- Reaction score
- 17,086
- Points
- 1,010
KevinB-
Griffon- directed buy on orders of a former Defence Minister. No military input accepted.
CC130- have been attempting to replace for several years. Every C-17 and C-130J offer put in front of MND until last year- denied.
CC150- Air Force directed to buy these from nearly insolvent airline in order to keep it afloat. No one claims they are tactical transports.
CF-18 upgrade progamme put in place because trying to get replacements from govt would have been a waste of staff effort.
You see the common thread emerging here?
Just because some of the equipment is crap, does not invalidate the MISSION that is being performed.
Take fighters- if no fighters in CF, who exactly becomes responsible for the sovereignty of Canadian airspace? Think carefully about your answer. If you can't control something, it is difficult to argue sovereignty over it.
If we don't have subs or a blue water navy, I can virtually guarantee you that we will soon have someone else's subs or blue water Navy in our waters shortly. How does that help us maintain sovereignty?
As for Op Apollo- you guys on the ground were kicking in the front door in Afghanistan while we closed the back door with the Canadian Navy in the Arabian Sea. We all did good together.
Look my point here- the missions we do aren't all that wrong- the resources assigned are. Not disagreeing with you on the small arms front. If you say there is a problem, there probably is. But, I'm in no hurry to lose anymore capability for the CF. When is the last time anyone could honestly say that "Hey, you know, since we got rid of system X, we have just been rolling in the bucks to improve system Y"? I cannot think of single concrete example.
Anyway, let's see what the new CDS can make of this mess.
Cheers.
Secondly while I know that Navy has a high rate of deployment (and that is a given as part of a blue water Navy) what have the Airforce done?
Griffon - sorry it sucks unless you want to move one or two troops
CC130 - If we get the one or two workable ones airborne...
CC150 Polaris - Airbus's are not exactly STOL that you can launch an assault out of.
CF18 Hornet - now rusting out with not clear replacment.
Griffon- directed buy on orders of a former Defence Minister. No military input accepted.
CC130- have been attempting to replace for several years. Every C-17 and C-130J offer put in front of MND until last year- denied.
CC150- Air Force directed to buy these from nearly insolvent airline in order to keep it afloat. No one claims they are tactical transports.
CF-18 upgrade progamme put in place because trying to get replacements from govt would have been a waste of staff effort.
You see the common thread emerging here?
Just because some of the equipment is crap, does not invalidate the MISSION that is being performed.
Take fighters- if no fighters in CF, who exactly becomes responsible for the sovereignty of Canadian airspace? Think carefully about your answer. If you can't control something, it is difficult to argue sovereignty over it.
If we don't have subs or a blue water navy, I can virtually guarantee you that we will soon have someone else's subs or blue water Navy in our waters shortly. How does that help us maintain sovereignty?
As for Op Apollo- you guys on the ground were kicking in the front door in Afghanistan while we closed the back door with the Canadian Navy in the Arabian Sea. We all did good together.
Look my point here- the missions we do aren't all that wrong- the resources assigned are. Not disagreeing with you on the small arms front. If you say there is a problem, there probably is. But, I'm in no hurry to lose anymore capability for the CF. When is the last time anyone could honestly say that "Hey, you know, since we got rid of system X, we have just been rolling in the bucks to improve system Y"? I cannot think of single concrete example.
Anyway, let's see what the new CDS can make of this mess.
Cheers.