[saturn_656]

Yultoto Yultoto:

As far as letting the military chose their own equipment.

Offer some B-1 bombers, some F-117 Stealth fighters and some F-22s to the Air Force and see if they say "no thank you, Canada does not need these things"

Offer a Nuclear powered aircraft carrier with sqadron of new F-35s to the navy, along with 4 nuclear powered attack submarines and see if they refuse it.

Offer 1000 M-1 tanks, a battery of Patriot anti-missile missiles, along with 500 Apache Helicopters to the Army and see if they refuse.

They'd have to be NUTS to refuse that.

You think they should?

I resent the inference that SSN's are not necessary. They are if we want to control our Arctic waters. Full stop.

[Canadian_Mind]

Yultoto, at first you were stepping outside my line of expertise WRT the navy and airforce offers, but then you started talking about tanks.

We would never buy M1s. The reasons being are that the US wouldn't sell us tanks with the best armour, the main gun is inferior compared to the maingun on Leo 2A6, it is slower, has a smaller range, is a pig on gas, uses jet fuel for propulsion, has a massive heat signature, and the turbine is prone to failure in extreme conditions.

We also asked for only 100 tanks, we got 100 tanks. On the ground we would like more. But, the brass only asked for 100, so if offered 1000 (the option was there to get about 300ish tanks), they would likely say no.

Stepping outside my field of expertise, we have no need for a bomber, so we woulnd't buy the B-1 or the B-2, the F-117 is outdated and most airforces in the world now know how to track it. Only the F-22 might be accepted, but even then the thing doesn't have the multi-role capability the brass wants.

We don't have the manpower to operate a carrier. The nuke sub is iffy because some people are afraid of the words nuclear ad radiation.

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

uses jet fuel for propulsion.

The engine of the M1 can use a variety of fuels besides jet fuel. Diesel will run in it if I remember correctly.

[Canadian_Mind]

Jet fuel is used for a reason, even though it is explosive.

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Jet fuel is used for a reason, even though it is explosive.

Not any mechanical reason. Diesel runs in the turbine just fine, hell you could drive it up to an unleaded gas pump, fuel up, and drive off no problem.

The turbine's ability to accept a variety of fuels is not its only advantage, and its only real downside when compared to conventional engines is that it is such a pig on fuel.

[uwish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

uwish uwish:

I don't think you will ANY OC in the CF of any element that will say we did not need the C-17's. It was time and long overdue, we did need that capability.

Lets move on to other needs now.

So what? Of course the guys using them are going to say they need them...

You probably won't find an admiral who wouldn't want an amphibious assault ship or helicopter carrier, just like you won't find an air force general saying we need more fighters, or an army general who thinks we need more tanks or gunships.

That doesn't mean we need any of them.

take it from a guy who was in for 10 years flying those crates twice my age. WE NEEDED them. While I said ANY OC in the CF I meant ANY OC of ANY element. Ask any of them they will all tell you WE NEEDED that ability.

I am not going to go into the AC type, but denying we needed the capability shows very little knowledge of a modern military needs.

[bootlegga]

uwish uwish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

uwish uwish:

I don't think you will ANY OC in the CF of any element that will say we did not need the C-17's. It was time and long overdue, we did need that capability.

Lets move on to other needs now.

So what? Of course the guys using them are going to say they need them...

You probably won't find an admiral who wouldn't want an amphibious assault ship or helicopter carrier, just like you won't find an air force general saying we need more fighters, or an army general who thinks we need more tanks or gunships.

That doesn't mean we need any of them.

take it from a guy who was in for 10 years flying those crates twice my age. WE NEEDED them. While I said ANY OC in the CF I meant ANY OC of ANY element. Ask any of them they will all tell you WE NEEDED that ability.

I am not going to go into the AC type, but denying we needed the capability shows very little knowledge of a modern military needs.

I didn't say we didn't need the capability, I said we had other options which were far cheaper than the route we chose.

I find little military necessity in having C-17s, C-130Js, Ch-47Fs, and C-27Js, especially when at least one other service doesn't have everything it needs. The army has done quite well in the past decade, getting all sorts of goodies, and now so has the air force. What has the navy gotten in the past decade? Some Kingston and Orca patrol boats. Hardly the investment a nation with the world's longest coastline needs (and yes the Liberals are just as guilty as the Conservatives).

No, the service that needs investment right now is the navy. Our AORs are over 40 years old, our DDHs are almost 40 years old and thanks to MacKay cancelling a refit, we have less than a dozen planes to patrol a pretty damned big area.

Canada has little need to own strategic transport, tactical transport, medium helo transport, light helo transport, and SAR planes that can double as transport all at the same time. The US, UK, and France I understand needing so much transport, but us? Come on, be realistic. Once the C-130Js are delivered we'll have more transport than we have troops to carry (OK, I exaggerate a little). We don't have former colonies to protect, we don't have bases overseas, soon we won't even have a war to fight in Afghanistan (our deployment will end before all these planes/helos are even delivered).

So unless Canada suddenly plans to become the world's policeman (which soldiers and Conservatives alike seem to despise), a lot of these planes will sit around doing nothing, and that's a giant waste of money, especially when we could have paid a fraction (about 1%) to a company in Toronto to maintain the same capability was we bought from Boeing.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I find little military necessity in having C-17s, C-130Js, Ch-47Fs, and C-27Js, especially when at least one other service doesn't have everything it needs. The army has done quite well in the past decade, getting all sorts of goodies, and now so has the air force. What has the navy gotten in the past decade? Some Kingston and Orca patrol boats. Hardly the investment a nation with the world's longest coastline needs (and yes the Liberals are just as guilty as the Conservatives).

The Air Force has not done THAT well, most if not all of its new equipment (transport aircraft) has been purchased to support the Army. The one exception is the Sea King replacement project, but that has been a cluster fuck for about 15 or 16 years now...

bootlegga bootlegga:

So unless Canada suddenly plans to become the world's policeman (which soldiers and Conservatives alike seem to despise), a lot of these planes will sit around doing nothing, and that's a giant waste of money, especially when we could have paid a fraction (about 1%) to a company in Toronto to maintain the same capability was we bought from Boeing.

I highly doubt it would have been the "same" capability.

Would the lease have been wet or dry?

What would have been the terms of the lease?

Flighthour limitations?

What sort of defensive suite to these Russian planes have?

There are alot of things to consider that you are not.

[EyeBrock]

I really have to shake my head when people diss the C17 purchase. It shows an inherent lack of strategic vision to second guess the bit of kit that can deploy Canadian power anywhere in the world.

Saying we could 'rent' aircraft is just plain silly. There were no aircraft to rent when the tsunami hit and our much vaunted DART team stayed at CFB Trenton.
Now we can deploy them. If needs change, we can also deploy a MBT on each aircraft, and 4 chalks can deploy a fully armed infantry battalion, anywhere, within 24 hours.
That means we can move kit that it is needed to assist with the Manitoba floods or reinforce Khandahar.

Maybe we should have got an ice-breaker instead? That would be useful in Khandahar right now.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The Air Force has not done THAT well, most if not all of its new equipment (transport aircraft) has been purchased to support the Army. The one exception is the Sea King replacement project, but that has been a cluster fuck for about 15 or 16 years now...

I highly doubt it would have been the "same" capability.

Would the lease have been wet or dry?

What would have been the terms of the lease?

Flighthour limitations?

What sort of defensive suite to these Russian planes have?

There are alot of things to consider that you are not.

Yeah, the MHP has been a clusterfuck from day one, with the Libs screwing the pooch big time on that issue.

Given that we're still renting AN-124s to transport stuff to Kandahar tells me it's apparently as capable as the C-17 is.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I really have to shake my head when people diss the C17 purchase. It shows an inherent lack of strategic vision to second guess the bit of kit that can deploy Canadian power anywhere in the world.

Saying we could 'rent' aircraft is just plain silly. There were no aircraft to rent when the tsunami hit and our much vaunted DART team stayed at CFB Trenton.
Now we can deploy them. If needs change, we can also deploy a MBT on each aircraft, and 4 chalks can deploy a fully armed infantry battalion, anywhere, within 24 hours.
That means we can move kit that it is needed to assist with the Manitoba floods or reinforce Khandahar.

Maybe we should have got an ice-breaker instead? That would be useful in Khandahar right now.

Given that we've been using leased AN-124s in Afghanistan recently, despite owning those C-17s, I see the capability (while nice) as redundant. Why would we rent AN-124s to fly our new Leo2s to Kandahar when we've go those shiny new planes? Maybe because they are just as capable, or maybe because it's far cheaper to rent a Russian plane than it is to fly our 'Lamborghini' of transport planes, or maybe because we don't want ot scratch the paint on our new planes.

Like I said previously EB, the AN-124s and Il-76s we could have rented from Skylink would have been on 24/7/365 standby for use by the CF only. There would have been no wait time or worrying about finding a plane to rent. Your argument about past failures is a red herring on this issue.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yeah, the MHP has been a clusterfuck from day one, with the Libs screwing the pooch big time on that issue.

Given that we're still renting AN-124s to transport stuff to Kandahar tells me it's apparently as capable as the C-17 is.

What it tells me, is that the CF is lacking in DAS equipped transports, and that we need either more CC-177's or new CC-130's.

There is a CF directive that prohibits the transport of troops into Afghanistan on non-DAS equipped aircraft.

The only DAS equipped transports we have are the CC-177 and CC-130, given the worn out state of the 130 fleet the 177's have been helping take some of the strain off.

CF does not require DAS gear on aircraft transporting equipment.

That is why the CF is still contracting equipment runs to Afghanistan out, IMO, 177's are too busy moving people.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The Air Force has not done THAT well, most if not all of its new equipment (transport aircraft) has been purchased to support the Army. The one exception is the Sea King replacement project, but that has been a cluster fuck for about 15 or 16 years now...

I highly doubt it would have been the "same" capability.

Would the lease have been wet or dry?

What would have been the terms of the lease?

Flighthour limitations?

What sort of defensive suite to these Russian planes have?

There are alot of things to consider that you are not.

Yeah, the MHP has been a clusterfuck from day one, with the Libs screwing the pooch big time on that issue.

Given that we're still renting AN-124s to transport stuff to Kandahar tells me it's apparently as capable as the C-17 is.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I really have to shake my head when people diss the C17 purchase. It shows an inherent lack of strategic vision to second guess the bit of kit that can deploy Canadian power anywhere in the world.

Saying we could 'rent' aircraft is just plain silly. There were no aircraft to rent when the tsunami hit and our much vaunted DART team stayed at CFB Trenton.
Now we can deploy them. If needs change, we can also deploy a MBT on each aircraft, and 4 chalks can deploy a fully armed infantry battalion, anywhere, within 24 hours.
That means we can move kit that it is needed to assist with the Manitoba floods or reinforce Khandahar.

Maybe we should have got an ice-breaker instead? That would be useful in Khandahar right now.

Given that we've been using leased AN-124s in Afghanistan recently, despite owning those C-17s, I see the capability (while nice) as redundant. Why would we rent AN-124s to fly our new Leo2s to Kandahar when we've go those shiny new planes? Maybe because they are just as capable, or maybe because it's far cheaper to rent a Russian plane than it is to fly our 'Lamborghini' of transport planes, or maybe because we don't want ot scratch the paint on our new planes.

Like I said previously EB, the AN-124s and Il-76s we could have rented from Skylink would have been on 24/7/365 standby for use by the CF only. There would have been no wait time or worrying about finding a plane to rent. Your argument about past failures is a red herring on this issue.

I disagree. Relying on civilian, even worse, Russian civilian contractors in times of crisis is just not good planning.

I agree with saturn, we really do need more tac and strat airlift capabilty, not crappy airbus's or rented ex-Soviet transports.

We can always find uses for new C130's or even a few more C17's. This is a big country and we have a small military. Being able to deploy and project our assets is the first rule of mobility.
And the lamborghini moniker is just an un-informed opinion.
The C17 is about the only aircraft around that can do what we want and do it well.

I'm sorry, Antonovs rented from some dodgy company in the Ukraine or Russia is not something I'd ever rely on as a Leading Aircraftsman, never mind a planner at Command or NDHQ.

We've been through all this before, I continue to disagree with you and I'll go with the obviously much better informed saturn's opinion. No disrespect boots, you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I disagree. Relying on civilian, even worse, Russian civilian contractors in times of crisis is just not good planning.

I agree with saturn, we really do need more tac and strat airlift capabilty, not crappy airbus's or rented ex-Soviet transports.

We can always find uses for new C130's or even a few more C17's. This is a big country and we have a small military. Being able to deploy and project our assets is the first rule of mobility.
And the lamborghini moniker is just an un-informed opinion.
The C17 is about the only aircraft around that can do what we want and do it well.

I'm sorry, Antonovs rented from some dodgy company in the Ukraine or Russia is not something I'd ever rely on as a Leading Aircraftsman, never mind a planner at Command or NDHQ.

We've been through all this before, I continue to disagree with you and I'll go with the obviously much better informed saturn's opinion. No disrespect boots, you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

No, apparently, you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. I know all you righties love to bash Toronto and its Liberals and New Dippers, but last time I checked, it was still in Canada.

Let me repeat it once again -- SKYLINK AVIATION (the company that offered us the $42 million annual rental I'm talking about) is based in TORONTO, CANADA, not Russia or Ukraine or anywhere else.

Here is the actual offer I'm talking about -- 2 planes the same size as the C-17, plus two AN-124s, much larger and capable than the C-17.

http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-skylink.htm

Here is Skylink's website;

http://www.skylinkaviation.com/

Some facts on capabilities of the AN-124 in comparison to the C-17.

http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-1.htm

And if you're going to toss in the old 'what if we go to war with Russia and run out of spare parts' argument, don't bother, because it is a red herring. We couldn't get spare parts for our C-17s last year, and that's was with the factory on the same continent as us!

The AN-124-100, was re-designed, built and flown AFTER the USSR collapsed, so the ex-soviet description is totally wrong too.

I also beg to differ with the Lamborghini moniker. The C-17 costs more to purchase, more to operate, has a shorter range, and smaller payload, so the description is quite apt IMHO.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Let me repeat it once again -- SKYLINK AVIATION (the company that offered us the $42 million annual rental I'm talking about) is based in TORONTO, CANADA, not Russia or Ukraine or anywhere else.

Here is the actual offer I'm talking about -- 2 planes the same size as the C-17, plus two AN-124s, much larger and capable than the C-17.

SkyLink An-124's do not actually belong to SkyLink but in fact are the property of Antonov Airlines, based out of UKRAINE.

Evidence of this is that when you see images of "SkyLink" An-124's they always seem to be dressed up in the colours of Antonov Airlines (flying the Ukranian flag), not SkyLink.

Find me an image of an An-124 in SkyLink colours, flying the Maple Leaf.

Bet you can't.