Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
aislepathlight
Topic Author
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

Canadian Military Spending

Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:03 am

In the past couple of weeks, I have noticed a quite a few orders coming out of Canada. The main two are going with Boeing aircraft, including the C-17 (and its possible lawsuit coming our of EADS). After receiving the most resent Jane's news briefs saying:

Quoting Jane's Air Forces News Briefs - 7 July 2006:
Canada has announced over CAD17 billion (USD15 billion) worth of new equipment programmes aimed at making the Canadian Forces (CF) easier to deploy and more capable of sustaining those deployments

Is Canada's air force in desperate need of an updating? Seems like it.

Any incite into Canada's needs/possible orders?
bleepbloop
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:23 am

Yup, we do need upgrades, badly. There was an article in the Toronto Star today (I think, I didn't notice the date of the paper) about 4 C-17 to replace our Antonovs (wtf?), 12 heavy lift choppers, a bunch of SAR aircraft to replace the hercs, 18(?) UAVs, 3 new supply ships, and 2500 trucks. They also mentioned reversing the decision to part the Leopard tanks. No mention of attack helos though.

I am assuming by replacing our 'Antonovs' them mean to stop leasing and get our own heavylift. They did say there will be a C-17 in CAF colors by the end of the Year.


Honestly, we do need the upgrades, but I dont think it is a good time to spend all that money. The GST here just went down 1%, meaning the federal government will get about $10 Billion CDN less a year, while spending $17 Billion More... so much for running a national surplus.
 
aislepathlight
Topic Author
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:21 am

I forgot to metion that 3 C130s had been grounded because of fatigue, and 11 more were likely to be grounded before 2010. That leaves only 18 of their 32 airframes in service after 2010.
bleepbloop
 
Lt-AWACS
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 2:40 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:08 am

After just finishing my third Maple Flag and getting to ride in a CAF CC-130 again I can tell you they are in want and need of upgrades. It was a fun ride though so-to-speak. The tanker C-130s out of Winnipeg were even in worse shape. Kudos to Alberta for another great Flag though  Smile You can catch us on Wings playing "Crud" somtime soon.

The CF-18s were in need of some upgrades as well.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Watching you from 30,000 feet
Io voglio fica ogni giorni da mia bella moglie!
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:03 pm

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 3):
The CF-18s were in need of some upgrades as well

That is already in progress, albit slowly. IIRC, they are being upgraded to F/A-18C/D+ standards. Maybe there should be a Billion in there for a initial F-35 order.
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:10 am

Once again, I am in the Forces / Air force, and my cousin flys the CF-18. The CF-18 is currently updated, and will hold until the F-35 comes into production. You will see that being Canada's last manned fighter.

The C-130s are of course.... old. They have definitely had their days with the Canadian Forces however they will be used for another 10 years irregardless of airframe times. Recently a contact told me 10 C-130S expected to leave service were all refurbished and ready to go. In my other post, I made it quite clear that you will see the departure of the CC Polaris in the next 5 years , replaced with the C-17. The C-130 replacements will either be A400ms or C-130 Js, right now Canada is taking its time with these upgrades and decisions.
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:33 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
I am in the Forces / Air force

Sounds like smart planning. What is Canada's largest percieved threat?
UH-60's suck!!!
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:39 am

Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
Sounds like smart planning. What is Canada's largest percieved threat?

Narrow mindedness.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:58 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 7):
Narrow mindedness.

How do you figure?

From my point of view, Canada need only to defend it's airspace from unauthorized access. An F-18 can cover 80% of that requirement. The only thing working against them would be airframe hours/age.

The transports are more of a priority where logistics are important is such a huge country. If they are lining up to buy the C-17, then that can only be a wise move. As nice as an A400 may be it is still hasn't touched the sky, and it is not C-17. The only contemporary in rough comparison would be the IL-76MF. I do not think that Canada will buy that. Leasing An-124s is not really practical for common use, unless The CAF wants to moonlight as an air freight company. The C-17 is a designed strategic airlifter. No modified airliner could surpass it's capability in that role.

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:29 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
The GST here just went down 1%, meaning the federal government will get about $10 Billion CDN less a year, while spending $17 Billion More... so much for running a national surplus.

Well, the Liberals ran a $9 billion cdn surplus last year, & that's after they lined their pockets & paid off their buddies in Quebec. Secondly, don't forget that half of what you pay at the gas pump is tax, & gas prices are higher than last year. Higher than ever! That will probably make up most of what taxpayers gained from the GST cut. Properly managed, there's plenty of money to go around for the important things.

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 3):
getting to ride in a CAF CC-130 again I can tell you they are in want and need of upgrades.

I like the way the crew jumps up after take-off & checks all over the aircraft for hydraulic leaks.
 worried 
Can you hear me now?
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:16 am

Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
I am in the Forces / Air force

Sounds like smart planning. What is Canada's largest percieved threat?



Quoting LY744 (Reply 7):
Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
Sounds like smart planning. What is Canada's largest percieved threat?

Narrow mindedness.

Canada is not really interested in launching massive air raids against the Taliban for no apparent reason. Since you do not know your history, or your one of the Bias people who believe the Canadian Forces is a joke... Not only do we have the best Nato training Force, our Men and Woman all believe in the causes they fight for. They are not forced into anything. What is the largest perceived threat? I am going to say American aggression in the Middle East. Yesterday a 21 year old reservist was killed. The Canadian Government was said to be narrow minded? Well, we hold our values and morals; we do not need 600 F-15S, 1700 F-16S, 60 B-52, 40 F-117S, we dont need that. Keep in mind Canadas mission, not to mention reasoning. It is somewhat different from the United States.
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:46 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
Canada is not really interested in launching massive air raids against the Taliban for no apparent reason. Since you do not know your history, or your one of the Bias people who believe the Canadian Forces is a joke... Not only do we have the best Nato training Force, our Men and Woman all believe in the causes they fight for. They are not forced into anything. What is the largest perceived threat? I am going to say American aggression in the Middle East. Yesterday a 21 year old reservist was killed. The Canadian Government was said to be narrow minded? Well, we hold our values and morals; we do not need 600 F-15S, 1700 F-16S, 60 B-52, 40 F-117S, we dont need that. Keep in mind Canadas mission, not to mention reasoning. It is somewhat different from the United States.

First of all, welcome to the forum.

Second, don't tell me things I'm already well aware of (BTW, the corporal died two days ago, not yesterday).

Third, don't jump to conclusions.

And fourthly (is that a word?), learn to spot sarcasm, it will come in handy around here.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:13 am

Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
What is Canada's largest percieved threat?

Those ballistic missiles North Korea wants to launch at you. The main purpose of Canada maintaining a viable military force is to give us some kind of currency in world affairs- something the previous government just didn't seem to understand- you know, "stop, or I'll say stop again". That's not much of a threat for rogue states (who shall remain nameless here, & I don't mean the USA).

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
Yesterday a 21 year old reservist was killed.

You pays your money & you takes your chances, or in this case, you sign your contract & take your chances. His death is no more & no less tragic than the soldiers before him, in Afghanistan, my friends in the Balkans, in Cyprus & the Golan Heights, Korea, WW2, WW1, Boer War, etc.
Can you hear me now?
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:21 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
Since you do not know your history, or your one of the Bias people who believe the Canadian Forces is a joke...

Although, I cannot share the attitude of Mr/Ms LY744, but I was just curious about the stance of another nation. I do know my history and yours quite well. To make that assumption without any idea of whom you referring is just foolish. You are an F/A-18 pilot???

Sarcasm, and obtuse manners are far from helpful in the forum. If that works for you, then best of luck...

I have my opinions regarding the Canadian Armed Forces, and yes they are MUCH different than their American counterparts. Canada needs NATO, whereas the US does not...

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:38 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
Second, don't tell me things I'm already well aware of (BTW, the corporal died two days ago, not yesterday).

Given time zones etc etc, when we were first notified, it was indeed yesterday. You are one of those who pick out every little thing wrong with someone .... ranging from their typing to their views.

Quoting LY744 (Reply 11):
And fourthly (is that a word?), learn to spot sarcasm, it will come in handy around here.

oh .... Il be damned, there is that "attempt to be larger than you" type comment. Fourthly..... I am not sure, my University Prof used it quite a bit.

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 12):
You pays your money & you takes your chances, or in this case, you sign your contract & take your chances. His death is no more & no less tragic than the soldiers before him, in Afghanistan, my friends in the Balkans, in Cyprus & the Golan Heights, Korea, WW2, WW1, Boer War, etc.

Where did I state it was more tragic? Where did I state they dont take chances? Where did I state this death is more important than all other Canadians who have died? You know, that polite gentleman above told me not to jump to conclusions.... I think you should take his advice. Of course he would not say that to you though.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 13):
Although, I cannot share the attitude of Mr/Ms LY744, but I was just curious about the stance of another nation. I do know my history and yours quite well. To make that assumption without any idea of whom you referring is just foolish. You are an F/A-18 pilot???

I am currently enrolled in the Air Force and will start flight training shortly. My cousin is one of the main instructors at 4-Wing Cold Lake... and for the record yes.. CF18s .

Quoting MigFan (Reply 13):
have my opinions regarding the Canadian Armed Forces



Yes you do, and if they are remotely insulting, I will take offence to them. I do not appreciate anyone bashing our Armed Forces when they have no prior background knowledge, nor experience to hold their claim. You should respect what I say, and put yourself in my shoes.

None of this was intended to be personal, and I am sorry for this escalation.
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
Lt-AWACS
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 2:40 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:38 pm

Quoting CF188A (Reply 14):
I am currently enrolled in the Air Force and will start flight training shortly. My cousin is one of the main instructors at 4-Wing Cold Lake... and for the record yes.. CF18s .

Well I know several of the 4 wing IPs personally so I wouldn't take an attitude when you get there or it will be a long Cold time in Cold Lake (no pun intended).

Quoting CF188A (Reply 14):
Yes you do, and if they are remotely insulting, I will take offence to them. I do not appreciate anyone bashing our Armed Forces when they have no prior background knowledge, nor experience to hold their claim. You should respect what I say, and put yourself in my shoes.

And some people might have been insulted by your comments. I've flown dozens of combat missions with CAF officers in Afghanistan and Iraq (yes Canada played in Iraq also with scores of NORAD CO-manning Canadians) and for example, some of them might take offence to your Taliban comments (I know some that would)-- seeing the number of Canadians that died on Sept 11th.

I am sure it wasn't personal but you should take your own advice about "remotely insulting" and such-just to make your forum contributions more productive.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
our Men and Woman all believe in the causes they fight for.

Statements like this are only inflammatory especially seeing it was a Canadian that made the initial comments you quoted. Besides a statement like that should have a fact to back it up. Do you have a survey you can post a link to for various folks to read? This is basically what LY744 and others are making.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Practice safe lunch, use a condiment
Io voglio fica ogni giorni da mia bella moglie!
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:42 pm

Quoting CF188A (Reply 14):
You should respect what I say, and put yourself in my shoes.

Respect, you get what you give. I don't see you giving too much of that, but whatever. I completely understand the position you have on your armed forces. I feel the same way about the US Armed Forces as well, but I respect other people's opinions. Even if I think they are wrong, at best I will try to correct or put forth another point of view. If you want to take things said in the forums personally, that is up to you, but it will only lead to a great deal of "agro" on your part.

Lots of folks bash the US in the forums, but it does not bother me. To me, they are wrong. I especially love those who bas America, and have never visited. America is not perfect, but it is my country. I fought for it and I would gladly do so again.

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
WrenchBender
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:35 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 14):
I am currently enrolled in the Air Force and will start flight training shortly. My cousin is one of the main instructors at 4-Wing Cold Lake... and for the record yes.. CF18s .

So, a future member of the Forces? Enrolled? Boot Camp? Primary flight training (Harvard II)? Advanced flight training(Hawk)? Fighter Training(Hornet)?
Which is it?
As you progress through your military training and career you will find that respect is EARNED not demanded, especially by snotty young officer cadets with less time in uniform than I or MissedApproach have on coffee break.
Another thing to try and remember, opinions are like Assholes, everybody has one and some of them stink.

WrenchBender
Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
 
aislepathlight
Topic Author
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:46 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 14):

Yes you do, and if they are remotely insulting, I will take offence to them. I do not appreciate anyone bashing our Armed Forces when they have no prior background knowledge, nor experience to hold their claim. You should respect what I say, and put yourself in my shoes.

None of this was intended to be personal, and I am sorry for this escalation.

I have respect for persons serving in any military, in any branch. The Canadian military makes sense as it is.

Does Japan's military make sense? No. They have a large force, with state of the art everything, but it doesn't do anything. Their constitution says they can't be deployed. Does that make sense? No.

Canada's military makes sense as it is? Yes. Canada has no real need to have a large military, as anti-terrorism calls for soldiers, not CF-18s. Terrorism has become the main threat today, not the USSR as it was 15 years ago.
bleepbloop
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:02 am

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 18):
Terrorism has become the main threat today, not the USSR as it was 15 years ago.

I hope that theory never gets tested...

Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 17):
respect is EARNED not demanded

 checkmark  Amen!!!

/M  checkmark 
UH-60's suck!!!
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:45 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 14):
You are one of those who pick out every little thing wrong with someone .... ranging from their typing to their views.

Yes, yes I am.

Since you're so familiar with my posting habits, why would you think that I was implying any disrepsect to the Canadian Forces? I've never done that here or anywhere else. The Forces mean more to me then they do to 90% of Canadians.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:01 am

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 18):
Canada has no real need to have a large military, as anti-terrorism calls for soldiers, not CF-18s.

That's a good point, but we are having a lot of trouble sustaining our commitments with what we have (50,000 or less, all ranks, all trades, all branches). I think 75-100k would be better if we intend to spend more than a year or two on a particular mission. I don't think that qualifies as a large army either, considering what kind of forces many other nations can field.
We also have a commitment to NORAD that requires some kind of viable air defence, & since most intercepts don't require anything other than a visual ID that argues for a manned fighter.

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 3):
The CF-18s were in need of some upgrades as well.

CF-18's are undergoing an incremental upgrade program which basically equates to C/D standard. I believe Phase 1 has been completed & phase 2 upgrades are underway. Phase 3 was originally to include integration of a helmet mounted cueing system & a short range, high off-boresight missile such as the Iris-T or AIM-9X, but this part of phase 3 has been cancelled to save costs. So be it, the AIM-120 capability, PGMs & Mavericks are more important.
Can you hear me now?
 
aislepathlight
Topic Author
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 21):

That's a good point, but we are having a lot of trouble sustaining our commitments with what we have (50,000 or less, all ranks, all trades, all branches). I think 75-100k would be better if we intend to spend more than a year or two on a particular mission. I don't think that qualifies as a large army either, considering what kind of forces many other nations can field.

I am not a person who is particularly shaken by terrorism or any related acts. In my opinion going and bombing the shit out of middle eastern countries just because they were home to a couple terrorist (or maybe just screwed up intelligence) doesn't stop any problem. Having better internal security protects a country, with possible stings when descry and well planed. I love aircraft (and other military stuff) but I don't think that a large air fleet is necessary. Just enough to get the job done-- just what Canada has.
bleepbloop
 
HanginOut
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:54 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
you will see the departure of the CC Polaris in the next 5 years , replaced with the C-17

As I noted in another post replying to your comments, it would be foolish of the CF to replace the Polaris (A310) with the C17, as they are for very different missions. Also, considering the CF just spent money upgrading two of them to be refueling tankers, I highly doubt that they will retire them (although, the geniuses at DND HQ have been known to do this sort of thing before). Also, I don't think that the PM will fly around in a C17 when he goes on his foreign tours, the Polaris is far more comfortable.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
The C-130 replacements will either be A400ms or C-130Js, right now Canada is taking its time with these upgrades and decisions.

I hope that the CF has enough sense to buy the A400 to replace the Hercules fleet. The fact that the USAF is not happy with the C130J and don't want it should be ringing alarm bells at NDHQ. I agree with your comment that they should take their time and make the right decision!
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 23):
I hope that the CF has enough sense to buy the A400 to replace the Hercules fleet. The fact that the USAF is not happy with the C130J and don't want it should be ringing alarm bells at NDHQ. I agree with your comment that they should take their time and make the right decision!

The A400 has been on the drawing boards forever. I'm starting to doubt it will fly in my lifetime.  Wink I'll say what I've been saying here for years: we should get the An-70. But since that's not happening, let's just go for the J. It ain't that bad. Better than 40 year old Echo Herks.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
HanginOut
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:46 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 24):
I'll say what I've been saying here for years: we should get the An-70.

Oh my god, I have actually been advocating this as well!!!

I have always thought that the An-70 would be perfect for the CF (larger payload and cabin) and the fact that we could buy a ton of them for the same price and equip the reserves with them as well would have been fantastic. But considering the fact that the CF has a "we will not buy Russian/ex-USSR" attitude sadly this will never happen.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:57 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 23):
The fact that the USAF is not happy with the C130J and don't want it should be ringing alarm bells at NDHQ. I agree with your comment that they should take their time and make the right decision!

Iposted something in the other Canada thread here that deals with this erroneous notion.

The airplane had teething problems, but it's performed incredibly well in combat conditions and is proving itself. The only people that want to cancel it now are the ones want to support different projects at the expense of air mobility. Same ones who think that 180 C-17s are enough to replace 270 C-141s and the C-5s in the boneyard.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:24 pm

Quoting LY744 (Reply 7):
Narrow mindedness.

When you speak of narrow mindedness, are perhaps referring to statements and policies like the following:

"I'll take one piece of paper, I'll take my pen, I will write zero helicopters, Chretien. That will be it, and I will not lose one minute of sleep over it."

--Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, 1993 Election Campaign
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
HanginOut
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:02 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 26):
Same ones who think that 180 C-17s are enough to replace 270 C-141s and the C-5s in the boneyard

I agree with you. I think it is foolish to think that 180 C17s are enough for the USAF. Considering there is never enough lift capability for the US, IMO, it would be better if they replaced the C141 fleet one for one (alas, we know that this will never happen).
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:48 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 28):
I agree with you. I think it is foolish to think that 180 C17s are enough for the USAF

I'm taking bets that the end result is going to be almost 270 C17's for the regs and reserve.
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:45 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 28):
I agree with you. I think it is foolish to think that 180 C17s are enough for the USAF. Considering there is never enough lift capability for the US, IMO, it would be better if they replaced the C141 fleet one for one (alas, we know that this will never happen).

I'd say that they could replace the tonnage/capacity with fewer C-17s. Perhaps 230 or so, since the C-141 has the same width as the Hercules, and the C-17 can carry heavier and bulkier items.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 27):
"I'll take one piece of paper, I'll take my pen, I will write zero helicopters, Chretien. That will be it, and I will not lose one minute of sleep over it."

--Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, 1993 Election Campaign

It's easy to sell your country out for a few votes.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
HanginOut
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:08 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30):
I'd say that they could replace the tonnage/capacity with fewer C-17s. Perhaps 230 or so, since the C-141 has the same width as the Hercules, and the C-17 can carry heavier and bulkier items.

You could indeed replace the tonnage/capacity with fewer C17s, but as I noted in my post, when has the US military ever had enough tonnage/capacity. Their fleet is so busy that they have to use charter aircraft to ferry equipment and troops around. Wouldn't they be better off having as great a capacity as they can reasonably afford, without further busting the budget?
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:15 pm

To all:

Some interesting points of view:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
Sounds like smart planning. What is Canada's largest percieved threat?



Quoting LY744 (Reply 7):
Narrow mindedness.

My father-in-law; an F86 driver from the RCAF's heydey as the pre-eminent air superiority force in the world, would have loved that observation.

I'm not entirely sure what some folks are trying to say here. Undoubtedly, Canada does not have any external threats in the conventional sense that justify huge weapons expenditure, but surely it needs to spend sufficient funds to insure that the CAF deployments that are sent to all parts of the globe (and Canada does seem to pride itself on its' peacekeeping missions and the global perception that Canada represents an independent and enligthened point of view) can be supplied and supported by national assets. That is what I think is the crux of the arguement here.

Canada cannot support a large force infrastructure ala the US; Canada has a fraction of the population. However, given Canada's wealth and its' participation in various missions, the cart should not be put before the horse.
The CAF have long be starved of funding. Perhaps recent events with the terror arrests in Toronto and the continuing problems in the Middle East where CAF personnel are at risk will convince politicians to do what is right by the CAF.

regards,

F4N
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:42 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 32):
Their fleet is so busy that they have to use charter aircraft to ferry equipment and troops around. Wouldn't they be better off having as great a capacity as they can reasonably afford, without further busting the budget?

I'd be very happy if the USAF ordered 50 more C-17s OR 50 772/748f's that they used for regular (non-tactical) cargo and refueling (i.e. fighter drags for training, shipping parts and equipment to Japan or Germany), and leased out commercially when the airframes were unneeded for missions.

I don't think I'm going to get either one, but it'd sure be nice to have the extra capability which is right now covered by CRAF (except for the refuelling capability), and that disrupts normal business which disrupts the economy.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
kaitak
Posts: 9907
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:04 am

Just a very quick question: does the CAF have any 707s in operation anymore; I assume most tankering and VIP operations are done by the 310/Polaris now, but just wanted to confirm.
 
HanginOut
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Canadian Military Spending

Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:33 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 34):
Just a very quick question: does the CAF have any 707s in operation anymore; I assume most tankering and VIP operations are done by the 310/Polaris now, but just wanted to confirm.

No, the 707s are all long gone. It is the Polaris fleet which fills the tanker (2 of them), transport, and VIP duties.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LTEN11 and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos