's particularly jingoistic to want our head of state to be chosen by us, not chosen by which German tourist took over the British throne and their progeny will rule us forever.

Let's cut the cord...that the mess that is the Britiish royal family leads our country is sad and getting very old.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 32):
For nothing much more than a typical sportscar, how about this amphibian?

Nice...very nice but I still have a thing about the Tutor...it's a classic.
What the...?
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:37 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 34):
Sure it's a formality but how would you like going to your dad every time you want to borrow the car?

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. It would be like jokingly asking your dad if you can borrow your own car every time you go to his house, your going to take the car regardless of his answer, but you still ask.

lol, I doubt either of us is going to convince the other either way!



God save the Queen!
(j/k)
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:32 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 35):

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...
What the...?
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:16 pm

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 could only smile at the comments about the proposed French acronyms.  


FARCAN stood out for being positively farcical. Assurances that little time and thought were wasted on these notwithstanding, one wondered if searching for answers to such complicated matters prevents efforts to trim the bureaucracy.  
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:21 am

Slow news day it seems.
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:16 am

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 a discriminatory move that particularly targeted the air force and the navy. Not a single army regiment lost their "Royal" title during amalgamation. But the RCN and the RCAF did.

Moreover, I have always found that a large portion of the public, even those born well after 1967 often do refer to the services this way anyway.

In any event, the news was worth an extra beer at the mess. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Air Command" or "1 CAD".
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:53 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 39):
In any event, the news was worth an extra beer at the mess. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Air Command" or "1 CAD".

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 without forgetting the past. I think it's time for our military in general to move on. In about 5 years time when the rest of the dinosaurs retire I hope to see a change for the better.
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force

Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:08 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 40):
I liked it better when we were the Canadian Forces, all those nifty commercials were pretty impressive.

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, most squadrons and wings won't change their stuff either. Uniforms aren't changing. Nor is the rank structure (which really wouldn't make much sense today).

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 40):
It showed a transition into the 21st century without forgetting the past. I think it's time for our military in general to move on.

I don't see the issue with having an older name. The RAF, RAAF and the RNZAF haven't had issues modernizing despite the 'Royal' designation.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 40):
In about 5 years time when the rest of the dinosaurs retire I hope to see a change for the better.

I agree. Not that an engineer will ever be given a strategic decision making position, but there are organizational and operational issues in the CF that could certainly use a dose of modernity and reality (like why do we fly so many different helo fleets for such a small force?).

But all that said, military outfits do have a unique take on heritage. More than most, history matters to the man and woman in uniform. The name is as important as the squadron crest or emblem, fin flashes, squadron names, etc.

More broadly speaking, I wouldn't have been supportive of the move if it wasn't already the norm. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to a civvy or gone to another country and had the air force referred to as the RCAF. In most of my dealings (even with some contractors), Air Command was a strange idea to them.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests