CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[RedFred]

Reopening CFB Chilliwack IS what the Left coast needs though.

I'm less concerned about foriegn invasion than I am about The Big One, Mt. Baker erupting, or even a big tidal wave. The civil defence aspect of the army is important if local resources are overwhelmed.

We are a major population centre without an appreciable military presence.

[Tingkai]

For natural disasters, British Columbia would rely first on the Provincial Emergency Program. PEP has a round-the-clock headquarters and coordinates local, provincial and federal response. It would bring in groups like fire departments, hospitals, and volunteer search and rescue groups like the guys on the north shore, who are very well trained.

The military would provide support from reserve units on the lower mainland, Esquimalt, Comox and bases further east.

The closing of CFB Chilliwack did not significantly reduce the support that could be provided simply because there were not that many troops there. Most our reg forces are overseas.

And yes, Vancouver does not have a reg force base. Neither does Toronto, Montreal or Calgary. But then we only have about 65,000 people in the reg forces so that's not surprising.

[notyoueither]

But then we only have about 65,000 people in the reg forces so that's not surprising.

... and perhaps part of the problem.

Incidently, Chilliwack is not completely closed. It is still the logistics base for the reserves in BC. Perhaps they could find 100 billets.

[Tingkai]

And those 100 people would simply duplicate work that is already being done by PEP. The Conservative plan will simply are wasting money.

The Conservatives have got their priorities wrong. The forces don't need aircraft carriers or whatever you want to call them. They don't more assignments like preparing for earthquakes or watching for polar bears.

What the Forces need are more people to do the jobs they have to do now.

They need more money to expand the reserves.

They need communication equipment that they can rely on.

They need new patrol aircraft.

They need money for day-to-day operations.

They need money to conduct live-fire excercises.

We need to focus on the basic problems first before going for useless items.

[notyoueither]

The basic problem is that they have been starved for funds and personnel and are no longer able to defend Canadian sovereignty or help Canadian citizens in many cases, let alone go galavanting around the globe while our governments insist on punching past our weight.

[KrazyHorse]

I've got an idea: we build some big-ass thermonukes, mount them on ICBMs, withdraw all our forces from all corners of the globe, disband the military entirely and threaten to "nuke the **** out of anybody who ****s with us".

It's cost-effective and original. I like it.

[KrazyHorse]

I suggest we pick a country to demonstrate our resolve on. Like Denmark.

[Tingkai]

And then the evil Finns.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What the Forces need are more people to do the jobs they have to do now.

They need more money to expand the reserves.

They need communication equipment that they can rely on.

They need new patrol aircraft.

They need money for day-to-day operations.

They need money to conduct live-fire excercises.

.

I can agree with your list-- just not your editorial comment-- The problem with your list is that it demonstrates vividly how badly our governments have let the forces deteriorate.


Changing gears .. . I understand that the canadian forces is going down a road to purchase a new heavy lift aircraft . Attcahed is a column from the calgary SUN-- The guy is generally pro-Tory but can anyone dipute what he is saying about the planes??

NosediveMilitary's desperate need for aircraft could send Liberals down in flames

By Paul Jackson



The Jean Chretien/Paul Martin regime that razed CFB Calgary to the ground and scuttled the purchase of state-of-the-art EH-101 helicopters to replace rusted-out, five-decade old Sea King choppers, could be about to make another huge mistake.

This time it involves the way it buys military transport planes for our Armed Forces -- and right in the middle of the current exploding federal election campaign.

Our Armed Forces are so short of heavy lift aircraft, they have even had to lease replacements from poverty-stricken Ukraine.

The military desperately needs to replace its 40-year-old Hercules heavy transport aircraft. It must come up with almost $5 billion and open bids for new aircraft.

But there's a catch-22.

The so-called criteria proposed by Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier and OK'd by Defence Minister Bill Graham is seemingly set up so only one aircraft, the Lockheed Martin C-130J, is in the running.

Coincidentally, the U.S. Air Force has tried to stop buying the C-130J, which was heavily criticized by the U.S defence department's auditor general in an audit last year because of numerous performance problems.


Under an open competition, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company's A400M would be in the running. So far, 192 of these new planes, specifically designed to do both tactical and strategic airlifts, have already been ordered by nine nations -- Britain, France, German, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia.

The A400M flies much further and faster, carrying heavier payloads, including trucks, light armoured vehicles that are ready to roll, medium-sized helicopters, and container trucks.

It costs about 15% more than the C-130J, but can do far more in terms of the tactical airlifts that the existing Hercules and the newer C-130J can do. It can also do longer-range strategic operations -- such as deliveries to peacekeeping zones or DART operations. The C-130J, like the Hercules, can only do tactical airlifts.

My many military friends are askance at the apparent decision by the Liberals to limit the option to just one plane, and point out that by any assessment, when you can get twice as much for just 15% more, the mathematics alone might make it more sensible to buy the A400M. Add the superior military capabilities of the A400M over the C-130J and it should be the winner outright.

So why isn't it?

Now, when I first raised this bomb-laden controversy in "Military wary" (Nov. 29) I noted the huge Ottawa lobbying firm pushing the Lockheed Martin 130J is made up of a large number of former senior military officers and defence and public works bureaucrats.

Sound suspicious?

After "Military wary" appear-ed, I received a frantic phone call from an Ottawa PR firm suggesting I was way off base and lacked knowledge of defence issues. That would make my many military colleagues and readers laugh.

Why would a column in Alberta have people in Ottawa nervously drumming their fingers and beads of perspiration popping out on their foreheads?

So I routed my column to various other newspapers across Canada and waited for the fall-out.

Well, the Globe and Mail has now carried a huge spread on the C-130J and A400M issue, based on hitherto unknown defence department documents.

The gist of the Globe expose was that while Ottawa was claiming the European manufacturers were free to be in the running, they were in reality effectively locked out because they couldn't start producing deliveries until 2010 when the replacements were needed to come on line starting in 2008.

But that argument was blown apart since the hush-hush documents reveal the C-130J schedule for delivery itself will not start in 2008 but in 2010.

Some four aircraft a year will come on stream in 2010 and until 2013 when all 16 aircraft will be operational.

So if that schedule for the C-130J is satisfactory, why is a similar schedule for the superior A400M not satisfactory.

The Globe also quoted an assessment contained in a Pentagon documents as saying the C-130J is "not operationally effective or suitable" as a replacement for the Hercules.

Actually, the U.S. defence department's inspector general detailed a long listed of performance problems.

Public Works Minister Scott Brison and his department have promised to make sure all is airworthy about the bidding process. Let's hope this time they live up to their word.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've got an idea: we build some big-ass thermonukes, mount them on ICBMs, withdraw all our forces from all corners of the globe, disband the military entirely and threaten to "nuke the **** out of anybody who ****s with us".

It's cost-effective and original. I like it.

Only problem-- Since we have no military at all, our "enemy" paradrops a few troops onto each of the missiles locations. Even if they don't capture the control centres, I understand it is ridiculously easy to wreck a silo or an ICBM if you are there when it tries to take off. I imagine a single RPG or bazooka round would play havoc with it

[Tingkai]

There is a difference between a tactical transport aircraft and a strategic transport aircraft.

Air Command wanted new tactical transports as soon as possible. So they got the government to cut through the red tape and bought an aircraft that is already in operation in various countries.

The Airbus is a strategic transport that is still on the drawing boards, and so unproven.

Yes it is a bigger aircraft, but with shorter range and not built for tactical landings like the Herc.

I can fault the Liberals on many things, and fI won't vote f or them because of what they have done to the military, but it is hard to blame them for listening to Hellier.

[Krill]

Bull**** Tingkai.

The A400M flies much further and faster, carrying heavier payloads, including trucks, light armoured vehicles that are ready to roll, medium-sized helicopters, and container trucks.

It costs about 15% more than the C-130J, but can do far more in terms of the tactical airlifts that the existing Hercules and the newer C-130J can do. It can also do longer-range strategic operations -- such as deliveries to peacekeeping zones or DART operations. The C-130J, like the Hercules, can only do tactical airlifts.

Having an aircraft that is unproven is better than having something that is already proven to be ****.

The gist of the Globe expose was that while Ottawa was claiming the European manufacturers were free to be in the running, they were in reality effectively locked out because they couldn't start producing deliveries until 2010 when the replacements were needed to come on line starting in 2008.

But that argument was blown apart since the hush-hush documents reveal the C-130J schedule for delivery itself will not start in 2008 but in 2010.

So if that schedule for the C-130J is satisfactory, why is a similar schedule for the superior A400M not satisfactory.

Why buy something bad when you can have something better at the same point in the future? If the article is to be trusted (and I fully expect you to say the article is bull**** aswell), then it would make sense to get the new Airbus aircraft rather than decide now you want to buy a pile of junk, seeing as they would arrive at the same time.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think opening an army base somewhere in the Fraser Valley is that outrageous a preposition, Tingkai. Especially given the fact that Vancouver could have a huge earthquake.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Krill

Having an aircraft that is unproven is better than having something that is already proven to be ****.

Really?

Air Command (that's the military name for our air force) wants the C-130J. But you know better, eh. You're the expert and they're just amatuers.

Please enlighten us on your expertise in aviation.

[notyoueither]

Try addressing the article, Tingkai.