[Scape]

Snowbirds are a showcase but they are not fluff. They should get state of the art training and equipment. When we replace the CF-18's these guys should have a squadron of their own to show the potential of the new aircraft, what ever that may be and the sooner the better.

[PENATRATOR]

Hahahahah

[PENATRATOR]

Scape Scape:

Snowbirds are a showcase but they are not fluff. They should get state of the art training and equipment. When we replace the CF-18's these guys should have a squadron of their own to show the potential of the new aircraft, what ever that may be and the sooner the better.

The 18's will probably be 50 years old by the time we get rid of them

[Scape]

I know.

[Ripcat]

A lot of airshows in Canada have been scrubbed due to a lack of corporate sponsorship. More may be scrubbed due to the economy. Perhaps the Snowbirds should be retired this year and a plan started now to replace them with new planes by 2015.

[ridenrain]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Or the cancelled Arrow...

.. or the Ross rifle.. the Ram tank, or maybe the Martini-Henry rifles..

The Snowbirds exist as a high precision training vehicle. The fact that they can do a full airshow program and still be seen is one of their best assets and the Hawk trainers would be perfect for that. If we can make it under licence in Canada, that's even better.

I think Ripcat is right and airshows will slow down for a bit. A few less shows would help but that still dosen't reduce the nessesary training value to our pilots.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Or the cancelled Arrow...

.. or the Ross rifle.. the Ram tank, or maybe the Martini-Henry rifles..

The Snowbirds exist as a high precision training vehicle. The fact that they can do a full airshow program and still be seen is one of their best assets and the Hawk trainers would be perfect for that. If we can make it under licence in Canada, that's even better.

I think Ripcat is right and airshows will slow down for a bit. A few less shows would help but that still dosen't reduce the nessesary training value to our pilots.

I think you missed the whole point of this exerecise, which was to point out a major weapons system boondoggle bought/cancelled by the other party.

The Ross Rifle was bought by your buddy (Sam Hughes, who worked for Robert Borden - you know, the same guy who brought in income tax ). As for the other two, they both did what they were intended (a training tank and a rifle for use in South Africa).

If this is such a critical system, then why haven't your beloved Conservatives done more than those awful Liberals? Oh, yeah, because Harper and MacKay don't care nearly as much about the defence portfolio as you like to pretend they do.

If they cared more than the Liberals did, they wouldn't have shelved the JSS, cancelled the Aurora modernization program, would at least started looking at new destroyers (which turn 40 in a year or two), tendered an RFP for SAR planes, or done SOMETHING positive for the portfolio in the past six months.

Instead, they've done exactly what the Libs did, promise big and then delay/cancel after they got the votes they wanted.

[Canadian_Mind]

The Liberals and Conservatives have both had their fair share of kicking the military in the balls. Currently the Liberals have a very pro-military leader, which is about the only policy of Iggy's I know about. Now would be the time to pass legislation to get us fully armed, 50 000 Tonne Icebreakers for the north, begin research into new fighter aircraft and tutors, more choppers, more transport aircraft, new SAR aircraft, new anti-naval aircraft, new support ships and new amphibious warfare vessels, new destroyers, new subs, etc.

But so far I haven't heard a peep, even after a 36 billion per year stimulus package.

Personally, I'd like to see the Liberals run with a very pro-military policy, and see whether the conservatives support it or not. If they do, then fucking awesome for the CF, if they don't, then it will surely eliminate the stigma that the conservatives are so much better than the grits.

[ridenrain]

Boot: It was just an extension of you're desperate grasp.
The meat of the matter is that the folks in the forces have a very low opinion of the Liberals. You can spin all you like but it dosen't change that fact.

The problem with what you're suggesting is it takes vital money that is currently being used to protect our troops in Chretien's war. While we do need ships and planes, no one would trade them for flag draped caskets comming home.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

The Liberals and Conservatives have both had their fair share of kicking the military in the balls. Currently the Liberals have a very pro-military leader, which is about the only policy of Iggy's I know about. Now would be the time to pass legislation to get us fully armed, 50 000 Tonne Icebreakers for the north, begin research into new fighter aircraft and tutors, more choppers, more transport aircraft, new SAR aircraft, new anti-naval aircraft, new support ships and new amphibious warfare vessels, new destroyers, new subs, etc.

But so far I haven't heard a peep, even after a 36 billion per year stimulus package.

Personally, I'd like to see the Liberals run with a very pro-military policy, and see whether the conservatives support it or not. If they do, then fucking awesome for the CF, if they don't, then it will surely eliminate the stigma that the conservatives are so much better than the grits.

That's my hope as well. I think if there's been a Liberal leader in the past 40 years who would do that, it's Iggy.

My hope against hope was that Harper would say, "Hey, we're spending $36 billion, let's spend some of it on the CF, right here in Canada. We're going to buy new Buffaloes from Viking Air, build the JSS, and get a bunch more LAV III from GDLS in London, ON". Sadly, that didn't happen.

Maybe if the two of them put their heads together and work for Canada instead of against each other, it still can.