Canada's Sea King Helicopter Fleet

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Another Liberal bashing thread.(..)

Which are my favs.!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Tingkai

That's the biggest problem.

We'd have more available if we weren't in NATO. I don't understand why we're still there frankly. The Cold War is over, Europe's no longer threatened. Our role there, such as it was, isn't of any use anymore, so why are we still spending our money being in it?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Willem


We'd have more available if we weren't in NATO. I don't understand why we're still there frankly. The Cold War is over, Europe's no longer threatened. Our role there, such as it was, isn't of any use anymore, so why are we still spending our money being in it?

We closed our bases in Europe years ago, much to the disappointment of the Forces. It was considered a great posting.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Tingkai


We closed our bases in Europe years ago, much to the disappointment of the Forces. It was considered a great posting.

That's kind of the point I'm making; our involvement there is so limited, what's the point? Europe doesn't need us, but it's still costing us a bunch of money; I'm not sure how much exactly, that could be better spent on our UN commitments, or upgrading our forces. I'm basically a peacenik, but our military is starting to get embarrassing even to me.

[Tingkai]

Re: Canada's Sea King Helicopter Fleet

Originally posted by Asher
A couple years ago when a ship sank off the eastern coast, over a dozen lives were lost because of "deficient" night imaging systems on the Sea King rescue helicopters that would spot survivors and lose sight of them right after. This is according to the DND's own report, not my own assumption.

I just read the news report about this, and once again Asher, you've got the facts completely screwed up.

Once again, Asher is attacking the people who do so much for Canada simply to satisfy his anti-Canadian hatred.


It was not off the east coast,as Asher claims. The rescue occurred near Bermuda. A Canadian ship was on a training mission when it received a distress call from a sinking bulk carrier.

A Sea King was dispatched and rescued 12 people from the ship. 20 others perished. Three members of the Canadian rescue team were given medals for their bravery.

One report argued that better equipment would have allowed more people to be saved.

BUT, the helicopter crew said better equipment would not have made a difference. According to the Globe, the crew said fierce conditions and the rapid sinking made it impossible to recover more of the crew.

"I don't think it was a contributing factor," Captain David Beerman [the officer commanding the rescue]. "I think the main factor that caused those people to perish or not be found was the violent breakup of that ship."

Originally posted by Asher
The DND is now covering it up: Downgraded the report previously mentioned (which recommended replacing the fleet) to "draft" status and claimed it would require further study, 2 days after CBC questioned them about it, after pressure from Ottawa.

DND is not covering up the report. They are not trying to hide it They are correcting a mistake.

The Forces have been demanding new helicopters for years. They have no reason to "cover up" something that supports their demands.

What the Forces objects to is a report that say is "skewed, in terms of its tending to rely on emotion rather than logical argumentation, to put forward our case for this capability deficiency." That's a quote from the operations officer for the Sea Kings based in Shearwater. He also said:
"It's a difficult thing to actually validate that people died because we didn't have this piece of kit. They died because their ship sank."

[Asher]

Re: Re: Canada's Sea King Helicopter Fleet

Originally posted by Tingkai
A Sea King was dispatched and rescued 12 people from the ship. 20 others perished. Three members of the Canadian rescue team were given medals for their bravery.

One report argued that better equipment would have allowed more people to be saved.

BUT, the helicopter crew said better equipment would not have made a difference. According to the Globe, the crew said fierce conditions and the rapid sinking made it impossible to recover more of the crew.

"I don't think it was a contributing factor," Captain David Beerman [the officer commanding the rescue]. "I think the main factor that caused those people to perish or not be found was the violent breakup of that ship."

LOL.
I heard this in The National's interview, and I literally laughed out loud.
IOW: "The Sea Hawk's night vision wasn't responsible for their deaths, the sinking of their ship was!".

Duh??

DND is not covering up the report. They are not trying to hide it They are correcting a mistake.

So it's just rather convenient that they change the status of the report years after the fact, days after CBC questioned them about it?

The Forces have been demanding new helicopters for years. They have no reason to "cover up" something that supports their demands.

Pressure from Ottawa?

"It's a difficult thing to actually validate that people died because we didn't have this piece of kit. They died because their ship sank."

That's an incredibly laughable quote. Of course they died because their ship sank, what the hell is this guy smoking? We're arguing that they could have been rescued had they not kept popping on/off the night vision of the Sea Hawks.

Seeing as the DND's own investigative report said it would have helped, I have trouble believing the silly quotes like the one you stated above.

It's like shooting someone with a gun and say you didn't kill him, the bullet did.

[Tingkai]

Re: Re: Re: Canada's Sea King Helicopter Fleet

Originally posted by Asher
LOL.
I heard this in The National's interview, and I literally laughed out loud.
IOW: "The Sea Hawk's night vision wasn't responsible for their deaths, the sinking of their ship was!".

It's Sea King, not Sea Hawk.

Originally posted by Asher
So it's just rather convenient that they change the status of the report years after the fact, days after CBC questioned them about it?

The report was recently completed. It was not completed years ago.

Originally posted by Asher
Pressure from Ottawa?

The Forces have lobbied for new helicopters for years. The Forces have said that the Sea Kings undermine out SAR capabilities and put our aircrew at risk. If the report was valid, which it was not, then it would have been one more example. There is no reason for a cover-up.

Originally posted by Asher
We're arguing that they could have been rescued had they not kept popping on/off the night vision of the Sea Hawks.

You know nothing about SAR, flying, etc.

The guys who did the rescue say the equipment would not have made a difference. Who should we believe: the experts who risk their lives or a computer geek in Calgary?

You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Asher
Seeing as the DND's own investigative report said it would have helped,

It was not the DND's own investigative report. It was not an investigative report. It was an argument for new helicopters prepared by someone within DND. It does not have support of the Air Command. It is not backed by the people flying the helicopters. In other words, this report is one opinion, but not the official DND opinion.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's Sea King Helicopter Fleet

Originally posted by Tingkai
It's Sea King, not Sea Hawk.

Oops. Sorry.

The report was recently completed. It was not completed years ago.

What's the date?

There is no reason for a cover-up.

So there's no political pressure on the DND at all from Ottawa? Find that extraordinarily hard to believe, particularly when the report basically pins the death of many sailors on Chretien's decision to keep using the outdated deathtraps.

You know nothing about SAR, flying, etc.

The guys who did the rescue say the equipment would not have made a difference.

Actually, they didn't say that. They said the people drowned because their ship sank. That's true, but why don't you read that a bit more carefully and determine what it says and what it doesn't say.

The closest thing they came to saying it wouldn't have made a difference is it's "hard to say" if it would have made a difference.

It was not the DND's own investigative report. It was not an investigative report. It was an argument for new helicopters prepared by someone within DND.

Then why don't you write a letter to CBC blasting them for calling it investigative report many, many times in their National segment on it.

[Tingkai]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's Sea King Helicopter Fleet

Originally posted by Asher
What's the date?

The helicopter operational officers told the CBC that officials have been so busy investigating the recent crash of the shipboard Sea King on HMCS Iroquois that the wing commander simply signed the document by mistake.

That means the report was signed in the past couple of weeks.

Originally posted by Asher
So there's no political pressure on the DND at all from Ottawa? Find that extraordinarily hard to believe, particularly when the report basically pins the death of many sailors on Chretien's decision to keep using the outdated deathtraps.

The Forces have said for years that the helicopters are outdated and as a result people have been injured and died.

Originally posted by Asher
Actually, they didn't say that. They said the people drowned because their ship sank. That's true, but why don't you read that a bit more carefully and determine what it says and what it doesn't say.
The closest thing they came to saying it wouldn't have made a difference is it's "hard to say" if it would have made a difference.

"I don't think it was a contributing factor," Captain David Beerman, the officer in charge of the rescue.

Originally posted by Asher
Then why don't you write a letter to CBC blasting them for calling it investigative report many, many times in their National segment on it.

If I tried to correct every mistake made by the Canadian media when they cover the report, I'd never have time to post at Poly.

[Tingkai]

The CBC never calls it "the DND's own investigative report."

The CBC specifically and accurately said it was "a Statement of Operational Capability Deficiency and it is part of the paperwork the military does when it asks for new equipment. "

The CBC reported that the Forces "says the document in question is a low level draft document that was inadvertently approved and sent up the chain of command."

It is always referred to as a "document."

The CBC makes mistakes, but it cannot be criticised this time.

[RedFred]

Originally posted by Tingkai
...Any support by any nation is just a token jesture. The US military can fight the war by itself...

We can't keep bases open just in case something like this might happen. When was the last earthquakes, tidal waves and volcano eruptions?

I maintain that the Armed Forces has headed south not north in the last few years. Even the Auditor General, who usually targets wasted gov't spending, has recommended increasing the level of military spending. For years, money that was supposed to go to infrastructure went into overseas deployment. Prior to Manley's budget increase there were reports that the military is in a crisis situation.

On the issue of natural disasters, I will remind you of a few. The army was called in to shovel snow in Toronto after a particularly large fall paralyzed the city. There were ice storms a few years ago mostly in Quebec. Within the last ten years there was serious flooding putting major population centres at risk in both Manitoba and Quebec.

It is inevitable that in a country as big as ours the army will be required for civil defense in the future. They may not be up to the task. Not having a major detachment near Canada's third largest metropolitan area is not prudent. Particularly in an area that is at a higher risk for natural disasters.

Unless the Inuit attack us CFBs Edmonton and Cold Lake are not well positioned. Hold overs from the cold war? I guess if you are going to do jet training it should be in a low population area. Still, most overseas missions would likely leave from the east or west coast. CFB Esquimalt is pretty rinky-dink.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by RedFred
I maintain that the Armed Forces has headed south not north in the last few years.

The quality and capabilities of the Forces has increased compared to, say 1975-85. During that time, most of the Forces were equipped and trained to do one thing: fight a war against the Soviet Union.

Today, the Forces are better prepared to meet new challenges. That can be seen in things like JTF2 and the development of new strategies that take into account new technology.

The problem facing the Forces is that they are stretched to the limits with too many peacekeeping duties and not enough funding. More money should be allocated. Most Canadians agree, although few are really concerned enough to make a stink about it.

We really need to increase the Forces back to 1970 levels (about 120,000) if we are going to do so many peacekeeping and peacemaking missions.

Originally posted by RedFred
On the issue of natural disasters, I will remind you of a few. The army was called in to shovel snow in Toronto after a particularly large fall paralyzed the city.

And the troops came out to help when the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island was hit by the snowstorm of 97-98.

Those troops came from reserve units and from Esquimalt, which is one of two major naval bases for Canada.

Originally posted by RedFred
It is inevitable that in a country as big as ours the army will be required for civil defense in the future.

You're right. A major problem for the Forces is the lack of air transport, and not much is being done to solve that problem.

Originally posted by RedFred
They may not be up to the task. Not having a major detachment near Canada's third largest metropolitan area is not prudent.

In the event of a major disaster, help could be supplied by reserve units and by the reg forces at Esquimalt and Comox. Additional support would be flown in.

Originally posted by RedFred
Unless the Inuit attack us CFBs Edmonton and Cold Lake are not well positioned.

Yes, Cold Lake is the major training area for Air Command and our allies.

Besides, we use Pond Inlet to keep them Inuit under control.

Edmonton was a traditional army base and the Forces need to maintain a presence in the west. Besides, if we pulled out of Alberta you would never hear the end of it from Asher.