[bootlegga]

kal kal:

ridenrain ridenrain:

kal kal:

ridenrain ridenrain:

So some of you obviously would rather to keep this a political issue.
I've been unhappy with the politics of this patronage appointment and about the possibility of throwing money into something that should be replaced, but I've not called anyone into blame.
It's funny that the NDP are asking for more military but aside from that, I haven't really mentioned politics. In fact, I wished that we could get this solved without the politicians and the lobby groups.

No one has yet answered if these video recordings of illegal fishing, dumping, etc. will stand up as proof in court.
If all the aircraft can do is spot and report, then the constraint is going to be the intercepting ship, not the spotting aircraft.

These planes do far, far more than simply "report". They can notify the coast guard,

.. report

I actually ment to expand on that point... but yea, glorified recon. They can still do more of it a lot faster than ships can.

$1:

kal kal:

conduct SAR, conduct ASW (try mounting a MAD on a UAV), training... a plethora of things that robots can't do. And this is a political issue. Who's making the cuts? The military? Or the Government? Last time I checked, Government = political.

SAR is valuable but you still need to get those folks out of the water. That's still a boat.

Choppers more often than not. You're not going to wait 3 hours for a cutter to get out to an emergency location

$1:

ASW is valuable but I doubt Canada regularly screens for subs. We'd do that when there are war games. I doubt these drug smuggling, illegal alien, fish stealers are using subs yet.
As for UAV-ASW: I'd rather get those East coast folks working on something with a future, rather than something that's just going to keep costing money.

You'd be surprised how much ASW these things actually do. It's not just done in war games.

$1:

kal kal:

This is the conservatives fucking the military in the ass. Plain and simple.

The guys in charge, nor do the folks in the military share taht oppinion.

Yea, and they didn't really share that opinion when the liberals were in power, either. Probably because if the guys in charge said they were being fucked by the government, the government would cut what little they are giving. You don't bite the hand that feeds, even if it is only table scraps.[/quote]

[ridenrain]

bootlegga bootlegga:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

hhmmmm....There seems to be some contradiction by the critics here.

The Auroras are represented as serviceable planes which should be "upgraded".

The "upgrade" involves new wings and tail assemblies....to replace fatuigued components?

It sounds suspiciously like these birds are getting too long in the tooth. Replacement rather than cobbling.

It's like making the decision to do body work, brakes, exhaust, powertrain rebuild on your old car or buy a new one.

Somebody's patronage is threatened.

UAV's are cheaper and more available anyhoo. What is really needed is more surface assets.

BTW that $billion or so the LIBRANO's spent on Russian Carbon Credits would have bought new birds.

"THAT'S NOT FAIR.
It's not easy to make priorities."

The Auroras should be at least as serviceable as the B-52s the USAF built in the 1960s, flew around the clock for decades and plan on having in service another 20+ years. Plenty of planes last longer than 25 years in service. If the Cons wanted to, these planes could be fixed.

And please, find a UAV that has a 8000 km range and is reusable (that would match the capabilites of the Aurora). Most UAVs get in less than a dozen missions before they are written off. UAVs currently are nowhere as good as the Aurora, or the US wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions developing the P-8.

We can't really compare Canada and the Aurora with the US with the B52. It's not just the aircraft and the application, it's just that the US made a shitload of them and they don't really fail much. If they need some wingspars or tails, they just go to the boneyard and pull some.


We might be able to do that with RCMP Crown Vic's but we're starved for aircraft.

[kevlarman]

Agreed. You can't compare the two programs. Firstly, the Canadian goverenments, be they Liberal or Conservative don't have very good histories of supporting the Armed Forces and say what you like, but Uncle SAM has NEVER been shy to spend a few extra million here and there to keep its programs and equipment up to par.

Comparing the Aurora program to the American B-52 program without taking into account the politicians who backed each program in both countries is like comparing apples to oranges blindfolded. Canadian politicians have a reputation of cutting the Armed Forces budget at the cost of nearly EVERYTHING else just to get elected. It was like and probably still is a compettion sport back home. In the USA, you can lose your elected office if it's percieved by the voters that you don't back them.

Untill I see that in Canada, then you can compare both programs. Untill then, please, the two programs are not even close.

[DerbyX]

kevlarman kevlarman:

Agreed. You can't compare the two programs. Firstly, the Canadian goverenments, be they Liberal or Conservative don't have very good histories of supporting the Armed Forces and say what you like, but Uncle SAM has NEVER been shy to spend a few extra million here and there to keep its programs and equipment up to par.

Comparing the Aurora program to the American B-52 program without taking into account the politicians who backed each program in both countries is like comparing apples to oranges blindfolded. Canadian politicians have a reputation of cutting the Armed Forces budget at the cost of nearly EVERYTHING else just to get elected. It was like and probably still is a compettion sport back home. In the USA, you can lose your elected office if it's percieved by the voters that you don't back them.

Untill I see that in Canada, then you can compare both programs. Untill then, please, the two programs are not even close.

Thats the crux of the matter. Neither party (for various reasons) invests enough in defence spending. A far cry from the usual suspects attacking a single party (The Libs).

Of course we might also point out the massive debt the US is in and the fact that their last deficit was larger then our entire debt and that it currently sits at 9.1 trillion dollars which is essentially 20X ours. Of course the population is about 10X.

The US cannot keep this up for much longer and hopefully Canada can adopt a policy of continual downward debt movement coupled with increased military spending.

An obvious solution seems to be for Canada to buy surplus US equipment. Money for them, equipment for us. Oddly that rarely seems to be the case.

[kevlarman]

Buying surplus American hardware might just be where it's at. I don't see a reason to keep the Aurora's out of service entirely since once they are fixed they'd make great planes for the reserves. Then you could use your better stuff, say a Nimrod, P-8's, etc for the regular forces. In fact, it might be a wise idea all around to adopt that policy for ALL the forces equipment (it may be in place now for all I know...). What I'm referring to is the practice of giving the hand me down equipment (at least the stuff that's in good order) to the reserves. If I remember correctly that is already done to some respect but I don't know if it is done all the way across the board

[kal]

DerbyX DerbyX:

An obvious solution seems to be for Canada to buy surplus US equipment. Money for them, equipment for us. Oddly that rarely seems to be the case.

Not a bad idea, but there are 3 issues with that:

The first is the current attitude in the US and the paranoia about exporting high grade military equipment, even if it is to a close ally. Last year the US decided not to export F-22s to Australia.

Second, and was mentioned earlier in this thread, is the issue of spares. Getting enough spare parts for equipment would be difficult. Older equipment brakes down more often, resulting in the need for more spares. The Canadian government is loath to buy spare parts.

Third, is a media/political issue. You know as soon as the Government bought surplus yankee stuff the media would go on it's "The Government is buying crappy American used equipment for our military" binge in fained support of the CF.

[ridenrain]

There is also the fact that the US is working to keep it's fleet of these aircraft on line, using up the spares that we'd want.
I think we just need to suck it up and replace these aircraft.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The Auroras should be at least as serviceable as the B-52s the USAF built in the 1960s, flew around the clock for decades and plan on having in service another 20+ years. Plenty of planes last longer than 25 years in service. If the Cons wanted to, these planes could be fixed.

And please, find a UAV that has a 8000 km range and is reusable (that would match the capabilites of the Aurora). Most UAVs get in less than a dozen missions before they are written off. UAVs currently are nowhere as good as the Aurora, or the US wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions developing the P-8.

We can't really compare Canada and the Aurora with the US with the B52. It's not just the aircraft and the application, it's just that the US made a shitload of them and they don't really fail much. If they need some wingspars or tails, they just go to the boneyard and pull some.


We might be able to do that with RCMP Crown Vic's but we're starved for aircraft.

Just because Canada doesn't possess dozens of extra Aurora airframes doesn't mean that they aren't available. The P-3 was sold to dozens of countries and if we wanted to buy some old planes for parts, it is porbably only a matter of calling a few allies. And I suppose you are correct that we shouldn't comapre the B-52s with the Auroras, as the B-52s were kept running 24/7 for DECADES during the cold war while our patrol planes logged 1/4 of the time.

The point, which you missed (as usual), is that just because a plane is old doens't mean it is useless or needs immediate repalcement.

[ridenrain]

Everything that flexes and is made from Aluninum will eventually fail and nothing on an aircraft can be made so heavy and strong that it will never flex.

Wing sparts for a bomber that must carry 8 tons of bombs (guess) won't move when it's only carrying one ton. A patrol aircraft that always carries the same weight will always suffer the same fatigue loading because it's payload is almost always the same.

Old planes can stay in service but like old cars, it eventually costs more to keep them running than it does to replace them. Most of the users of this aircraft are replacing them, and maybe it's a coppy-cat reflex or maybe they are just at that stage.

I will be very happy to let the forces and their experts chose the course of action but I don't want job-dependant, special interest groups or arms dealing lobbyists to affect that decision.