[EyeBrock]

cyprien cyprien:

well, you could. but that would mean expanding the navy and/or army. you still need most of the infrastructure and crews the airforce has currently.

i'm not sure what you mean brock, that's the canadian airforce crest.

Nope, it's the RCAF crest, as in Royal Canadian Air Force. A proud and combat proven outfit.
Canada doesn't have an airforce anymore.
We have Air Command.
And they don't fly in Afghanistan.

[cyprien]

i'm sensing some anger brock.

why do you say we don't have an air force?

i never implied anything about the airforce's ability. or air command, or whatever.

tim horton's had permission to go to khandahar, the air force did not. you constantly seem to ignore that point, i'm not sure why.

you seem to be very angry at the airforce for not deploying to afghanistan, do you think the airforce doesn't want to be there? is it a conspiracy? you are very ignorant of the way in which our government goes about deploying different elements of the armed forces, and the fact that air support has been delegated to other countries in afghanistan.

one thing i will agree with, the cf18's are doing sweet FA.

[EyeBrock]

You nailed it on agreeing with my "The CF18s are doing sweet FA".

On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded.

You don't have an airforce. You have Air Command which has no ability to project force past Newfoundland.

Our guys are in Afghanistan.

Why should we pay for 80 Hornets and their support crews that can't even cover our own troops?
Anger aside, its money for nothing.

[saturn_656]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded.

Our Air Power is comparable to countries like Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Looking at these countries on a map compared to Canada really shows you that there is something deeply wrong with that situation...

Don't even get me started on our lack of AWACS. Most serious Air Forces have them.

Of course we don't. Go figure.

[EyeBrock]

Saturn, I agree with you. I'm saddened at the state of our air power. Coming from an Airforce that trained us to dig holes with our pongo comrades, and actually defend ourselves in the field, its sad to see Air Command's inherent lack of combat capability, despite us taxpayers funding them.
I probably deployed with every combat roled Squadron in the RAF at least three times in ten years. The RAF still has 600 combat aircraft deploying momthly.

Canada is getting little value from those 80 CF18s.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Saturn, I agree with you. I'm saddened at the state of our air power. Coming from an Airforce that trained us to dig holes with our pongo comrades, and actually defend ourselves in the field.
I probably deployed with every combat roled Squadron in the RAF at least three times in ten years. The RAF still has 600 combat aircraft deploying momthly.

Canada is getting little value from those 80 CF18s.

Perhaps its a cost issue? While we may not want to admit it, cost is a priority of the govt. While other branches have gotten their due from Martin & Harper recently, the fighter element of the airforce probably hasn't. The priority was heavy lift, transport and helicopter was it not? You yourself posted that the Griffons were simply not suitable for A'stan despite Inverted post that they were and their subsequent deployment. Of course those were air command decisions in the long run as are the CF-18s.

It might be that its simply to costly to deploy an effective air wing to Afghanistan.

[EyeBrock]

Well what is the point in keeping 80 CF18's flying? We could probably stick four aircraft on either coast and sell the rest.

On the Griffons. Check out the fuel vs payload effects at 6000 feet. They can just about take-off with a marginal fuel load, three crew and a limited ammo load.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well what is the point in keeping 80 CF18's flying? We could probably stick four aircraft on either coast and sell the rest.

On the Griffons. Check out the fuel vs payload effects at 6000 feet. They can just about take-off with a marginal fuel load, three crew and a limited ammo load.

Canada hasn't been involved in naval battles for over 50 years either yet we need a better navy.

Having a fighter airforce to protect our skies even if they aren't actively involved in combat is no different then keeping a well equipped military during peacetime. Its a source of pride and a deterrent.

Just because they aren't in the Stan doesn't mean they should be sold off.

As for the Griffons, I'm not qualified to argue technical merits. I just pointed out that they were eventually deployed.

Lets get political though. Our deployment is coming to an end because of cost issues and that was likely the reason behind not deploying the Hornets to the Stan.

Seems to me Harper has done everything wrong economically and its almost incompatible that so many conservatives decry paying taxes and demand tax-cuts when we need those taxes to fund the military. Why is that?

[EyeBrock]

I disagree on all you said.
If we pay big bucks for having 80 Hornets that can't even give air cover to our troops, are we putting cash into the wrong things?
I think so.

That cash keeping the CF18s defending the St Lawrence seaway could be better spent having a Canadian Army Air Corps regiment of AH-64's.

Poo on the Griffons, get the real thing.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I disagree on all you said.
If we pay big bucks for having 80 Hornets that can't even give air cover to our troops, are we putting cash into the wrong things?
I think so.

That cash keeping the CF18s defending the St Lawrence seaway could be better spent having a Canadian Army Air Corps regiment of AH-64's.

Poo on the Griffons, get the real thing.

Yet you have or post no understanding of the cost involved. The cost involved in having Hornets in Canada is far cheaper then abroad. Thats why cost may be an issue. It is very likely that the US can provide that role better and the cost associated with us doing it isn't worth the pride involved especially when the funds saved are kicked back into purchasing.

I can only imagine the outcry if Canada did simply sell off the CF-18s. Mulroney did for the Chinocks because at the time we didn't need it as much as we do now.

I can only imagine the even worse outcry if it were the Liberals doing what you just requested.

As for the Griffons, I again direct you to Inverted. Sure Blackhawks are better suited. Hell, why not have a whole squadron of Apaches?

Its easy to say what we'd like to have. How about what we can afford and as long as us voters force the parties to offer deeper and deeper tax cuts our military will never be as funded and equipped as well as you want it too be.

[EyeBrock]

Having a squadron/regiment of AH-64's would make more sense than continuing to fund 80 Hornets doing nothing.

[roger-roger]

Hell I havent heard anything from the snowbirds even, do they even fly still?

[ridenrain]

CAS is a expensive and painfull thing to develop and while the US sucks at it, their still better than we would be to learn that all over again.
I'd be happy to see a bunch of Canadian built Pucara instead of a single CF18

[DerbyX]

For our current deployment yes. You yourself have posted about Russia's growing threat, a threat to our northern areas. To counter that we would need fighters capable of blunting all but a determined Russia foray.

It makes even more sense to fully withdraw all forces to Canada and institute a multi-year program, of complete reinforcement and requiping. Spend every last military dollar we have buying the next gen equipment and planning to replace all the needed trades personnel.

[EyeBrock]

Pucara? Very interesting.